Zombie Condos Part II - Day of The Charge-Off
So what's going to happen to all those partially built buildings around the city and the boroughs? I am afraid the prognosis is not good unless the developer has deep pockets....and who has deep pockets these days? Even those who do are up to their pockets in alligators right now. But let's go through an example of what happens to a real estate project when it fails to achieve its original highest and best use.....I'm warning those of you with weak stomachs that it ain't pretty.
But first, an explanation of highest and best use. Highest and best use is an appraisal concept, but it's a really good way to think about how land is utilized. Simply stated, the highest and best use of a piece of land is its maximally productive (most profitable), legally allowable, physically possible and financially feasible use. So, for example I may have a piece of ocean-front property and I may want to build a casino on it, but if it isn't zoned commercial, isn't in a place where gambling is legal and the flood and wind insurance is ridiculously expensive, I'm probably not going to be able to make much money trying to do it and therefore probably won't be able to, period.
In general, certain locations will best support certain kinds of development depending on zoning, traffic, supply/demand etc. In the last number of years the highest and best use of land in New York City in areas zoned for residential development (and even in some that aren't) was condominium development. Residential real estate prices were high and rising, supply was reasonably tight, financing was available on good terms and condominiums can be sold out quickly, allowing the sponsor to pay off their debt and extract their profit quickly. At the tail end of the real estate boom, when condo prices started to stall and financing condominium projects got hard to justify, hotel development became the highest and best use in many areas (even those zoned for residential) because the hotel market was very tight. The near 90% occupancy (which is about as good as it gets because they have to change the sheets some time) and high and rising room rates, appeared to support new supply additions. Hotel development should naturally have a high return because unlike office or retail properties which may be rented for five or ten years with rents indexed to inflation, hotels have very volatile/unpredictable cash flows. They are an overnight leased fee business, so you never really know what your cash flow will be tomorrow (yes, reservation systems give you some visibility, but you get my point) and you have to really manage them; they are probably the most management intensive real estate asset, followed by multi-family.
Now, land sellers are not stupid. They know that their land is going to be bought by a developer building condos who thinks he's gonna sell out at $1,400 a square foot, or a hotel builder who is going to get $600 per key for his hotel in an acquisition; and they price their "PRIME HOTEL DEVELOPMENT SITE" accordingly. This is where the trouble starts. Developers, whose job is to develop stuff, buy this premium priced land, which already has a bunch of the developers' profit baked into the price because to develop stuff you need land. They then race to get the building built while the market is still good. That's unless they are the deep pocketed/experienced guys who buy up cheap land in a downturn, or when a neighborhood is bad, and sit on it until they can see that in two or three years when they finish building the market will be primed to take up the space. Read here about how even these very experienced, professional and deep pocketed types are being vexed by the current environment.
Okay, now you get the picture of the challenges that developers face, but usually can surmount when prices are going up, up, up. Now I will share with you an example of what happens when things go wrong going into a downturn. Names and other details have been changed to protect the subject.
I recently came across a project in an emerging market of New York City, where the developer built a very nice condominium building and ran out of construction funds when he was about 85% done. He had some delays and construction problems, resulting in cost overruns, and the bank refused to give him any more money. He had already used some mezzanine financing and could not access any more debt.
Now this guy, unlike so many of the New York City developers who were buying land in the last couple of years, paid only a couple million bucks for his land 15 years ago and could have sold it for $10 - 12 million 2 years ago, but decided to develop it. Note for those who have not seen my previous comments about the New York City land bubble, here is a chart of data from the New York Fed, from about 9 months ago. The chart doesn't look like this anymore...LOL.
Unfortunately, he chose to build, and he actually had pretty good luck in pre-selling the units. He was able to pre-sell maybe 55% of the units for $900 per square foot (reasonable for the fictitious neighborhood), implying a value for the project of about $60 million. His construction loan was $25 million and he had $2 million of mezzanine debt. He needed an additional $6 million to finish the project. There is a school of thought that would say, despite all the financing challenges in the market and the decline in the value of these units since pre-sale, if you really put your back into it, you could blow these condos out in the next 6 mos. for $650 per square foot on average, leaving a project value of $46 million and a profit even after the additional construction cost of maybe $10 to $13 million.
The 'take in a partner - finish the building - and blow out the condos' option doesn't actually exist in this environment. No investor wants to take that kind of risk, regardless of how much of the $13 million profit you offer them. Here's where it gets ugly.
When a bank used to underwrite a condo deal, they wanted to know what it would be worth if they ended up owning it (they have revived this practice in the last 12 months, but they aren't really financing anything anyway). To be conservative they would value the building based on its use as a rental property, which the bank would own and rent out, until it got its money back, just in case the sale of condos was somehow precluded. If you read some of the recent press out their about Zombie condos, you will see that many have been going rental. So that is how this fictionalized property is currently being viewed by potential investors.
