The Manhattan Inventory Argument
A: So whats the deal? I know Manhattan is an island, that the 421a abatement is being phased out, and I have argued for years here on this blog about the many differences between NYC real estate and other local markets, but can inventory rise significantly? I mean, is it possible? I have had many discussions with people who say "no, it can't". How strong is this "tight inventory" argument anyway and how may factors change? Here are my thoughts.
I was on a showing with a buyer the other day, and as I normally do after seeing the property, we went to the roof to check out the building's communal deck. This was a 30 story building in Gramercy. As my client observed the usefulness of the roof deck, I was looking at the Manhattan view and thinking quietly to myself...Damn! There are a ton of building's with a ton of units!
I started to wonder about the 'tight inventory' argument that you hear so often for Manhattan real estate. I even discussed 'tight inventory', which was and to an extent still is true by the way, here on this site many times. Sure, inventory is rising and we can deduce why by looking at the credit crisis and weaker macro forces, but how far could it really go?
So I turned to appraisal extraordinare Jonathan Miller for his best guess on how many residential apartment units there are here in Manhattan. His guesstimate, and it is just a guess so feel free to comment if you have a source for total residential units in Manhattan, is about 300,000 total units; that is all co-ops + condos. Remember, condops are co-ops with condo rules/bylaws.
Peeking at UrbanDigs Charts, I see total active inventory for Manhattan at about 7,763 right now. This would mean that only 2.5% of the total apartments in Manhattan are currently listed for re-sale (pie chart on right; assuming 300K total residential units + 850K total rental units; feel free to direct me to source that could confirm these #s)! Hardly a market that has a glut of inventory! While it is all relative (since inventory is up about 40% during a normally active wall street bonus season), think about what could happen with inventory! Miller explains to me:
We typically see an average of 3% to 7% of a building's units turnover in the course of a year (sales) so that seems reasonable that about 2.5% of the housing stock is listed for sale. Inventory levels are currently below 2006 levels but if sales continue to remain at lower levels, the potential for an increase above 2006 levels is very possible.Often I get asked by readers at what level would fierce seller competition kick in, forcing asking prices to come down in order to move property. I think I said somewhere between 8,500 and 9,000 or so; keep in mind this was when total inventory was about 6,250 or so. Boy, I need to revise that big time!
Fierce seller competition occurs in local markets where buyers simply go on strike and are no where to be found. This is hardly what I am seeing right now in Manhattan. While buyers here may be cautious, we still have a healthy mix of buyers that most other local markets cannot claim. But, that doesn't mean this can't change! Confidence can change very quickly and almost every broker I know now understands how relative confidence is to sales volume! Most brokers are behind the curve because they focus on selling the product at hand and their own personal real estate business; nothing wrong with this is there? But there is a lack of brokers out there who are ahead of the curve and advise their clients to observe the changing environment in order to achieve their goal; rather than be behind the curve and play catch up. Applying this phenomenon, Manhattan is a marketplace where brokers frequently overstate a property's worth on the open market in order to secure a signed listing agreement; after all, sellers rather hear that their apartment is worth more than worth less (see TrueGotham's piece on "Grossly Overpriced Property...The Kiss of Death")! In my opinion, overpriced properties are going to contribute to a sustained rise of inventory throughout 2008; especially resellers of recently closed new development units.
Today, the 'inventory is tight' argument holds less water than it did in the past few years for one very big change ---> decline in macro conditions that led to a decline in buyer confidence. Inventory is rising because sales volume is just not keeping pace with new listing inventory as buyers have become more cautious. While I would not say that inventory is overflowing, it seems to have the potential to do so if conditions worsen.
Assuming the 300,000 total residential units in Manhattan is somewhat accurate, then current inventory is at 2.5% of the total pie. With a building boom bringing many units to market as new developments are completed and units are closed, I would expect this number to rise a bit, and total inventory to rise with it! I stated many times that I expect 2008 to be the year Manhattan inventory reverses course; and so far it is. But to say that fierce seller competition is here and sellers are fighting with each other to lower their prices, is far from true. Yes, you are seeing pockets of distress and some in building competition, but it is not generalized for all of Manhattan.
Inventory will have to soar to well above 10,000 units at the very least, for us to see some level of fierce seller competition. As I looked out from that roof deck at all the buildings in Manhattan, I tell you, it certainly is possible. Did it happen yet? NO! Will the new 421A rule + credit crisis eventually slow development (recent story in The Observer about permits rising in 2008 as last chance to take advantage of 421a exemption; via Curbed)? YES! Will that make Manhattan inventory tight no matter what? NO! There are enough total units out there that should an economic slowdown deepen and persist, inventory could rise significantly.
Time will tell. For now, let's at least know what it is we are dealing with.



