If you have spent any time researching properties online, you have probably come across phrases such as “honest review,” “unbiased review,” “truthful analysis,” or “the most objective property review.” These have become some of the most popular marketing terms in the property industry.
The reality, however, is that there is no such thing as a completely unbiased property review.
That is not because reviewers are intentionally misleading readers. It is because every individual approaches a property with different experiences, financial objectives, family needs, risk tolerance and personal preferences. These factors naturally influence what we value and what we consider to be strengths or weaknesses.
Someone who loves dogs is not wrong because they do not like cats. Likewise, someone who prefers cats is not wrong either. They simply value different things.
Property works in much the same way.
Instead of asking whether a review is “unbiased”, perhaps the better question is:
Whose perspective is this review written from, and does that perspective match my own?”
Every Buyer Has Different Objectives
One of the biggest misconceptions in property investing is the belief that there is a universally “best” property. There isn’t.
The best property is simply the one that best fulfils the owner’s objectives. A review that praises a project for one buyer may unintentionally discourage another buyer whose priorities are completely different.
That is why context matters far more than labels such as “honest” or “unbiased.”
Freehold vs Leasehold: There Is No Universal Winner
The debate between freehold and leasehold properties perfectly illustrates this point.
Many buyers place tremendous value on freehold developments because they intend to hold the property for generations. They see real estate as a long-term family asset that can be passed down to their children, allowing the value of the land to appreciate alongside inflation over many decades.
From this perspective, paying a premium for freehold status makes perfect sense. However, another buyer may arrive at the exact opposite conclusion.
Consider a retiree who has accumulated substantial housing wealth over several decades. Instead of preserving an asset indefinitely, their objective may be to unlock capital while maintaining a comfortable lifestyle.
They may willingly purchase a million-dollar HDB flat with around 60 years of lease remaining because it allows them to right-size from a much larger property. The remaining proceeds can then be invested into income-producing assets that generate positive cash flow throughout retirement.
To someone focused purely on legacy planning, this decision may appear irrational.
To someone focused on retirement income and liquidity, it may be one of the most financially sensible decisions they can make.
Neither buyer is wrong. They are simply solving different problems.
Convenience Comes With Trade-Offs
Location is another area where opinions often become polarised. Many buyers prefer developments located beside MRT stations, shopping malls and major transport interchanges. These properties provide exceptional convenience, reduce commuting time and allow daily necessities to be reached within minutes.
However, convenience often comes with compromises.
Transport hubs usually require higher plot ratios, resulting in taller buildings, greater residential density and significantly more human activity. Roads are busier, pedestrian traffic is heavier, and the surrounding environment tends to be noisier throughout the day.
For some residents, this energy is exactly what they want. Others, however, prioritise something completely different.
They may value open views, mature greenery, lower-density neighbourhoods, wider building spacing and a quieter environment where they can disconnect from the pace of city life. These developments are often located slightly further from transport nodes, requiring a longer walk or feeder bus journey.
A reviewer who values convenience above everything else may criticise these locations. A reviewer who prioritises tranquillity may praise the exact same development.
Both reviews are technically correct because they are written through different lenses.
Large Developments Are Not Always Better
Project size is another example where opinions vary dramatically. Large developments often receive positive reviews because they provide extensive facilities. Residents may enjoy multiple swimming pools, function rooms, clubhouses, tennis courts, children’s play areas, co-working lounges and landscaped gardens.
For families with young children, these facilities become part of everyday life. Yet these same facilities may hold very little value for another group of buyers.
Individuals who travel frequently for work may spend little time at home. Others may rarely use swimming pools or clubhouses despite paying maintenance fees every month.
There are also buyers who intentionally seek boutique developments because they value exclusivity, lower resident density and greater privacy. Business owners, celebrities and public figures may prioritise developments with private lift access, fewer neighbours and quieter common areas over an extensive list of facilities.
Again, neither preference is superior. The “better” development depends entirely on who is buying it.
The Biggest Myth: Predicting the Perfect Exit Strategy
Perhaps one of the most common discussions during any property purchase is the exit strategy. Ironically, many buyers spend more time discussing how they will sell the property before they even decide whether they want to live in it.
There is nothing wrong with considering future resale potential. The challenge is that nobody can accurately predict the future. Some analysts argue that projects beside MRT stations are always easier to sell. Others believe lower PSF projects offer greater upside.
Some focus on scarcity, while others prioritise school proximity. Each argument contains some truth. But none of them can account for the countless variables that influence future demand. Government policies can reshape entire market segments almost overnight.
Measures such as the Total Debt Servicing Ratio (TDSR) and Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD) significantly reduced households’ ability to purchase multiple residential properties.
These regulations also had a disproportionate impact on investor-oriented products, particularly one-bedroom and two-bedroom units, because many potential buyers became constrained by financing limits and higher acquisition costs.
If these regulations are revised in the future, demand patterns could shift again.
Beyond policy changes, the market is influenced by interest rates, quantitative easing, inflation, global recessions, geopolitical conflicts, immigration policies and demographic changes.
A product that appears unattractive today could become highly sought after tomorrow. Likewise, a property that seems like an obvious winner today may underperform because future conditions evolve differently from expectations.
This uncertainty is precisely why declaring any property as definitively “good” or “bad” can be misleading.
History Has Repeatedly Proven Experts Wrong
One of the strongest arguments against assigning absolute ratings to property developments is history itself.
