Reported S$9.25m Grange Residences resale awaits its URA record

A S$9.25 million resale at Grange Residences is reported to have left an anonymous seller S$3.15 million above the apartment’s 2011 purchase price. It is an eye-catching result after a holding period of almost 15 years—but the individual transaction record has not been captured in the evidence available for this article.

That matters because two different ideas have been bundled into one headline number. The subtraction may be correct if the reported purchase and sale prices are confirmed, but it would show a gross price difference, not necessarily how much money the seller ultimately made.

The reported journey from S$6.1 million to S$9.25 million

The transaction under review concerns a four-bedroom apartment said to measure 2,583 sq ft on the 10th storey of Grange Residences, a condominium on Grange Road. The unit was reportedly sold on 22 September 2026 for S$9.25 million, or S$3,581 per sq ft.

Its previous purchase price was reported as roughly S$6.1 million, or S$2,361 per sq ft, in December 2011. Subtracting those two prices produces the widely quoted S$3.15 million difference, equivalent to about 51.6% of the earlier price.

Time changes the feel of that figure. Spread over nearly 15 years, the increase works out to approximately 2.9% a year on an annualised basis. That is our calculation from the two reported endpoints, before accounting for any ownership or transaction costs; it is not the seller’s verified investment return.

The official record needed to confirm the deal should be available through the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s private residential transaction search. The service covers resale and subsale transactions based on caveats lodged with the Singapore Land Authority and allows searches using property details.

URA says its private-home transaction information is updated twice weekly and includes caveated transactions from the preceding 60 months. A saved result for this particular apartment should establish details such as the contract date, price, floor area, floor range and sale type.

Why the S$3.15 million difference is not net profit

A transaction price is simply the amount agreed between the buyer and seller. URA’s methodology says this figure excludes stamp duties, agency fees, legal fees and other professional charges.

Those exclusions are important here. The seller’s actual financial result would also depend on matters that are not public in the available evidence: financing interest, renovations, maintenance and other ownership expenses. Without those figures, S$3.15 million is best described as a gross purchase-to-sale difference.

The reported seller has not been identified, and there is no verified information about the person’s financing arrangements, expenses, tax position or reason for selling. It would therefore be misleading to present the full difference as cash retained after the sale.

Even a caveat would not answer those personal financial questions. URA’s REALIS system provides detailed property-market and transaction information, but its records are not an owner’s complete profit-and-loss statement. The official data can confirm an agreed property price; they cannot reconstruct every dollar spent during almost 15 years of ownership.

What the official data can—and cannot—settle

A caveat is a legal notice used to protect a purchaser’s interest in a property. URA explains that one is generally lodged after an option to purchase has been exercised or a sale-and-purchase agreement signed.

Caveat-based records are useful primary evidence, but they are not exhaustive because lodging a caveat is not mandatory. An absent search result would therefore require care in interpretation; it would not automatically establish that no transaction occurred.

URA’s broader private residential data cover areas including prices, rentals, supply and vacancies, while individual transaction searches serve a narrower purpose. For this story, that narrower purpose is the important one: confirming whether the reported apartment changed hands on the stated date and at the stated price.

Until the individual result is retained, the responsible description remains precise. This is a reported S$9.25 million resale with a calculated S$3.15 million gross price difference, not a verified S$3.15 million net profit.

The nearly 15-year journey is still what makes the apartment interesting. But the next meaningful development is documentary rather than dramatic: the transaction entry that confirms the two numbers on which the entire story rests.