Valuing the property as a rental, where the initial investment is recouped through years of rental income (which is very tax efficient, but slow) produces a current value of approximately $27 - $28 million. You see multi-family rental is not the highest and best use of a building of this type, even in today's environment where condo prices are down 15% plus. Even if it were, it's a way less valuable use than condos were a couple of years ago when the construction financing was put in place.
As a result, we have to take the $28 million rental value, back out the $25 million construction loan, $2 million mezzanine debt plus the additional $6 million the bank would have to spend to finish the building and oops, this thing has negative value. In truth, the developer's equity is totally wiped out, the mezzanine debt position is worthless and the bank will likely take a loss even if they finish it themselves and keep it for five years. Since the bank isn't in the business of throwing good money after bad and managing multi-family buildings, they will probably look to sell the loan for a haircut. An investor looks at this and says, well the building is worth $27 - $28 million, but I need to spend $6 million to finish it and then I will have the carrying costs of marketing it and getting it rented up and maybe some interest cost, plus I want a good return. So, I'm only willing to buy this thing for .......drum roll please! Maybe $17 million. That's right, the project, which originally was selling out at an implied value of $60 million, will be sold for $17 million, with the bank taking an $8 million hit.
Now take a look out your window at all those half built condos and hotels....OOOH that's gonna leave a mark. Understand as well that before the actual charge-off of the bad loan and sale to an investor at a price where something can be done with the site, the bank will have to foreclose on the borrower, who may try to declare bankruptcy to forestall the process/allow for some kind of debt restructuring, all of which can take a year or more. You can read about how messy these battles can get here. The one positive fallout is that land prices are going to continue to be crushed, which will eventually help make new development sensible again.....eventually.
From The Blogosphere:
Bank Insolvencies Tips & Tricks: Don't Feed The Zombies!
Half-built Sites Cast Shadow Over NY Economy
What's With All These New Hotels?
Quinn:Unsold Condos Would Make Great Middle-Class Housing



Comments (14)
Great piece and very informative but it leaves me with what may be an agonizing questions for some of your readers. What happens to those 55% pre-sell owners in a building in this situation?
Posted by cfranch | February 16, 2009 3:12 PM
Jeff, WOW, enlightening piece, THANKS! What happens to all the buildings that have say 80% contracts signed, but assume that X percent of those won't be able to close, for whatever reason. Clearly, this makes the numbahs worse.
Im wondering how many projects out there THINK they are in a good position, but in reality, aren't and/or they are counting on an economic recovery because of course after a 10 YR boom here, a 8 month downturn is all we are going to get. So say the big executives of these brokerage firms, that saw this downturn coming in the first place. NOT!
Anyway, great article, REAL article, covering a topic that isn't covered often here. So thanks for putting it up! I just wish I knew how many developments in Manhattan fit under the situation you describe above.
Posted by Noah | February 16, 2009 4:34 PM
According to the International Herald Tribune article I cited in the "From the Blogosphere" section, there are 100 or more of these developments sites around the city, according to an un-named New York City construction contractors organization.
Posted by jeff | February 16, 2009 5:33 PM
The 55% pre-sale owners will likely be getting their deposits back. In one different crazy case the condo sponsor reportedly gave back the deposits to 50% of the unit buyers, to reposition the propery as a 200 room hotel from an 80 unit condo. They were actually going to knock down a bunch of walls and spend $20MM+ furnishing and decorating the rooms, so they could sell out to a hotel operator for $500+ per key or something. the alternative of going rental would be ruinous....my bet is that particular property will not be sold as a hotel and will end up in foreclosure and become a rental as well.
Posted by jeff | February 16, 2009 8:20 PM
Oh boy, it's gonna be ugly.
But seriously, there is only one way to get out of this catastrophe and that is for prices to crumble. There will be plenty of buyers at $500psf which is an appropritate price for a NYC condo.
The buildings which are going to take the biggest hits are places like 200 Chambers and 325 Fifth which idiots were paying insane numbers for.
Posted by truthteller | February 16, 2009 10:16 PM
so what is going to happen places like the rushmore where i'm sure a lot of people that have signed contracts, now have no plans to close (simple math..you bought at 1800 psf...and now places re available for less and falling--and a lot of these poeple are currently listing apt's outside of sales agreement --ie., they are not supposed to post but are doing anways-see Bracha. Where does this end? who implodes? How much can i get a 3 bed at rushmore in 2 years and scew ps199, i'll go to private school.
ain
These folks are highliy campitalized by extell and carlyle
Posted by nainyc | February 17, 2009 12:44 AM
Well to take it further than that truth, the only way out of this mess is to let defaults occur, debts to purge, restructuring of bad models, pain to common/bondholders, and YES, for prices to crumble.
