Following The Bids - Mental Math
A: When I was in elementary school I knew that math was my strongest subject. I recall one teacher that would challenge our class in an exercise she called 'Mental Math', a contest me and a few of my close friends at the time loved and looked forward to. The idea of 'Mental Math' was to shout out a long math problem and see what student can come up with the correct answer the fastest, without writing out the solution on paper. An example would be, 'Okay kids, now tell me the answer to 7 times 6 plus 8 divided by 5 minus 2 times 9 plus 3 divided by 3 plus 9 divided by 2....'. The winner would get one extra credit on the next test; not that it really meant much but to us kids it became more of a contest to be the winner of! I would always be one of the fastest and I loved the next challenge.."17 - is the answer" as I eventually learned to do the calculations in my head on the fly as the numbers came out - always learning to remember where the numbers first came in so I can get the right answer later.
That fascination with numbers and the rush of the fast paced challenge is what I think attracted me to Equities Momentum trading right out of college. I genuinely loved the rush of trading in and out of positions in a matter of seconds. I started young as my first investment was in SGI, Silicon Graphics to the home gamers, as they made a few of the computer games I always played as a kid. I bought a few hundred shares of SGI at the age of 13 and since then, I was hooked on the markets.
Now I have a new challenge ---> Manhattan residential real estate. Following where the bids seem to be coming in is a constant challenge, and I love it! If it were easy to follow, I wouldn't be interested in it. I always must admit that the market is bigger than all of us and that what I see out there may not be the actual general trend. The fact that this market is mired in mystery and lacking transparency makes me want to gather more data, parse it, and see what we can come out with! When I tell you real time reports on where I see bids coming in, people yell for REAL CLOSED DATA; and rightfully so. But we all know the lag it takes to close from contract signing.
Being out there in this real estate marketplace daily eventually gives you a 'feel' as to how strong or weak the market may be at any given time. One example is simply following all the responses of the brokers I talk to everyday and keeping tabs on what the 'individual listings' that my clients become dis-interested in end up doing. Just because a client dismisses a property after a 2nd viewing or a poor response from what is perceived as an offer too low, doesn't mean I stop watching it! I want to know how quickly it goes to contract and ultimately where it sells - so I can gauge how a buyer valued the unique features the property had. Over time, assuming you keep a mental history of what has happened in this market and when, your 'feel' for the market becomes more natural; it takes less effort to focus on multiple variables and understand what it all means.
Is following the bids an exercise in futility? I don't think so. While I only know where my client's are bidding and how the outcomes are, I still can learn a heck of a lot about the marketplace even if we do not get the apartment. Which is why I can confidently say that today's marketplace is one where bids exist, and sometimes competing with each other. That is much more to say than this marketplace from October 2008 until March of 2009; when bids did NOT exist and sellers had to 'hit a bid' to move property. Today it feels more like buyers are 'paying the offer' or very close to it, to use an old trading term. That is the difference in this same marketplace when comparing two very different time periods: MARCH of 2010 vs MARCH of 2009.
Here are just a few examples of closed sales where the buyers paid either full ask or more than ask:
155 W 70 - 15E sold at Full Ask at 1.699m
850 Park Ave - 8B sold Over Ask at 4.3m
10 WEA - 25A sold Over Ask at 1.557m after a price increase in NOV
333 E 69 - 10CD sold at Full Ask at 3.495m
210 W 78 - 8A sold for Full Ask at 1.65m
146 W 57 - 74C, price reduced when it didn't sell in June 09, then sold for Over Original Ask at 3.7m (great example of the progressive improvement in this market over time from early 09 lows)
15 W 81 - 8G sold for Over Ask at 2.5m
90 Riverside Drive - 12B sold for Over Ask at 6.125m
61 Jane Street - 19G sold for Full Ask
150 WEA - 27M sold at a discounted Full Ask of $1,050,000 and 5% higher than prior sale of $999k in April 2009 (another example of the improvement from early 2009)
509 Hudson St - #3S sold for Full Ask
Now you can't cover an entire marketplace with just some examples, I'm aware of this, but these are the things I have been noticing for months now that signal the changes this market experienced over time from exactly one year prior! I mean, what else am I supposed to show if its not actual sales? Even higher end stuff is starting to move again, like the Townhouse over at 178 E 73rd St that sold for $13m after having trouble getting bids in that range for much of 2009 - the contract was signed in late January 2010. A year ago, even 9 months ago, getting an offer of $13m for this proved very difficult.
There are many more apartments that sold within 5% of the last ask and 10% of the original ask (i.e. 180 E 79th, PHE @ $4.2m or 470 WEA, 14FG @ $2.4m or 1 EEA, 10C @ $3.125m) - a dynamic that depends mostly on how the apartment was originally priced. This is why I say very clearly, 'quality apartments that are priced right are selling fast in today's market'. Not everything is priced right and not all apartments have features that buyers would deem 'quality' worth bidding up for.
A year ago the bids came in at much lower levels pricing in future downside risk that had not happened yet - fearful or desperate sellers had to 'hit' one of those bids to get a deal done. Take a look at the listing discount of the deals done for 15C at 1165 Park Avenue (20% off Last Ask & 41% off Original Ask) or 9B at 490 WEA (24% off Last Ask & 39% off Original Ask); both contracts that were signed a year ago. Both Listing Discount & Absorption Rates blew out in 2009 reflecting the extreme move this market experienced. I would expect both to come down noticeably based on the data/deals I'm seeing in past few quarters.
Today offers are not pricing in downside risk anymore and instead, seem to be reflecting emotions of 'missing out on the bottom' or 'losing another quality apartment' more than anything else. For serious buyers faced with frustration over the lack of supply of quality/well priced apartments, a gap up offer all of a sudden becomes something you will strongly consider - feeding the herd-like mentality of this fast paced market. If you are out there everyday, you see this. I simply question how long this will last!
Then there are those units that didn't close, but I know will close over ask because of information gathered when my clients bid for them: 35 Bethune Street, 205 W 89th Street and 15 W 72nd Street just to name a few. And I'm not including all the broker responses of 'we have multiple offers over ask, doing a best & final soon' to properties I have attempted to setup appointments for in the past months. Follow the bids and keep a mental history of what happened! By doing this you will know not only where this market seems to be trading, but where it recently came from. I consider this to be one of the most important services a broker can offer their client's when devising a buy side strategy and doing a property valuation - where is this market trading right now????
