Sentosa Cove by project: every Turquoise resale lost money, while the median Berth by the Cove seller made 5.1%

Every resale at Turquoise since 2020 lost money. At The Berth by the Cove, the median seller made 5.1%. The rest of the Sentosa Cove findings are on the Sentosa Cove guide.

The two projects are in the same enclave, and their buyers bought in the same years and held for about the same time. Their median outcomes are a 5.1% gain and a 41.7% loss.

What is in this note

• What each project did: the median resale outcome, the share of sellers who made a loss and the median holding period at each of the seven projects with at least ten resales since March 2020.
• Holding the purchase year constant: the median outcome at each project by the year the seller bought, from 2006 to 2013.
• One year apart: how far the outcome can move between two purchase years at the same project.
• What size does not explain: the median outcome by number of bedrooms, within each project.

What each project did

Resale pairs since March 2020, non-landed Sentosa Cove, projects with at least ten:

Project	Pairs	Median outcome	Loss-making	Median hold
The Berth by the Cove	49	+5.1%	42.9%	12.3 yrs
The Oceanfront	82	-3.9%	61.0%	13.7
The Azure	22	-9.5%	59.1%	12.8
The Coast	62	-10.0%	72.6%	14.4
Seascape	17	-30.1%	94.1%	11.5
Marina Collection	22	-32.4%	90.9%	13.7
Turquoise	13	-41.7%	100%	15.0

The median seller at The Berth by the Cove made a small profit, and every seller at Turquoise made a loss.

Median holding periods are similar across the table, from 11.5 to 15.0 years, so how long owners held does not explain the difference in outcomes.

Holding the purchase year constant

One possible explanation is that the weak projects were bought in worse years. Our earlier work found that purchase year has a large effect on Sentosa Cove outcomes, so we tested it. Median outcome by the year the seller bought:

Bought	The Berth	The Oceanfront	The Coast	Seascape, Marina, Turquoise
2006	+20.1%	+23.5%	-0.9%	no sales
2007	-17.4%	-23.7%	-21.0%	-44.1%
2008	-6.5%	-1.4%	-25.1%	-34.3%
2009	+6.4%	-3.9%	-10.9%	-18.0%
2010	-14.7%	-16.7%	-28.3%	-34.1%
2011	+4.3%	no sales	-21.9%	-38.5%
2012	-21.1%	-13.2%	-14.9%	-32.8%
2013	+3.7%	-6.6%	-10.2%	-25.7%

The three weakest projects have the lowest median outcome in all seven years in which they changed hands, 6 to 20 percentage points below the next-lowest project.

Marina Collection's figures carry a caveat the other two do not; the Method explains it.

Individual cells here rest on very few sales, some on one or two, and none of them should be read on its own. The claim that survives is the ordering, which does not depend on any single cell.

One year apart

At The Oceanfront, a seller who bought in 2006 is up 23.5%. A seller who bought in 2007 is down 23.7%. Same project, same building, one year between the two purchases, and forty-seven points between the outcomes.

So the project and the purchase year both affect the outcome, separately. At one project, the difference between two purchase years can be as large as the difference between the best and worst projects.

What size does not explain

Across the whole enclave, 2 bedrooms appear to be the only size where the median seller made money, and the loss rate appears to rise with each additional bedroom. Within each project, that pattern disappears.

Within a single project, by size:

Project	2-bed	3-bed	4-bed and up
The Berth by the Cove	+5.0%	+10.5%	-7.8%
The Oceanfront	-2.0%	-4.1%	-1.2%
The Azure	-6.2%	-14.7%	-11.6%
The Coast	no sales	-9.6%	-12.5%
Seascape	no sales	-30.1%	-26.2%
Marina Collection	no sales	-32.8%	-31.8%
Turquoise	no sales	-41.7%	-35.1%

There is no consistent pattern. In three of the seven, the larger unit did better. At The Berth the 3 bedroom beat the 2 bedroom.