Thats the only way debt deflation will stop.
Posted by Noah | February 17, 2009 6:20 AM
Ain't that the truth, Noah.
Yes, this is exactly what must happen and what will happen.
As far as the Rushmore is concerned, prices there aren't worth a fraction of what the greedy idiots paid. Many will walk away and lose their deposits, which is a good business decision.
If some fool agreed to pay 2 million for a junior four which is worth not a penny over say, $1.1, it makes good sense to drop your $200,000 deposit.
Bottom line, the only way we get out of this catastrophe is for prices to literally crumble.
We need to hit the reset button, we need prices to match incomes. This will mean staggering price adjustments.
Posted by truthteller | February 17, 2009 11:32 AM
02/17/09 at 12:15PM
Riverton Houses valued below mortgage
In an ominous sign for owners of overpriced New York City real estate, Laurence Gluck's troubled Riverton Houses has been appraised at a price 15 percent lower than its first mortgage for a foreclosure sale scheduled for Friday, according to financial analyst firm Trepp.
The servicer of the $225 million loan on the sprawling, rent-stabilized Harlem apartment complex reduced the appraised value of the loan to $196 million, $29 million less than the first mortgage, Trepp said.
The $196 million value is higher than published reports that priced it between $150 and $180 million, but far lower than the $260 million appraised value when the loan was securitized in 2007. German American Capital, a subsidiary of Deutsche Bank, issued the loan.
Gluck's Stellar Management and partner Rockpoint Group bought the complex in 2005, and refinanced the project with the $225 million loan in 2007 with the expectation that about half the units would be at market rates by 2011. However, by July 2008, only 10 percent of the units had been converted to market rates.
Eric Anton, executive managing director for real estate investment analysts Eastern Consolidated, said the sale, if it occurs, would be a bellweather for the market. Often, such sales are postponed or cancelled after the lender and borrower work out an alternate payment plan, he said.
"The real story is does it get worked out, and if the sale happens what is the price on the sale," he said.
Posted by Fred | February 17, 2009 3:59 PM
So, my question is a variation of Noahs:
What happens when say 55% of the units are sold out, the developer completes enough of a development to get a temporary certificate of occupancy, four people close and start living in their new condos on the third floor and then the developer runs out of money? Do the four people that own their condos lose them when the building gets sold and goes rental?
Posted by Juan | February 18, 2009 10:30 PM
So, my question is a variation of Noahs:
What happens when say 55% of the units are sold, the developer completes enough of a development to get a temporary certificate of occupancy, four people close and start living in their new condos on the third floor and then the developer runs out of money? Do the four people that own their condos lose them when the building gets sold and goes rental?
Posted by Juan | February 18, 2009 10:31 PM
does anyone have any thoughts on juan's question?? im considering buying in a brand new building in brooklyn where hardly anything has closed. the way i see it... im going to get a great deal and the worse case scenario is that the other units in the building go rental. is that unwise (taking into account that it will lower the value of the apartments, but if i get mine at a super-low price, should that be a concern to me)? i appreciate any thoughts on this. thanks!
Posted by brian | March 9, 2009 2:58 PM
Please let me sum up some questions from this discussion pertaining to the buyer's side:
1) What are the ramifications for a single condo unit owner if the New Dev sponsor goes under?
2) Does "going under" as mentioned above entail different phases or degrees of the process that correspond to different effects on the above mentioned owner
2) What effect on the condo owner's unit does a zombie-condo-turned-rental have on their property's worth?
3) If a buyer decides to "roll the dice" with a low occupant new dev building, WHAT ARE THE BEST PROTECTION TERMS they can try to negotiate (upfront incentives, recoup based on average of other unit sales, etc.)
My brother is on the verge of placing an offer, and while I definitely want to hang at his sweet pad, I don't want him landing on my couch in two years...
Thanks!
Posted by bigearn808 | June 30, 2009 2:55 AM
Please let me sum up some questions from this discussion pertaining to the buyer's side:
1) What are the ramifications for a single condo unit owner if the New Dev sponsor goes under?
2) Does "going under" as mentioned above entail different phases or degrees of the process that correspond to different effects on the above mentioned owner
2) What effect on the condo owner's unit does a zombie-condo-turned-rental have on their property's worth?
3) If a buyer decides to "roll the dice" with a low occupant new dev building, WHAT ARE THE BEST PROTECTION TERMS they can try to negotiate (upfront incentives, recoup based on average of other unit sales, etc.)
My brother is on the verge of placing an offer, and while I definitely want to hang at his sweet pad, I don't want him landing on my couch in two years...
Thanks!
Posted by bigearn808 | June 30, 2009 2:55 AM