Do you know?



Posted by reg
Mon Mar 8th, 2010 11:50 AM
noah,
this is great, keep it coming. but i wonder what else is going on out there. you're clear about the disclaimer that you're reporting anecdotal evidence. you're clear about wondering how long it will last. but it seems like you're choosing what you're reporting:
"Here are just a few examples of closed sales where the buyers paid either full ask or more than ask:"
i know that seems exciting, bidding wars and sales over ask, but you're just saying, here's a sample of sales with a certain property, not a cross section or anything. for all i know, there are five times as many sales that have closed 20% under ask!
you're clear about 'quality apartments that are priced right are selling fast in today's market.' but is selling fast the same as selling over ask? and importantly,
1. what about non quality apartments?
2. what about apartments that aren't priced right?
are these kinds of apartments also selling near ask? over ask? under ask? are they just not "selling fast"?
Posted by Noah
Mon Mar 8th, 2010 12:04 PM
reg - yw, and thanks for bringing up very valid points. Im usually scared to report on things like this but in the end, this is what readers ask for. More stuff on current deals! I guess reporting on them like this, with my disclaimers, opens me up for these questions and rightfully so.
But Im just one man and I dont have all the data to answer your questions with a degree of confidence that I would require.
Apartments with sub-par qualities or in need of major work or lacking light/views are still hard sells. I don't have a guess on the listing discount because I dont have time to a) procure and identify all properties in Manhattan that would fit in these categories and b) setup a system to find out where they seem to be trading compared to past recent history.
Apartments that are not priced right, yet have great features, are likely getting bids but those bids are more in touch with reality than what the seller likely requires to do a deal. I wonder what % of the market are really sellers with no clear motivation to mve property outside of, 'if I get my price, I'll sell'...these things skew data, as you know. How do we determine these? How do we account for them? This market does not operate in a vacuum and the point of this discussion is to hopefully explain why I have said some of the things I did regarding how this market changed in the last 12 months.
For the examples I provided, I simply did a closing search in last 60 days, and I noticed a good number of units (more than usual as I do this digging often in my weekly research to see how market is doing) selling at or above ask...hence, my motivation to write about it.
I honestly do think future quarterly reports will end up showing you the improvement I have been discussing, but many will interpret those reports as describing the market when they are released, NOT in the last 4-6 months.
As to fine tuning data to get a clearer picture, I am working on all that but Im not sure we can parse the data and setup queries to accurately deliver what you ask. The main reason is quality of data. Sure we can build charts/stats on property whose condition is set by the broker (poor, good, excellent, mint, new, etc..), but can we trust these presets? I dont think so. So, I dont really want to build analytics around data that is not high quality or trustworthy. That is the hard part of what Im trying to do.
I would LOVE to be able to answer your questions. But how do I? How do we deem what is not priced right? Do we get a general Price Per SFT, or Price Per Bedroom metric for every building and then assign this to ACTIVE units to see if the ASK is within X% of that average selling level? And if so, what is X? Then we can get idea of what is priced right and what isn't? How do we account for floor premiums? Renovations? Exposure differences? Etc..Not an easy task in this kind of market where every apt feature is valued differently on the open market.
Posted by Fred
Mon Mar 8th, 2010 04:00 PM
I walked 155 W 70 - great TIs, amazing master bath. perfect for a couple or a single person but i can't believe someone actually paid full fare, especially given the ridiculous maintenance at that bldg. it was listed for rent & sale and they were asking $5,100 or so to rent it. if you back out maintenance, you'd get $24,000 / year gross. awesome return @ $1.699mm! a good data point on the steady disparity between rent and ownership.
Posted by reg
Mon Mar 8th, 2010 04:36 PM
Fred, it seems to me like the buyer must have priced in some serious asset appreciation (or cash / other investment depreciation) in order to justify the purchase over the rent. Otherwise, the numbers just don't make sense.
Posted by OT
Mon Mar 8th, 2010 04:46 PM
That's just how it works with real estate, as with any market. Buyer walks in, falls in love, has to have it. Doesn't have to make sense to anyone in the peanut gallery, just the purchaser.
Posted by Noah
Mon Mar 8th, 2010 05:45 PM
i think the buy vs rent math rarely does make sense in Manhattan since 2003 or 2004 or so. Sure prices came down, but so did rents. This market would cease to trade if all of a sudden buy vs rent formulas were followed by all bidders...sellers would never sell for those levels. Clearly, this market needs its own unique tweaking of that formula.
I like the point reg and OT make...one says buyer priced in asset appreciation while the other discusses emotions attached to buying. Hmmm, how intertwined are these two buy side characteristics?
Posted by eric
Mon Mar 8th, 2010 09:44 PM
noah - you say that the buy vs. rent math has not made sense in NY since 2003-2004. I agree that you are right, but I think that has to be cause for concern. Because in the long run, the rent/buy math will converge. The economics of supply and demand will work themselves out, and over time if rents do not justify purchase prices, either rents will go up or prices will come down. It clearly has been years since the math made sense, but I just think that is a passing period and there will come a day again (probably within 10 years) when the math again equates. Maybe there will even be a day (god forbid) when buying is a good deal compared with renting.
It is a lot like rates. In the 70's, rates were high and people paying 15-19% mortgage rates couldn't imagine 5-6%. Now in 2010, nobody can imagine 18% mortgage rates. We'll see, but these are all just long cycles, and I think it foolish to think they don't revert over time. Which is one of many reasons why I think long-term, at today's prices real estate in NY is a stupid investment.
Posted by anonymous
Mon Mar 8th, 2010 10:48 PM
oh poor eric.... you cannot buy NY real estate boo fu*king hoo....yeah, wait another 20 years to hit the bottom...
Posted by wells
Tue Mar 9th, 2010 12:20 PM
If you LOVE numbers, wouldn't it be helpful to "your readers" if you did some comparison of what you are seeing with past years, to give persepctive.