Posted by Brenda
Wed Jun 4th, 2008 01:57 PM
If some of the developers are forced to put new construction units on the market at a faster rate due to loan repayment schedules (which I can't imagine have become more lenient over time), I think the numbers could change fairly quickly.
Interesting.
This whole "Manhattan is an island, there's no more land" issue is a bit overrated, I think. Take a walk around numerous neighborhoods (including yours, Noah) and you'll see corner after corner of apartment buildings that could be replaced with taller buildings. Rent stabalization is on its slow way out, and corners will become available at a much faster rate shortly, particularly if energy costs allow the rent stabalization board to increase rents at a faster rate than has previously been assumed. Also, the conversion of older office and warehouse space has clearly begun, but there is still quite a bit of potential there as well.
Posted by Noah
Wed Jun 4th, 2008 02:12 PM
interesting point Brenda about developers and their terms of their construction loans. I would expect we find out this answer in the next 6-8 months or so.
Your other point is a whole new discussion!
Posted by JR
Wed Jun 4th, 2008 05:03 PM
You raise a lot of very good points. The one thing that I think about is the supply side of the equation. We know how many units have been sold each year and I would love to see more analysis on units sold: a) # units sold from new developments, b) # units sold due to foreclosures, c) # units sold by people moving out of the city, d) # units sold by people moving into a larger apt. I know that c) and d) will be impossible to figure out, but we should be able to determine a), b) and all remaining sales. If we can plot new construction units sold historically, and then forecast the number of new units coming to market, then we can better forecast risks associated with rising inventory. Another way to look at it: If 20% of 2007 total sales were new construction units (say 2,500 units) and if we forecast 500 new construction units coming on line in 2009, then we can probably feel a bit better about inventory levels. Conversely, if 3,000 new construction units are coming on line in 2009, then we've got a problem!
One other thought is the family effect. The city is safer, the schools are better and we're all working harder at our jobs. Therefore, more people are staying in the city. What is the magnitude of the family effect? Must be hard to gauge, but we should consider it.
JR
Posted by anon
Wed Jun 4th, 2008 05:12 PM
Even if you had good data, I am not sure what conclusion you could draw. Does 1% or 5% equal a hot or slow market? Both numbers could be depending on the turnover in the market (or a given niche therein). Months of available inventory would seem to be a much better indicator of seller/buyer competition.
Looking at it another way, why should a buyer or seller care about homes that are not on the market... assuming, of course, that they are not about to come to the market any time soon.
Posted by Buyer
Wed Jun 4th, 2008 05:19 PM
Interesting data.
I would think inventory/monthly contracts signed would be the indicator of pricing trends (compared to normal numbers).
So there are about 9 months of inventory as per the numbers at the top, largely due to a low number of closed deals.
Not great, not horrible either.
Posted by Noah
Wed Jun 4th, 2008 05:36 PM
JR - excellent points. I would love to see a & b data..Ill look into.
Posted by Noah
Wed Jun 4th, 2008 05:44 PM
anon + buyer - Well, according to miller samuel chart here:
http://www.millersamuel.com/charts/gallery-view.php?ViewNode=1168397658DtFJU&Record=9
..it appears that 2007 saw a total of 13,400 transactions or so. Since Manhattan is seasonal, lets just simply divide by 12 so we get 1,116 sales per month.
7,763 actives / 1,116 sales per month of last years data and that = 7 months supply. Now, this data is wrong because:
a) sales volume is way down for first 5 months of 2008 so far compared to same period last year (1Q 2008 is about 35% lower than 1Q 2007)
b) total active inventory does not take into account ALL units available for sale in new dev's; as they are phased onto the market
I think months supply is around 9-10 right now, I recall having this conversation with someone about 2-3 weeks ago; cant remember who, but I remember discussing this exact topic. Not bad, but not good like you said.
In a perfect world, all this data would be very easy to keep track of.
Posted by anon
Wed Jun 4th, 2008 07:13 PM
Thanks.
I agree that the current months of inventory (based on historical sales) does not seem "good or bad," but I think the 35% drop in sales volume in q1 is a worry. Demand given current conditions (asking prices, incomes, credit market, job market, lower profits on wall street this year from credit losses and de-leveraging, etc.) is clearly lower now, leading to the drop in sales volume and inventory build. I don't see much (absent price drops) in the next 12 months to improve the demand picture or slow the inventory build. That is the worry in the short-term...
Posted by Brenda
Wed Jun 4th, 2008 10:39 PM
The only thing I can add to this miasma of info is that certain properties that NEVER would have hit the general advertising venues before selling out now seem to be advertising up a storm.
The worry I see in upcoming resales volume is one involving upward consumption. The younger consumer decides to "move on up" but can't find anyone to buy the starter. The young family decides to "move on up" to the classic six or seven, but can't find anyone to buy their 1200 sf two bedroom. You get the point.
