The shocking truth about KLCC condo AGMs-Part B & conclusion
Photo by Christina @wocintechchat.com, Unsplash.com
Mr Lucky Number 9
About 10 years ago yours truly stood for election at an AGM at a KLCC condominium, Menara Avenue (formerly Menara Promenade). With an almost unbeatable 11% block of voting rights (comprising a 10% block via a Proxy Nomination for the proprietor of the GF office space at Menara Avenue combined with just over 1% for my 3 MA properties). But my plans to nominate myself as MAMC Chairman were derailed at literally the last moment.
Read on to discover the thrilling twist at the end of the Menara Avenue AGM election and what happened to the proposal to increase service charges by a whopping 20%.
Just before the date of the AGM election, I was informed my Proxy Nomination was invalid because there was an outstanding charge for unpaid utility charges on the GF office space. The amount was piddling -less than RM500 I think but cannot be 100% certain. But the property manager in charge of conducting the AGM said ANY outstanding charge by current or PREVIOUS owner will invalidate a Proxy Nomination (you might want to read Part A for the back story why yours truly wanted to be MC Chairman here.)
The day of the AGM election duly arrived. With just over 1% voting rights now (and unfortunately not the 11% voting rights I thought I was going to have) the proposals tabled at AGM, viz;
1. a 20% hike in Service Charges,
2. a change in the computation of Service Charges based on Share Units instead of SQF,
3. the number of incoming MAMC committee members
were all quickly approved by big majorities. (A new block of 10% voting rights held by a previously unknown property investor also voted in favour of the proposals).
If I remember correctly, the sequence of events at the MA AGM ten years ago for the election of incoming MAMC committee members was:
1. A vote to determine the number of MAMC committee members (By a majority vote on a show of hands, it was limited to 8) .
2. A vote for the individual nominations for the 8 available slots, ranked by the highest to the lowest number of voting rights, by counting Share Units.
Yours truly was one of the 10 to 12 owners nominated for one of the 8 available slots for incoming MAMC committee members. By the way, the previously unknown property investor from out of state with a big 10% block of voting rights was nominated as well.
When the dust had finally settled, i.e. the laborious counting of nominating papers of the share units in favour of each owner nominated for the 8 committee members of MAMC had been completed, yours truly found himself at # 9. In short, yours truly did not secure enough voting rights to make the cut of the final 8. Yours truly was therefore voted off the incoming MAMC committee.
And here the story of my hubris at a KLCC condominium AGM election should have ended.
But in Cantonese numerology the number “9” is highly auspicious. Number 9 is considered a lucky number.
And so on to the final twist to my saga of hubris at a KLCC condominium AGM election. The owner (“N”) who had polled the eighth largest number of votes stood up and announced WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT a resignation from the incoming MAMC committee. N urged the other elected members of MAMC to include yours truly based on his track record in the previous MC committee. I will be eternally grateful to N for finding courage to stand against a majority of MA owners and resign in favor of yours truly on that AGM ten years ago.
And that in a nutshell is the rather satisfying conclusion to my story of hubris at a KLCC condominium AGM election.
Post Script & Disclaimer
Except it didn’t quite end that way of course. Later, yours truly contacted the incoming MAMC Chairman (the out of state property investor - I am sure readers of this blog would have guessed it already) and pointed out he had actually voted in favour of using Share Units to compute Service Charges without asking about how it would impact his MA properties. Computed on Share Units, the 20% increase in Service Charges that the MA AGM had just approved by a large majority would result in the new MAMC chairman having to fork out around- I think but cannot be 100% certain -26% more in additional monthly service charges. Why? Because his units were bigger and on the more desirable, ie higher floors. The developer had sold these units for higher prices PSF than units located on less desirable, ie. lower floors. For example, yours truly then was the owner of 3 MA one bedroom units on lower floors. I would have paid around 12% in additional service charges if Service Charges Increased By 20% Across The Board.
The incoming MAMC Chairman decided to cancel the 20% increase in service charges at the next MC meeting. I think but cannot be 100% certain, no reason for the change was ever communicated to MA owners.
Yours truly continued to serve as a MAMC committee member. In 2011, yours truly proposed a cost saving proposal to get free DBKL garbage collection and also successfully lobbied for a proposal (unanimously approved by all MAMC committee members) for a lobby renovation exercise similar to Kirana Residence to increase capital values of our condominium units. See here. Since disposing of all 3 MA properties, yours truly is of course no longer a MAMC committee member. But thanks for the memories, folks 🤠
Ten years after the MA AGM election above, the price psf of freehold Menara Avenue two bedroom apartments is still lagging the broader KLCC property market. According to PropertyGuru, the market value for two bedroom units at MA has ranged from around RM450-600 psf over the past five years, about half the KLCC average . The rental price PSF chart for two bedroom Menara Avenue apartments shows after peaking in 2016, a declining trendline. See pictures below.
Source: PropertyGuru Price psf and Rent psf for Two Bedroom Menara Avenue apartments over the past 10 years. Copyright by PropertyGuru