I say this because to compare activity to Q1 last year is comparing a slight pulse to a dead person. OF COURSE you are going to be excited, you are not dead.
But are you barely alive, are you stable, or is this a quick stabilization before getting worse.
I am curious what the percent discount (which is the metric you are measuring) was in 2008, 07, 06, 05, 04 compared to 09 and now 10?
If you love numbers and want to take what you are seeing from insignificant sample size (10 out of 1500) to at least somewhat interesting, AT LEAST COMPARE IT TO SOMETHING quantitative. (like avg %discount from last 10 years).
Also, why not do a little more work and show where these units traded comparatively to peak!
If they are for over ask, and 30% down off peak, because they have been discounted continually for the last year and finally hit a realistic ask.
If they go to market at 30% below peak levels.
ECT, ECT, ECT
If you love numbers and data, why not do even one of these to "help your readers"....
Why simply report anecdotal numbers that any quantitative person would laugh at for being way to small to matter because this could easily be the exception to the rule apartments, which there always are, in an otherwise weak market
Posted by Noah
Tue Mar 9th, 2010 12:49 PM
wells - how much free time do I have? Im building a whole analytics system for you and I need to service buyer clients to be able to give you these anectdotal reports. Geez..why don't you do the work and share the efforts and publish what you find in comments? That would be helpful. Also, most of these units did NOT trad at peak in 2007. So what do you want me to do? Estimate what someone may or may not have paid for it at Peak?
I love these people. On one hand, YELLING for more transparency, more real time observations, more examples of closed sales, anything to get an idea of what this market is doing..on the other hand, bitching at the same time that its not enough. So you participate and contribute! Nobody is stopping you. But you probably work for a living, like I do, and have limited time. My free time and money is going to build YOU a better system that gives you way more data...be PATIENT and a bit more thankful maybe that efforts are being made to bring you better data
Posted by OT
Tue Mar 9th, 2010 12:56 PM
Wow, Wells, not only did you butcher "ETC", you did it 3 consecutive times. Brilliant...
Posted by Fred
Tue Mar 9th, 2010 03:46 PM
Re: rent vs buy - it's definitely emotion; which is the basis for most pricing in NYC because its definitely not value. For the 155 W 70 unit specifically, assuming the purchaser financed, they assumed a monthly carry of ~$10,000 with $500,000 down to own a nicely built-out 1,200 SF or so apartment on Broadway. I imagine a big motive too was the fact that this unit was essentially turn-key and fact is there is a premium in the market for being able to avoid construction. My point is much more basic though: for $10,000 a month you could rent a 3 bed on CPW with a great view. Not knowing the buyer's motives make it impossible to get inside the mindset but the fact is it's a stupid financial decision to own at these prices - yes, I used the word stupid, because that's what it is. The real question is not whether or not there's a relationship between rents and sales prices but whether or not people really think that buyers don't become more aware of the difference between the two over time, particularly if debt costs start rising.
Posted by Noah
Tue Mar 9th, 2010 05:19 PM
Fred - you make valid points....Im not sure what it is that made this market skew off on a tangent, but its been like this for 7-8 years now. I just dont see it changing overnight. The market will continue to trade this way for a while I think. Is it geographics? Wealth effect globally? low rates? manhattan viewed differently? weaker dollar play? who knows...
Also, Sandy Mattingly brought up two more OVER ask sales recently..
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/478621-coop-45-crosby-street-soho-new-york
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/476934-coop-464-west-broadway-soho-new-york
I check these closed records like every few weeks, for past 30 days, just to see how things are selling..and Im just saying the past 30-60 days has seen a noticeable rise in full ask, over ask sales...nutty
Posted by nycjoe
Tue Mar 9th, 2010 05:30 PM
Hmmm.. to me it seems a stretch to believe that those that are able to afford a 1.7M apartment at all- in a post Lehman economy no less, are the stupid ones.
And without knowing whether and how much buyers of these properties are financing, no reasonable carry assumptions can be made.
Posted by wells
Tue Mar 9th, 2010 07:59 PM
So i see, you are saying it would be good to have this,(compare % discount to past to see if there is any significant increase to write a story on) or (see if closing price is 25% or more off peak prices, as measured by comparables or ppsf or what ever else you use) BUT dont have the time to do it. Its not a time issue its a relevance, importance, accuracy issue. If you dont have put out post that is relevant, important or accurate, why do it? Why put out anything?
How are you different than the new york mag broker pieces, or some broker saying "hey I had three offers on this, better put one in soon".
Answer: You are not. Without this that you say you dont have time for, you are no more than a broker reporting anecdotal, insignificant sample size, strongly incomplete, cherry picked numbers.
So I suggest if you want to stand out from other brokers, do something different, like a little analysis, some relevance, some actual comparison. some actual comparative reality.
15 examples out of perhaps the 2000 in closed sales from the period you were looking is .75 percent of the data!!!! Less than 1 percent doesnt seem that significant!!
That means 99.25 percent of trades were done at more than 5% below final ask. That doesnt sound to great to me. Lets say it was 2000, then 1985 trades went for more then 5% below ask. That is A LOT! And if this isnt the case, then why dont you show more than the 15 you saw.
You even asked StreetEASY and go NO repsonse!!!! Noone. not one. That should have shown you right there you were off from reality and ignoring the 1985 trades that were over 5% below last ask!!
If this was significant dont you think the many people who post on SE might have been able to come up with 1 or 2 for you.
So again, if you want to be different, then do something different
Posted by wells
Tue Mar 9th, 2010 08:09 PM
why not write about the forclosures that are rising drastically in prime manhattan, and the effect this could have on prices? Like this article from therealdeal.com
http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/new-manhattan-condos-see-rise-in-foreclosures--2
Because even though this is important data it doesnt seem to fit the false story line brokers are trying to create that the market is healthy.