With fewer new employees in high paying positions over the next couple of years, plus huge incentives for young people to move out of the city, plus a horrible eduction situation here, and the recent NYC baby boomlet, I'm not sanguine.
Posted by JR
Wed Jun 4th, 2008 11:32 PM
Another thought about new construction:
Can developers and their financial backers still earn the target IRR? Is the NPV of the project still positive? We now have a situation where i) condo prices are flat to down and ii) construction costs, especially copper, steel and concrete, continue to escalate. Maybe the super high end buildings like the Robert Stern buildings make sense, but do the buildings targeted at mere mortals make sense? This situation may lead to a further slowdown in new construction and hence less inventory. Again, we need to look closely at the supply side. The historical and forecast trend line for new construction supply may shed lots of light on the situation. Noah, thank you for offering to look into it.
Another thought: Will the massive run up in prices discourage people from selling. Why? Because people feel queezy when thinking about the LT capital gains tax they would need to pay.
Have a good night!
JR
Posted by Brenda
Thu Jun 5th, 2008 06:22 AM
Actually, Noah, I don't think we'll see the effects of more stringent loan standards for at least a year or so. The credit implosion didn't start until the second half of last year, so it may affect some builders with slow sales who are trying to renegotiate terms with their lenders but I suspect it will REALLY affect those builders who are now rushing to put in foundations to beat the 421-a tax abatement expiration. 2010 is when we'll see those consequences.
Posted by fatbear
Thu Jun 5th, 2008 12:40 PM
Far be it from me to disagree with Miller (no qualms about disagreeing with Noah - see below), but the most recent (2005) New York CIty Housing and Vacancy Survey conducted by the Census Bureau for the NYC Rent Guidelines Board says:
Manhattan Total Units: 737,768
Rental: 563,589
Owner-Occupied: 174,179 (23.6%)
Sorta changes the math, but to what effect I do not know....
Yes, it's a survey with only a 20K citywide sample, but it's what the city uses.
So, 13.4K sales on 174K total is ~7.5% per year turnover - that's frantic, n'est pas? (Scales to 9.5MM unit sales nationwide, which IIRC was even higher than the high of the bubble.) No wonder it's slowing down....
The 2008 Survey is going on now
Overall 2005 Survey home page:
http://www.housingnyc.com/html/research/hvsresearch.html#2005hvs
2005 pdf file that includes O-O info (Table 3):
http://www.housingnyc.com/downloads/research/hvs05/05summary.pdf
Noah - 1.15MM units (300 + 850)?!?! C'mon - pop is only 1.6MM - does Manhattan have a density of less than 1.4 persons per unit?
Posted by Noah
Thu Jun 5th, 2008 01:24 PM
Fatbear - feel free to disagree with me on anything; your error is interpreting NYC which is citywide & Manhattan! I spoke to Alan Freidman over at census.gov. The stats I used were estimates from JM, who said he last checked into this late last year, and that it was best guess.
Last Housing survey was in 2005, and as you state, 2008 is going on now and will be released in a year.
But before you trash the numbers I use, you do know that by NYC, they are giving you stats for CITYWIDE, including all 5 boroughs; confirmed by Alan Friedman! I am interested ONLY in Manhattan.
When I spoke to Alan about getting ONLY MANHATTAN, he gave me this via email, again as of 2005, so about 3 yrs old since survey done (and much building/rental conversions have occurred since):
OWNED OCCUPIED --> 174,179
OTHER VACANT (For sale/Not availble) --> 55,299
TOTALING 229,478 UNITS
RENTED OCCUPIED --> 563,589
FOR RENT --> 22,198
So, you can see the numbers I used above seem very reasonable considering growth potential from this 3-4 years from this last survey!
Check with Alan yourself if you dont believe this, but do know, your stats in the above comment are CITYWIDE!
Alans email: alan.friedman@census.gov
Posted by Noah
Thu Jun 5th, 2008 01:41 PM
my bad Fatbear - you did use Manhattan data..sorry, I saw citywide and thought you didnt. Man, Im a bit burnt out from these past 3-4 weeks. Sorry.
Again, for this discussion I needed more up to date data, and I asked Jonathan Miller for his best guess since he said he looked into this last year.
Posted by Noah
Thu Jun 5th, 2008 02:08 PM
Featbear - it doesnt really change the point of the discussion. Lets say rentals is the overestimated number here, which it appears likely to be, and total units are closer to 1M or so...
I still think with bldg trends and rental conversions over past 3 years or so, owner occupied units are prob near the 300K mark; wouldnt you agree?
Should the environment/perception of city living/economy change, the point is there is potential for inventory to rise significantly. I have discussions with people who say to me that it can't because Manhattan is an island, they aren't building anymore, 421a is going away, inventory will always be very very tight.
