OUE Twin Peaks @Leonie Hill Road, 239197, Orchard / River Valley (D09) with 36 storeys and 462 units
T.O.P. in 2015

Early buyers of OUE Twin Peaks generally paid high prices and majority ended up losing money

OUE Twin Peaks

First Owners generally bought OUE Twin Peaks at high prices
“From glamour to grief, the Twin Peaks bowed — yet wisdom rose higher.”

Date	Project / Address / Unit	Size	Type	Transacted Price	Transacted $PSF	Activity	Previous Price	Previous $PSF	Previous Date	Loss	%	Hold
13/06/24	OUE Twin Peaks, 33 Leonie Hill Rd #31-12	1,399 sqft	Condo (3 bed, 2 bath)	$3.330M	$2,380 psf	Agency Resale	$4.435M	$3,169.4 psf	18/08/10	-$1.105M	-25%	166 mths
01/07/25	OUE Twin Peaks, 33 Leonie Hill Rd #30-09	1,604 sqft	Condo (3 bed, 2 bath)	$3.680M	$2,295 psf	URA Resale	$4.682M	$2,919.3 psf	27/10/16	-$1.002M	-21%	105 mths
18/08/16	OUE Twin Peaks, 33 Leonie Hill Rd #18-09	1,604 sqft	Condo (3 bed, 2 bath)	$3.500M	$2,182 psf	URA Resale	$4.500M	$2,805.8 psf	12/09/12	-$1.000M	-22%	47 mths
05/05/25	OUE Twin Peaks, 33 Leonie Hill Rd #20-09	1,604 sqft	Condo (3 bed, 2 bath)	$3.740M	$2,332 psf	URA Resale	$4.567M	$2,847.6 psf	09/09/13	-$827.05K	-18%	140 mths
01/08/24	OUE Twin Peaks, 33 Leonie Hill Rd #29-03	1,399 sqft	Condo (3 bed, 2 bath)	$3.200M	$2,287 psf	URA Resale	$3.969M	$2,836.5 psf	27/07/17	-$769.10K	-19%	85 mths
30/12/25	OUE Twin Peaks, 33 Leonie Hill Rd #29-06	1,604 sqft	Condo (3 bed, 2 bath)	$3.950M	$2,463 psf	URA Resale	$4.668M	$2,910.6 psf	20/03/17	-$718.00K	-15%	105 mths
16/05/24	OUE Twin Peaks, 33 Leonie Hill Rd #14-03	1,399 sqft	Condo (3 bed, 2 bath)	$3.150M	$2,251 psf	Agency Resale	$3.800M	$2,715.6 psf	13/03/17	-$650.00K	-17%	86 mths

In these examples, owners generally bought OUE Twin Peaks at high prices (roughly $2,700 to $3,200 per square foot). When they later sold, the resale prices were typically lower (about $2,200 to $2,460 per square foot). That gap is why the results skew negative/loss.

By per-square-foot performance, the average move is about a $574 psf drop (around -20%). Put simply: many buyers entered at a premium level that the resale market didn’t consistently support later on.

In dollar terms, the losses shown range from about $650,000 to about $1.105 million per unit. Across the seven cases, that’s roughly $6.07 million of losses in total, or about $870,000 per case on average. These figures are usually before extra costs like stamp duties, legal fees, agent fees, and interest, so the real net outcome could be worse.

Holding periods were not short. The units were held from about 47 months to 166 months (around 4 to 14 years), averaging about 105 months (about 8.7 years). The fact that losses still happened after long holding periods suggests the main issue wasn’t just “bad timing,” but buying in at an entry price that was too high relative to later resale demand.

Interesting patterns: the same-size units (notably 1,604 sqft) show a consistent repricing down rather than one-off “bad units.” Also, the biggest loss is linked to a previous buy price close to the very top of the launch range, which highlights the risk of buying near peak launch pricing. Losses also appear across multiple purchase years (2010, 2012, 2013, 2016, 2017), showing it wasn’t limited to one specific batch of buyers.