Posted by Noah
Tue Mar 9th, 2010 08:38 PM
ok, when you see the improvement in quarterly reports over the next few quarters, you will know what I say today is accurate. just another voice that I dont know, likely in some other industry and not out there everyday, with no frame of reference..similar to someone that told me I was wrong in late 2008 when I told you the adjustment was occurring but the data did not yet catch up. you think you get to me wells, but you dont. i really dont care what you think or say.
you refer to the real deal article to support YOUR CLAIM. Your a stats guy...so lets see, 403 more foreclosures than 2008 out of what, 9,000+ sales? Whats the % on that?
so buyers who paid top dollar for new dev's in 2006 and 2007, levered up, and are starting to foreclose...to the tune of 400 more over the course of 12 months...wow, certainly market moving!
Posted by Fred
Tue Mar 9th, 2010 09:06 PM
NYCJoe - You pay the lender OR you pay the market but there is no way around the time value of money. Make it all equity, I could care less, but your carry will go up because equity costs more than debt. You can pretend that home equity only appreciates but that is not how you do analysis.
As for equating wealth with intelligence, that comment is about as smart as buying a junior mezz piece on Stuy Town.
Posted by wells
Wed Mar 10th, 2010 12:54 AM
wow, I how ironic this started with you saying you loved math.
let keep it objective.
You state data as relevant to the market that equals being generous .75% of the market. That this is relevant, less than 1% over 2 months.
I post a suggestion simply to show how odd yours is, and you criticize it as irrelevant. WOW.
Lets do the simple math:
"One in every 13 homes is in some stage of foreclosure. Half are either listed for rent or sale, some at 30 percent less than what the previous owner paid only a few years earlier."
"Foreclosure filings for Manhattan condos more than doubled last year to 725"
1 in 13 or 725 out of 9000 is around 8%. So 8% of apartments in NYC are in a stage of foreclosure.
And this is data from 12 months, so not just a small window, a real sample.
So the article you right says .75% is significant vs. the one you criticize says 8%.
.75 vs 8% You do the math.
Then this article does what I suggested you could do to add legitimacy: compares to previous years to get perspective....
.. "Foreclosure filings for Manhattan condos more than doubled last year to 725"
I would love to see if your percentage discount stats (or number near ask or over) doubled. I doubt it.
And then they also looked at how these prices compared to peak years. "30% off what previous owner paid"
Its pretty simple... you threw out broker speak (i.e. no comparison to previous years or perspective about what the rest of the market is doing, in this case 8% in foreclosure process, double from the year before) and I pointed it out very clearly.
.75 % vs. 8 %
doubled vs. not sure about past years
Your tag line is "analyzing manhattan real estate" Where's the analysis. All I see is broker speak, and I can call any other realtor for that. But then again, they also said the market was fine all through out the end of 08 and 09, and found any tidbit of data (i.e. 15 out of 2000 or .75%) and hyped it as well.
I guess I will just move to a more legit site that is not run by a broker
You make money off of people wanting to buy apartments, so if you make people think now the need to buy, things are good out there, YOU make a living. And from what you said thats your only living. So how can you expect not to be biased.
Would you really post something that would hurt your sales? And hence your income?
Posted by Noah
Wed Mar 10th, 2010 08:33 AM
clearly you are a relatively new reader. Clearly you ignore statements like, "Now you can't cover an entire marketplace with just some examples, I'm aware of this, but these are the things I have been noticing for months now that signal the changes this market experienced over time from exactly one year prior"..in the discussion right after I stated the 11 or so examples.
Clearly you should leave here and go somewhere else. You think Im talking my book, or my sales, to get more business? Clearly you have not been reading this site for the past 3+ years
Posted by Noah
Wed Mar 10th, 2010 08:40 AM
and stupid you wells, the point of bringing up the mental math example in the beginning was to point out how important it is to know where you came from and keep a mental history of where the bids have been coming in over time in this market; so you know where we came from.
Not to say Im an expert statistician. You sound like some average quant that questions why stocks are rising even though credit is contracting and unemployment is still high and all the data suggests the market should be doing something else.
Posted by Noah
Wed Mar 10th, 2010 09:22 AM
AUG 2007 - Discussion on how credit markets dislocating are leading to changes in how buyers think about these markets
http://www.urbandigs.com/2007/08/does_investor_psychology_matte.html
DEC 2007 - Discussion on Denial, Fundamentals, And How Buyers Adjust When They See A Depreciating Asset Class - Also dissing bullish broker reports, weak dollar trade to bull manhattan, and dissing the foreigners will save us theory...
http://www.urbandigs.com/2007/12/who_wants_a_depreciating_asset.html
JULY 2008 - Discussion on noticed changes in bids submitted in residential markets, and buyers cold feet..start of 8-10 months of buyers adjusting bids to downside
http://www.urbandigs.com/2008/07/low_ball_bids_cold_feet.html
NOV 2008 - Discussion on Illiquidity (more than usual) of Manhattan markets - bids disappearing
DEC 2008 - Discussing the Buyer-Seller Disconnect and plunge in volume and resulting adjustment of bids down from peak in the range of 15-25% - of course the quarterly reports did NOT yet catch these anecdotal real time reports of what I saw in the field at the time..
http://www.urbandigs.com/2008/12/the_buyer_seller_disconnect.html
DEC 2008 - Discussing How Sellers Are Chasing A Moving Target..Explanation WHY Q1 2009 would be the defining report on downside (which it was), Negative time value of Appraisals, Reiteration of deals being signed 15-25% down from peak
http://www.urbandigs.com/2008/12/chasing_a_moving_target.html
MARCH 2009 - Discussion on where different price points seem to be trading...down from peak..again, shown to be right in future quarterly reports
http://www.urbandigs.com/2009/03/manhattan_good_as_gold_well_no.html
MAY 2009 - Discussion on the uptick in sales volume after Fear Trades, as it was happening
http://www.urbandigs.com/2009/05/contracts_continuing_to_be_sig.html
JULY 2009 - Discussion on the Tiered Price Adjustment - again shown in later quarterly reports
http://www.urbandigs.com/2009/07/so_what_happened_since_lehman.html
Again, clearly you have not been reading this site so spare me the I TALK MY GAME bullshit!
Posted by Fred
Wed Mar 10th, 2010 09:51 AM
Wells - I think you are being unfair to Noah. He runs a pretty balanced ship here and adds valuable content to the blogosphere on this issue of housing in Manhattan. It's refreshing and provocative. While we all have our biases, this blog does a damn good job of keeping it fresh and middle of the road.
