Madoff Unit Reduced 10%
A: At least its heading in the right direction! Another 10%-15% reduction will bring it closer to where it probably should have started out, around 7.495M - $7.95M or so. I still have my bets on between $6M - $6.5M for a final sale price though. If there really is no board review as I have heard on the street, maybe a bit more. Cmon New Yorkers, the Madoff victims need some help here! Call the "foreigners", talk about the "weak dollar", "buy now or be priced out forever", our market is on an "island and limited in supply"; will no broker phrase help this thing sell for near the new ask of $8,900,000.00???
Via Streeteasy.com:
Where do you say it trades???
Posted by anon
Tue Nov 10th, 2009 03:49 PM
Why didn't you try to secure this listing? It seems at least US Marshals could have used a more honest assessment of the marketplace as to where to price it to sell fast for the victims. Then again, I'm sure they fell for the highest broker quote trick too!
Posted by Noah
Tue Nov 10th, 2009 04:02 PM
anon - Any broker was allowed to 'apply' for the exclusive listing rights. You had to provide detailed marketing information, production history, etc..
Im no top producer, never was, never will be. I do about 12-15 deals a year or so since entering residential sales. Also, I work mostly with buyers as that is where I work best. I took a very different approach for my business, opposite the typical broker model of secure listings, work on price cuts, and funnel in buyers to a team that can now pump out more sales volume for a higher commission split with employing brokerage.
Anyway, I would have advised to list around 7.495M or so, perhaps 8%-13% higher than where I would expect it to trade and hope that the maximum exposure due to who Madoff is might help get a quick and solid deal. It was priced some 2.5M higher, and now the price chops begin.
Serena is a monster producer so they are in good hands. We dont know if the start price was her advice, or whether there was pressure applied from elsewhere to test the market for this thing and see if they can get a great deal.
Posted by Jay
Wed Nov 11th, 2009 08:26 AM
Noah,
Are you still looking for article ideas?
How about an article on the ethics of listing an apt. with an artificially low maint. due to the seller offering to kick in a few hundred bucks a month for 12 or 24 months?
Just be careful you don't step on any toes if you write it.
Posted by Noah
Wed Nov 11th, 2009 10:11 AM
Jay - always looking, just crazy busy this week and so much of my free time is spent designing the new urbandigs site that will soon launch.
thanks...never heard about that, unless there was assessment and seller offered some kind of concession to get monthlies back to normal for marketing purposes
Posted by Jay
Wed Nov 11th, 2009 01:05 PM
Here's an example:
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/431636-coop-245-east-87th-street-yorkville-new-york
Posted by anonymous
Wed Nov 11th, 2009 02:46 PM
What ethical problem is there? The maintenance subsidy is clearly disclosed. BTW, the first broker, Christine Toes, writes for this site.
Posted by Jay
Wed Nov 11th, 2009 04:14 PM
The ethical problem is that the maintenance is $1500/mo, not $1200. If it was listed as such and noted in the description that the seller would contribute $300/mo for 12 months, there would be no issue. As it is, it is a lie.
If I use you logic, Anon, the seller could contribute $1500 to defray one month of maintenance and list the maintenance at $0/mo.
Or the place could be listed for $100k and the description could add that there is a $350k "transaction fee" to be paid by the buyer.
Or list it as 2700 sq. ft. and note that this is the square footage of the wall space instead of the floor space.
Posted by anonymous
Wed Nov 11th, 2009 05:06 PM
Why are you so angry? The listing clearly states the what the actual maintenance is. It may be a sneaky way to get you to read the listing, but the fact is right upfront and as clear as day. If someone lists an apartment for 100k with a 350k transaction fee and makes it clear, then fine. It's a stupid tactic, but not unethical.
Posted by Jay
Wed Nov 11th, 2009 07:02 PM
Why are you Anon? Are you Christine?
I'll simplify. Lie=unethical.
Posted by Thisson
Thu Nov 12th, 2009 05:35 PM
The Corcoran listing is not deceptive.
The Streeteasy listing doesn't seem to disclose the $300 subsidy, perhaps because of how the data is captured. It's unfortunate but not deceptive since it clearly links to the Corcoran page for "additional details."
Verdict for the Defendant ;-)
Posted by Former Seller
Fri Nov 13th, 2009 03:06 PM
I suppose you could argue this practice is not unethical, because the ad itself does not represent an actual transaction or service given by the the listing broker. Deceptive, however is the correct adjective- to say the least, in my opinion.
There's no way to prove this, but I'd find it hard to believe the broker placing the ad did not deliberately fill the form out in a way that the unit's true monthly maintenance would appear lower than it really is, and cause automated data gatherers like Street Easy to mis-advertise the property. I'd call it a mild form of bait-and-switch marketing, one of the things that makes prospective buyers mistrust brokers. It's also bad because it causes search and statistic engines to be skew data falsely. I wish things like this, along with the all too common overstating property size, would change.