To an extent that is true, but what if:
a) economic downturn is deeper and more prolonged than thought
b) wall st layoffs are worse than thought
c) trend of living closer to where you work changes
d) foreign demand dynamic changes (confidence or currency trade)
e) lower city revenues change quality of city living
f) retail recession in city
tons of things we can discuss that are after effects of a significant slowdown. Should this occur, it doesnt really matter that Manhattan is an island does it?
Put another 2.5% of the 300K units out there onto the open market, and we are talking about inventory levels around 15,000. Is this NOT a possibility, I ask you? Granted, a far reaching one at this point in time.
Debating the accuracy of the #'s is another discussion, and something I noted in the post a few times that I was concerned about, and asked for more up to date sources for.
Posted by fatbear
Thu Jun 5th, 2008 03:14 PM
Sorry if I confused you. But to confuse you some more, let's look at what happened to conversions AFTER the non-evict 15% and Martin Act reforms way back when - allowing a conversion to be effective with 15% (not the former 51%) buy-in but protecting the remaining 85% as stabilized forever. (Now, of course, there are other ways of getting out of stabilization, but not important to this point. And the Sheffield/Manhattan House debacles have only clouded that discussion anyhow.)
In my own co-op building, built 50's, approx 400 units - converted mid-80s, early in the Martin era - sponsor still (nearly 25 years later) owns ~20%. Perhaps high for the post-war post-Martin average building, but perhaps not. Add to that apartment combining: on my floor, 11 apts are now 7. Of that original 11, 4 were sponsor-owned a/o 1998, but 3 have been sold since then to be combined, and the last one is still stabilized/rented. However, those 3 sold are to this day counted as separate units - the building doesn't want to get a new CO nor does it want to file more prospectus info.
My main point is that the 300K count of O-O is probably high. Yes, there have been approx 25K permits since 2005 (per Jeff Bernstein's post today), but that isn't much in comparison to let's say 1963 (~30K units IIRC - due to the last chance under the old zoning - look at the white bricks and you'll see what it was).
However, to your main point - your're right: Manhattan may be an island (except for Marble Hill section you mention), but did that stop the 1973-75 co-op crash? Do you remember? Or did it stop the early 90's decline?
As you point out, Manhattan prices are far more related to macro concerns than most bulls would like to admit; and they're also related to the micro of Wall St. Are they sure that sector is through the worst? Foreclosures may not hit many Manhattan apts, but they may (through Wall St's fabulous alphabetical magic) hit the ability of Manhattanites to pay.
In that light, high supply numbers will be an indication of malaise as we wait for the "this time it's different" fog to pass.
Posted by Brenda
Thu Jun 5th, 2008 09:41 PM
Noah, great points.
One extremely important addition: where are all the buyers of those high-priced large units going to send their children to school? Entry points: preschool, lower school, middle school (the worst in terms of quality available given need and will get far worse over the next five years) and upper school have been becoming awful and the situation seems ripe to deteriorate very quickly (major baby boomlet nationwide and even more so NYC 2005-). Some new schools in prime areas MIGHT be ready to open 2011 or so. Too little, too late.
Posted by Nick
Fri Jun 6th, 2008 09:49 PM
I think you need to look at the pool of potential buyers when trying to determine what the level is supply means. Perhaps you could develop a ratio that would give the number more meaning. I don't think a comparison of the percent for sale of two different markets means anything unless you somehow "normalize" the data for the pool of potential buyers.
Posted by Nick
Fri Jun 6th, 2008 09:56 PM
What I was trying to say in my post above, is that you need to look at what percent of renters could actually afford to buy and then use that to adjust the percent for sale. I wonder what percent of people who buy in Manhattan are first time buyers? Is the majority of new inventory being soaked up by people moving in from outside NYC?
Posted by Noah
Sat Jun 7th, 2008 10:22 AM
Recall where I stated "In my opinion, overpriced properties are going to contribute to a sustained rise of inventory throughout 2008; especially resellers of recently closed new development units."
Take a look at:
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/closing/716950
Now on market for 2.5M:
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/226905-condo-170-east-end-avenue-yorkville-manhattan
So, 800K appreciation from the closing price in March. This is an example of what I believe will drive inventory levels for the next 8-12 months! Buyers of new dev's who feel that because they purchased pre-construction, deserve 20%,30%,40% appreciation levels in a market that is way softer than it was when they originally signed the contract.
I understand the desire to cover all costs, including the larger buy side cost with new dev's, but pricing like this is likely not to move the property especially when the sale price is a matter of public record. I mean, who will pay 2.3M-2.5M for a property that closed for 1.7M in March, given current conditions? Greater fool theory I guess, if they succeed. This place should sell for between 1.8-1.9M max, and prob should have been listed for 1.95M or such.