For the record, I am bearish on Manhattan resi and I get a lot out of what Noah presents.
Posted by anonymous
Wed Mar 10th, 2010 09:59 AM
nycjoe, the cost of carry should include a charge for capital committed. If you put 100% cash into a deal, that cash could be put to use elsewhere, or opportunity cost. In any financial model, the cost assigned to equity is higher because it is junior to debt. I'd google the "residual income model" if you want more info. I agree with Fred that financially, such a sale makes no sense. However, I wouldn't go so far to say he is stupid. Not all buyers look at real estate as a financial transaction. The buyer may not really care and have the cash to burn. He may assign a huge personal value to owning a property. However, he is definitely not saving money by owning unless price appreciation significantly outpaces inflation for many years to come.
Posted by nycjoe
Wed Mar 10th, 2010 10:45 AM
My bet is that wells is another extremely bitter sideliner who fully expected armageddon to play out last year, so that trophy apartments could be bought for pennies on the dollar.
As a reader since 5/08 I can say with confidence that Noah has been anything but a typical perma-bull broker. In fact, I remember he had been fairly consistent about his market outlook before and during the contraction a year ago, where for several months his reports described seller distress due the illiquid nature of the market during that time. If anything, I was worried he had an overyly bearish slant.
.75% vs 8% doesn't illustrate anything. The first represents a set of transactions that wold not have occurred a year ago (which is noteworthy if you ask me), the second represents a set of buyers that would have been ok if the bubble didn't burst but instead got caught holding the bag- something that occurs in the initial period after every bubble.
Posted by Noah
Wed Mar 10th, 2010 10:55 AM
Thx fred and nycjoe - i agree with the statistical signficance and sample size point wells makes, but I admitted to that right in the post immediately after showing the examples - a post that was about the change in markets from a year ago to today.
Its the 'Noah is talking his sales' BS that gets to me.
Posted by wall street
Wed Mar 10th, 2010 12:41 PM
wells = dbag
Posted by sandy mattingly
Wed Mar 10th, 2010 12:58 PM
First time I read this post I had a similar reaction to Wells: "why start a post about *highly selective* data points by talking about your ingrained math sensibility?" But I have been reading Noah for a long time and figured out that the Mental Math angle was the ability to note and remember a sequence of numbers.
Noah needs no defense from me (on is own blog, or elsewhere). He plainly is talking here about being selective, and ruminating about what it might mean. So the things that Wells "accuses" him of are true, just beside the point *of this post*.
I sympathize with all concerned, as it is *impossible* in Manhattan to be both timely and comprehensive (there's no real-time data) so once in a while we offer impressions, based on a small sample. Indeed, I do it *a lot*.
I tried last week to be comprehensive in my little niche, identifying on my blog 14 pairs of resales in both the last four months and in 2007. This is WAY too small a sample to generalize from, but it was the *entire* set to date for lofts (there are now 16 sets, so I may update soon), and the 'results' are all over the map (from up a third since the 2007 sale, to down 30%).
The more specific the data, the harder to interpret; the more macro the data, the harder to apply ....
Keep on keeping on, Noah, but I wouldn't chase Wells away.
Posted by Noah
Wed Mar 10th, 2010 02:00 PM
thanks Sandy! Always appreciate your comments here. As for when you stated:
"I sympathize with all concerned, as it is *impossible* in Manhattan to be both timely and comprehensive (there's no real-time data) so once in a while we offer impressions, based on a small sample. Indeed, I do it *a lot*."
That is the gap I hope to fill and my main mission and focus for many months now. I just want it done right, with most accurate data underneath it
Posted by good point
Wed Mar 10th, 2010 05:07 PM
sorry I didnt have time to read all comments but I do see wells point about comparing and I think it is what Sandy was pointing to in a good way in what he tried to do by comparing to 2007.
The reason I say this, is I look in the village a lot so the first listing I chose from your list to compare was 61 Jane St. 19G which Noah shows went at ask in december 09.
Streeteasy didnt have past sales for 19G but they did for 17G, 2 floors below.
It sold for 1,250,000 in july 06. So that means 19G even though it sold at ask was a 25% discount of a 2006 price for 2 floors below.
That is why I get Wells and Sandy's point about how noting if things go at ask isnt really as relevant as noting how the final sale price compares. In this case 25% off mid 06 prices, is a lot down, so I wouldn't be using this as a sign of something positive. If anything it is to the further edge of the price decreases we have seen.
Hope this makes sense to your readers
Posted by Promenade
Wed Mar 10th, 2010 08:34 PM
Noah,
Do you ever have buyers looking at the Brooklyn market at all? I'm in Brooklyn Heights were prices never seemed to come down much, but then again nothing moved. Now all of a sudden I see prices a TINY bit lower and brownstones and co-ops both moving.
It's a Wall St crowd I guess, and maybe bonuses were good. I wouldn't know.
Do you have any feel for Brooklyn?
Posted by Fred
Wed Mar 10th, 2010 10:23 PM
can I just make one point here regarding comparisons between two points in time please? doing so versus comparing moving averages for example is like comparing a balance sheet to a cash flow statement. they both serve a purpose but to talk about the delta between 2006 and 2009 neglects the fact that 2006 pricing may be the anomaly here; not the difference between now and 2006. the issue that i think doesn't get proper attention is the conditions that allowed pricing to get to the extreme levels we saw in 2006 do not exist any longer and as far as i can see, aren't going to return. so, it's kind of like adjusting to a new atmosphere. if one looks at the moving average of prices over a longer period of time, prices today are actually not that much of a discount. folks forget that land values more than tripled in Manhattan post-911 due mainly to rich incentives and cheap financing for developers. i know a lot of people who are sellers in this market and are looking to rent rather than buy back in if they can get their ask.
Posted by Noah
Wed Mar 10th, 2010 10:40 PM
good point - I agree with all of this! And I do try to go out of my way to explain that its the properties priced right that are selling and that when I talk about sales volume rising and sustaining itself, it doesnt mean peak pricing again..