The enclave-wide pattern comes from which projects have 2 bedrooms. They exist in only three of these projects, and those three are near the top of the project table.

What this tells you

Among the seven Sentosa Cove projects with at least ten resales since March 2020, the median seller's outcome ranged from a 5.1% gain at The Berth by the Cove to a 41.7% loss at Turquoise. Every Turquoise seller made a loss, against 42.9% of sellers at The Berth by the Cove.

Purchase year does not explain the difference between projects. Seascape, Marina Collection and Turquoise had the lowest median outcome in each of the seven years from 2007 to 2013. Among the other three projects in the purchase-year table, the order changed from year to year.

Purchase year has a separate effect of its own. At The Oceanfront, sellers who bought in 2006 had a median gain of 23.5%, and sellers who bought in 2007 a median loss of 23.7%.

Unit size does not explain the difference between projects either. Across the whole enclave 2 bedrooms appear to do best, but within each project there is no consistent pattern by size, and at The Berth by the Cove the 3 bedrooms did better than the 2 bedrooms.

A single number for Sentosa Cove hides more than it says. The enclave-wide loss rate reported by The Business Times in August 2026 is an average across projects whose median outcomes range from a 5.1% gain to a 41.7% loss. We reproduced the figure ourselves, and what separates a 32% loss rate from a 100% one turned out to be when the owner bought, not when they sold.

For an owner, the relevant comparison is inside your own project. What the enclave did tells you little about what your building did. The median apartment seller across the enclave lost 9.0%, while project medians ranged from a 5.1% gain at The Berth by the Cove to a 41.7% loss at Turquoise.

For anyone valuing a Sentosa unit, project and purchase year are the two things that carry the information. Size did not survive the test. Whatever separates these projects, the ordering held across all seven purchase years.

What this does not tell you

• Why the projects differ. We can measure that they do and that it persists across purchase years. Caveat records do not say whether it is the marina berths, the sea frontage, the tenure structure, the maintenance, the developer, or which units happen to reach the market.
• Anything about the smaller projects. Nine of the nineteen Sentosa Cove projects have fewer than ten resale pairs since 2020 and are excluded. They may behave differently.
• The landed enclaves. This is non-landed only. Sentosa Cove has roughly 392 landed homes and they are not in these figures.
• What any single unit is worth. These are project medians over long holds. Floor, facing, berth access and condition matter for a specific home in ways a project median cannot capture.

Method and data notes. Sale data to 4 August 2026.

Figures are transacted prices from URA caveat data for non-landed homes in Sentosa Cove, excluding collective sales.

A resale pair matches a unit to its own previous recorded sale. The outcome is the second price divided by the first, gross of stamp duties, agent fees, legal costs and holding costs. This is the same method as our earlier work on the enclave.

Only pairs whose sale falls on or after 1 March 2020 are counted, so the table describes recent sellers rather than the whole history.

Projects with fewer than ten such pairs are excluded from the project table. In the purchase-year and size tables, Seascape, Marina Collection and Turquoise are grouped where individual cells would otherwise rest on one or two sales.

Bedroom count is worked out from the unit record rather than stated in the caveat.

Medians are used rather than averages.

Sale data to 4 August 2026.

Marina Collection's figures need a note. In 2022 the High Court found its developer had conspired with agents to mislead a lender about the price of 38 units, having given rebates the developer described as between 25% and 34%. The transactions our record holds for that project include two groups that do not look like ordinary sales: five units sold at exactly $4,370,000 within three weeks in late 2012, and three at exactly $6,250,000 in 2021. Prices here are as declared, and where a buyer received an undisclosed rebate the loss we show for that unit is larger than the loss they took.

The three 2021 units have no earlier sale on record, so they form no resale pairs and are not inside Marina Collection's -32.4%; they are context for the pattern, not part of the figure. The 2012 units do have later sales and are the ones that can enter a pair.

Marina Collection is one project of nineteen, and excluding it moves the enclave-wide figures in this series very little. Its own project-level figure it does move.