Singapore’s property market has repeatedly demonstrated that projects initially criticised by reviewers or the public have gone on to perform exceptionally well, while highly praised developments have sometimes produced far more modest results.
The reason is simple.
Markets evolve faster than opinions.
When a project is launched, reviewers only have access to information that exists at that point in time. What nobody knows is what Singapore will look like five, ten or fifteen years later.
Punggol: From “Too Far” to One of Singapore’s Fastest Growing Towns
Two decades ago, many buyers dismissed Punggol. It was frequently criticised for being too far from the city, lacking amenities and having limited transport connectivity.
Yet today, Punggol has transformed into one of Singapore’s largest regional centres.
The introduction of Waterway Point, the Punggol Digital District, SIT’s new campus, improved MRT connectivity and new employment opportunities fundamentally changed how buyers viewed the town.
The properties themselves did not change. The surrounding ecosystem did. Many reviews written during the early years would look very different if they were written today.
Jurong: A Vision That Took Time
When the Jurong Lake District was first announced, opinions were similarly divided. Some believed buyers were paying for future promises rather than existing infrastructure.
Others recognised that government planning in Singapore often unfolds over decades rather than years. Today, although the transformation is still ongoing, Jurong has become one of Singapore’s most important regional growth centres.
The long-term vision continues to reshape buyer demand. Again, whether an early review appeared “correct” depended largely on when that review was written.
The COVID-19 Pandemic Changed Buyer Behaviour Overnight
Perhaps no event illustrates the difficulty of predicting demand better than COVID-19. Before the pandemic, proximity to the CBD was often regarded as one of the strongest selling points.
Then work-from-home arrangements became widespread.
Suddenly, buyers began placing greater emphasis on larger homes, dedicated study rooms, balconies, flexible layouts and proximity to parks instead of simply minimising commuting time.
Projects that previously received criticism for being located further from the CBD suddenly became attractive because buyers’ lifestyles had changed.
No reviewer predicted this shift. Nor could they have.
Government Policies Can Rewrite Market Dynamics
Singapore’s residential market is heavily influenced by government policy. Changes to cooling measures, financing regulations and taxation have repeatedly altered buying behaviour.
The introduction of ABSD changed investment demand almost overnight. TDSR reshaped affordability calculations across all price segments. Loan-to-value limits, seller’s stamp duty adjustments and changes to HDB eligibility rules have all affected which properties buyers find attractive.
A one-bedroom apartment that appears less desirable under one policy environment could become significantly more attractive if regulations evolve.
Likewise, a particular housing segment may experience weaker demand today, only to recover when financing conditions improve.
The quality of the property has not necessarily changed. The rules of the game have.
Infrastructure Can Change Everything
Many reviews focus on what buyers can see today.
Experienced investors often spend just as much time analysing what cannot yet be seen.
- A future MRT station.
- A new expressway.
- A regional commercial centre.
- A business park.
- A university.
- A healthcare hub.
- Or even a new park connector.
These pieces of infrastructure can significantly alter accessibility, employment opportunities and buyer demand over time.
Conversely, future developments can also introduce greater traffic, higher density or blocked views. Because these factors evolve over decades, it is impossible for any reviewer to claim absolute certainty about future performance.
The Danger of Oversimplified Scores
This is why assigning a property an overall score of 7.2 out of 10 or calling it a “bad buy” can be misleading. That score reflects a snapshot in time based on assumptions that may eventually prove incorrect.
More importantly, it reflects the priorities of the reviewer rather than the priorities of every buyer.
A retired couple, a young family, a foreign executive, a long-term investor and a business owner may all evaluate the same property completely differently.
None of them is wrong. They simply have different objectives.
Why We Do Not Assign Scores
Many property review platforms simplify their conclusions by assigning numerical ratings or rankings. A project might receive seven out of ten because it is far from the MRT. Another might receive nine out of ten because it is freehold.
While these ratings are easy to consume, they also reduce a highly personal financial decision into a single number.
At cos.sg, we deliberately choose not to do that.
Instead of telling readers what they should like, we prefer to explain why certain buyers may appreciate specific characteristics while others may not. Every development has strengths. Every development also has compromises.
Rather than declaring winners and losers, our objective is to help readers understand the trade-offs and identify the types of buyers who are most likely to benefit from them.
Property Reviews Should Expand Perspectives, Not Reinforce Bias
Every reviewer carries biases. So does every buyer. The difference lies in recognising them. Our objective has never been to convince readers that a property is good or bad.
Instead, we seek to analyse developments through multiple perspectives, examining how different buyer profiles may interpret the same features very differently.
- A family with three young children will not evaluate a property in the same way as a retired couple.
- An investor will have different priorities from an owner-occupier.
- A buyer who values tranquillity will naturally reach different conclusions from someone who values convenience above all else.
Rather than claiming to be “unbiased,” we believe a more useful approach is to be transparent about the trade-offs.
Ultimately, the best property review is not the one that tells you what to buy. It is the one that equips you with enough information to decide whether a property aligns with your own objectives, lifestyle and financial strategy.
That is the philosophy behind every review we publish.
Article contributed by Jerry Wong.
Jerry Wong is a realtor at Propnex Realty, bringing a rich background in interior and lighting design to his work. He loves exploring diverse spaces and observing the transformative power of real estate. Beyond his professional role, Jerry finds his greatest fulfillment in connecting people with the right properties, gaining immense satisfaction from helping clients achieve their dreams.