In this discussion, I stated this to clarify this point, as the topic was covering a different bigger picture (the existence of bids from this time last year, with buyers paying the offer rather then sellers hitting the low bid to describe the change from 12 months prior:
"Which is why I can confidently say that today's marketplace is one where bids exist, and sometimes competing with each other. That is much more to say than this marketplace from October 2008 until March of 2009; when bids did NOT exist and sellers had to 'hit a bid' to move property. Today it feels more like buyers are 'paying the offer' or very close to it, to use an old trading term. That is the difference in this same marketplace when comparing two very different time periods: MARCH of 2010 vs MARCH of 2009."
Sandy certainly pointed his out too. Its a description of todays market, improved from an adjusted lower level, and more active than 12 months prior. Simple.
Posted by sandy mattingly
Thu Mar 11th, 2010 07:16 AM
Fred makes a very good point about comparing two points in time, which is actually exemplified by Good Point's example at 61 Jane St (#17G at $1.25mm in 2006 vs. #19G at full ask $925k in 2010). As Fred said "2006 pricing may be the anomaly here; not the difference between now and 2006".
3 things about using #17G in July 2006 as a "baseline" value: (a) the ask was $999k, so the agent + seller were NOT expecting a 25% premium; (b) #17G is at least a little different from #19G, in that it has a 160 sq ft terrace; (c) it sold for $820k only 16 months earlier.
In the sequence of $820k in March 2005 (#17G) ... $1.25mm in July 2006 (#17G) ... $925k in March 2010 (#19G), which number is the real anomaly?
Averages obscure details; details obscure trends. RE ain't rocket science, but it ain't simple math, either.
Posted by Noah
Thu Mar 11th, 2010 09:50 AM
all great points...if anything, 2006 and 2007 prints are the anomalies here...
Sandy you make great points...For 61 Jane St, 17G was asking 999K and sold at 1.25m, so clearly this was a multiple offer situation and a GAP UP bid made to grab the unit; something I discussed here a few days ago. As Sandy says, that same unit sold for 820K 16 months prior in early 2005...so did the general market really appreciate 52% in a 16 month period from 2005 to 2006?
No. It didnt. This to me is an outlier trade, and there were plenty of them in 2006 and 2007.
The 160sft Terrace I probably would add about $75-$85/internal psf to value that feature...so for example, if its same size, 825 x 65/75 = $61,875-$70,125 difference in value between the two units for that small terrace..of course that terrace in that location may have been the impetus for a buyer emotionally gapping up an offer in the first place to get it! Something 19G doesnt offer.
So, comparing the 19G 25% discount to this is a bit misleading for all the reasons Fred + Sandy mentions about the different time periods.
With that said, this market did improve from a adjusted lower level, so that must also be taken into account when a property is priced right and sells at full ask or over..it doesnt mean peak trades again, that is a mis-interpretation of the discussion.
Love this comment thread
Posted by John UWS
Thu Mar 11th, 2010 10:16 AM
Thanks Sandy - thanks Noah.
Also, I would like to point out the following to all those idiots like Fred, who always bring up as an argument the rent vs. buy and how you lose money by buying instead of renting....This argument is flawed because it does not take into account the human behavior:
I would like to reverse the same old argument to those hard line renters:
Why should I rent a 2 bed in Manhattan and pay $3,000/mo when I can rent in Queens and pay half that, thus, having more income to invest? Better yet, I can rent in the Bronx or in Philly for $500/mo and save a whole lot of money!!!
If everybody was thinking as a cheap skate renter, every New Yorker would be living in Queens or the Bronx or would have moved in Ohio, where housing is dirt cheap!
BUT:
There are people who simply have the money to rent in Manhattan, who enjoy the convenience of the city and who want to have quality in their lives!
By the same token, people decide TO BUY because they SIMPLY HAVE THE MONEY TO DO SO! They do not care about your stupid formulas because even if they buy, they still have money to invest! They prefer to buy for various reasons and in my case, because I was sick and tired of moving every year or two to a new apartment, especially now that I have a family and two little kids!
So all you poor lowlifes like Fred just shut the f*ck up and enjoy the ride! If you cannot afford to buy just say: I cannot afford to buy!
Do not try to justify your inability to do so with your stupid formulas because the rest of us, who actually drive the market, contribute to the economy and make money, DO NOT THINK LIKE THAT!
You, on the other hand, barely make your month's rent and you do not have any money to invest.
This is a free lesson of Economics & Human Behavior 101.
Rgds,
Posted by Fred
Thu Mar 11th, 2010 12:21 PM
John UWS - Why the anger dude?
But, you miss the real point of my comments (which is typical for someone who is emotional as you are). It's not the amount ($$$) that one spends, it's the value proposition between buying and renting similar properties. It is cheaper to rent today than own. That is a fact. It is a fact that in 2006, that was not the case (barring a crystal ball of course). Today, however, that is the case.
I don't know how to make it more simple for you but if all you want to do is make snarky, silly comments like "You, on the other hand, barely make your month's rent and you do not have any money to invest" then go ahead. But you make yourself look like an emotional tool by doing so. That statement in and of itself confirms that you probably (a) don't own anything, (b) might have cash flow issues and (c) don't know the first thing about investing in general.
The whole point of the rent vs buy proposition is that is what we do in Manhattan by default. If buying was a screaming cost advantage, you would see sales transactions spike but we are now seeing inventory build and rents firming.
If you bought something in 2006 (which I am guessing may be the real issue here), you overpaid. If you bought a long time ago kudos to you, but I bet it's where most of your net worth is tied up (which is not atypical for Manhattan boomers and an important theme to keep in mind when locking into real estate here).
The fact is you can rent for less than the cost of ownership today. That's a fact and if you have real examples of why it's cheaper to own then you should share them. However, I doubt you can do so because you'd have to use some nut job appreciation assumption north of 5% to make the numbers work over a 10 yr period.....
Posted by John UWS
Thu Mar 11th, 2010 12:51 PM
Fred,
You make assumptions about me and you know what they say: assumptions are for the f*ck ups.
With my example above, I tried to get into your logic: why it is better to rent vs. buy. But the same logic applies to comparable rent listings between Mahnattan vs. Queens vs Bronx etc.
So if you for example, are renting in Manhattan, YOU ARE OVERPAYING for a comparable property that you could have rented in Queens! How much money do you lose basis the disparity in rent Manhattan vs Queens?
Your arguments fails to account for human behavior, which applies in all situations i.e. deciding to buy vs. rent, deciding to rent in Manhattan vs Queens etc.
Idiot....
Posted by Emma77
Thu Mar 11th, 2010 01:13 PM
Inventory still seems pretty high, no?
I think to buy you need to have a 5+ year horizon that you'll want to live in the place that long. Under 5 years renting makes more sense, but not above that. Even in a terrible downturn like we experienced in Manhattan at least if you've owned for more than 5 years you have experienced some appreciation and the fact that you can take anywhere up to 250k as a singleton and up to 500k married as a tax free gain I think is a huge plus. Also, in a good housing market, look if you're leveraging the home with the banks money and then you sell it and do well, it's a win. So I don't think renting always wins out, I don't see that as plausible. It's definitely very expensive early on to buy a home, but in the long run, if you can afford it and you don't buy too much house etc...and you don't do an ARM and you get a good mortgage, I think over 5 years it's a better bet to buy. The moving cost of renting in a city like manhattan cause rents go up all the time does add up.
Posted by anonymous
Thu Mar 11th, 2010 01:15 PM
John UWS,
Your Queens v. Manhattan argument makes no sense. Why not use Philly as a comp too as it is possible to commute from Philly everyday?
If you are going to argue buy v. rent, you need to hold all things equal except ownership. How much could you rent the apartment you live in for? Use that number as a comparison. Queens is a different location, neighborhood, etc. with its own advantages and disadvantages. What matters is the price of buying v. renting substantially the same unit in the same neighborhood with the same features and seeing how much value you are attributing to the advantage/disadvantage mix of ownership through the price comparison.
Why resort to calling names and calling everyone else poor especially when your logic is incredibly flawed. If you think it is worth $200k, or whatever the number is, to own, than that's your choice. Some people think purely like financiers when they buy large assets, and should not be ridiculed because they don't see the point in paying the premium. There are downsides to ownership too, which for some people outweigh the benefits.
Here's a great resource if you really want to make a comparison. It includes many factors which most people completely neglect when thinking about the cost of buying v. owning:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calculator.html#
Posted by anonymous
Thu Mar 11th, 2010 01:17 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calculator.html#
don't forget to look at the advanced settings on the top right corner. That's where most of the overlooked points reside.
Posted by Fred
Thu Mar 11th, 2010 01:24 PM
Hey John UWS - If you think your arguments are even remotely logical, then that explains a lot. Thanks for the chuckle.
"How much money do you lose basis the disparity in rent Manhattan vs Queens?" - Whaaaaaaa?
Much disparity how basis lose rent Queens do Manhattan, number 9 number 9 number 9........
Posted by John UWS
Thu Mar 11th, 2010 01:49 PM
Anon,
Do not give me the crap with the rent vs buy calculator....
What I am trying to prove is that YOUR argument is flawed and I countered the rent vs buy argument with the rent in Manhattan vs rent in Queens not because these two things are equal or are comparable but because they both have to do with one thing you fail to take into account: HUMAN BEHAVIOR, WHICH MEANS CHOICES BASED ON YOUR LIFESTYLE, YOUR NEEDS, YOUR WANTS, ETC....
Again, if you are renting in Manhattan, don't you lose possible savings had you rented in Queens? Yes you do. You could have used those savings to buy...But you still decide to rent in Manhattan for your own reasons...
What I am trying to prove is that the rent vs buy is not purely numbers as it fails to account human behavior.... You have to throw into the equation the individual wants and needs AND THAT IS WHY THE MANHATTAN REAL ESTATE OR ANY REAL ESTATE BEATS THE LOGIC!
Why are we in this mess with the rising foreclosures? Because smacks like Fred wanted to buy when they could not afford to buy! That American Dream was driven by the Human Behavior, not logic, not the NY Times calculator, not even the individual's savings account.
Again, human behavior is more important than numbers when people make a decision to buy or rent in a specific area. Had the numbers been more important, you would have never seen a sale or a bidding war in Manhattan or you would have never seen a $20,000 rent listing!
Posted by John UWS
Thu Mar 11th, 2010 01:54 PM
Fred,
You should learn to read first...let's start from there and then we talk....
Regarding my degree of ownership that you asked previously, I own on the UWS and I have a 30 year fixed @ 4.875%.
What are YOU going to do to hedge against inflation or rising interest rates? You will keep paying your inflated rent when I will be laughing all the way to the bank....My payment is fixed...
You are an diot indeed....
Posted by Fred
Thu Mar 11th, 2010 03:35 PM
JohnUWS - Uhhhh, wrong. Just admit it, your little Queens versus UWS analogy is just wrong because, uhh, oh yeah, it's rent vs. rent when we are talking rent vs. buy.
Thanks for clarifying that you bought a little walk-up studio post meltdown and kudos on a fixed rate while your asset value depreciates over the next several years but my kids will benefit from your increased property tax hikes (which of course have more to do with shortfalls in Albany than values).
One more time: rent vs. buy is a real comparison between what it costs to own a similar asset in today's market, using real inputs versus what it costs to rent a similar asset in today's market at prevailing market rates. Emotion may be the reason why some folks go one way or the other, but there is no variable for emotion in the rent vs. buy analysis.
Or do you do pretend property taxes as well since clearly you are heavily engaged in pretend appreciation assumptions.......
Posted by Anon10
Thu Mar 11th, 2010 03:59 PM
Fred,
You're still annoying because you don't pay property taxes and fail to contribute to society. Thank John and zip it because, you are wrong.
Posted by anonymous
Thu Mar 11th, 2010 04:14 PM
anon10, renters pay property taxes indirectly; where the hell do you think their landlords get the money.
John, You are arguing with me on a point on which I agree. I said that human behavior leads people to value ownership differently than renting. I agree that the sales market isn't driven purely by rental fundamentals, even though in the long term, I think the two have a relationship to each other. I was just offering a tool to help you quantify what the respective costs of renting v. owning are. I think some would be surprised to find out what the real costs are, and I suspect that you may not want to know.
BTW, you shifted the debate to rent v. buy to location comparison. You proved that people value different locations differently. You didn't prove anything about preference between renting and owning in the same location. Maybe living in Manhattan v. Queens is irrational human behavior, but to prove that you would need to quantify how much someone values a shorter commute (which, BTW, has been shown to have a huge impact on psychological well-being), the safety of a neighborhood, the availability of certain services/restaurants/venues/proximity to friends and family/etc. After taking all of that into account, it may make sense to live in Manhattan v. Queens.
Posted by John UWS
Thu Mar 11th, 2010 04:15 PM
Fred,
Again, you are assuming things in order to make your logic seem valid: " a walk up studio" - I just wrote on my previous post you incompetent human being that I have a family with two kids and that I did not want to move every year - that's why I bought.... You really do not know how to read huh?
You are talking rent vs. buy BUT I am talking about the human behavior and how it affects our financial decisions whether this has to do with renting in Queens or renting in Manhattan, owning in Queens or owning in Manhattan... What are you a robot? Have you ever had the feeling to buy something just because you liked it even though you knew deep inside that you may not be able to afford it? Guess what, 99% of the population is like that!
As I said, if everybody was going with the rent vs buy calculator, NOBODY would buy an apartment because it is cheaper to rent vs buy...
BUT you see a very active RE market and the reason is everything that I have mentioned above....It is not just numbers..
Posted by Fred
Thu Mar 11th, 2010 05:47 PM
a family of 4 in a studio?
Posted by John UWS
Thu Mar 11th, 2010 08:03 PM
a family of 5 - you forgot to include your mother!
Posted by John UWS
Thu Mar 11th, 2010 08:05 PM
a family of 5 - you forgot to include your mother!
Posted by John UWS
Thu Mar 11th, 2010 08:25 PM
As I said, if everybody was going with the rent vs buy calculator, NOBODY would buy an apartment because it is cheaper to rent vs buy...just because I can't afford to rent a decent apartment and had to buy a basement studio doesn't give anyone the right to question my logic. When I say something Fred, I say it and that's how it is.
Posted by John UWS
Thu Mar 11th, 2010 08:26 PM
As I said, if everybody was going with the rent vs buy calculator, NOBODY would buy an apartment because it is cheaper to rent vs buy...just because I can't afford to rent a decent apartment and had to buy a basement studio doesn't give anyone the right to question my logic. When I say something Fred, I say it and that's how it is.
Posted by REAL JOHN UWS
Thu Mar 11th, 2010 10:00 PM
That was very smart Fred - do you feel happy now that you pretended you were me?
How did it feel to be an owner for just a few minutes in your life?
By the way, your mother says hi - and do not expect her tonight....she is staying with me...
cheers!
Posted by Fred
Thu Mar 11th, 2010 10:02 PM
My name is Fred, I am an idiot and a life long renter and my mother likes John!
Posted by Marshall
Fri Mar 12th, 2010 08:36 AM
Noah Keep the information coming. There are people out that dont understand the value of information that some one whose is active in the market can glean. You are there on the frontline you can feel it and taste. I know when I was active in the market
I was able to feel it and taste. You know plenty of money is made by people active in a market with just this type of information. A person with this feel or sense gets to buy from someone who has hasnt woken up yet to the change in the market. It like noticing
increase in the rate of change (the acceleration factor) before everyone notices the change in velocity. You doing a great job.
Posted by Noah
Fri Mar 12th, 2010 08:47 AM
Marshall - thanks for the comment! Makes all these efforts worthwhile to hear that!
Posted by anonymous
Fri Mar 12th, 2010 10:56 AM
John uws - Mommy jokes, really? If you really had children, you would understand the sensitivity of making light of one's parents in such a way. I seriously doubt you even remotely comprehend what it means to be not only a parent but an adult as well. Noah runs a great board here and your childish insistence on being right when several posters have demonstrated to the contrary, only emphasizes your immaturity.
Anyone can post on these boards but you should try to at least be the alleged parent figure you claim to be. I feel for your family.
Shame on you.
Posted by Thisson
Fri Mar 12th, 2010 02:25 PM
Markets are irrational. Here's a real example:
I'm looking to get a new playstation 3. They're $299 in the Sony store in midtown. I figure, why not see if I can get a cheap used one in good condition? I check on Ebay and I follow the bidding - and guess what? The idiots there bid the price of a used ps3 up over $300, including shipping.
What makes anyone thing the real estate market is any more efficient?
Posted by nycjoe
Fri Mar 12th, 2010 04:27 PM
Thisson, it's not- and that's been the sore spot in this whole rent vs. buy discussion. There had been some substance in the debate, but it unfortunately degraded into a juvenile exchange.
"Rent vs. buy" is in my opinion a topic that is way over-discussed here. I don't understand and follow the macro discussions here as well as most, but I get the point already- you stand to be worse off buying the pad you live in rather than renting it, in a typical 5 year term.
The problem I have is that the amount of money "lost" buying isn't enough to affect the decisions of most buyers in this market when compared to benefits, whether real or perceived. Face it, rent vs buy just is not significant enough to most buyers. To continually to talk about it is just myopic.
Fred acknowledged early on that the market is artificially inflated because people buy on emotion. Well, exactly- so why cant we just accept that it explains why the market is inefficient and move on to more interesting (relevant) factors affecting RE prices? Do you think today's buyers aren't worried about inflation?
I don't get it- by making constant rent/buy comparisons do people hope to force all market participants to make "balance sheet" their sole purchase criterion? There are so many factors that go into a decision to buy in Manhattan, why aren't any ever mentioned in the same discussion? There's an even more fundamental problem with the rent argument: it relies on both rents and RE prices not rising. Who is willing to guarantee that? Do you think that increasing carry costs for landlords are not going to be passed on to tenants?
But finally and most importantly, people have been using rent/buy to rationalize a continual decline in RE prices throughout 2009. If you bought into that and waited on the sidelines you missed out the the best opportunities of the past 12 months. You can keep rooting for that "reversion to the mean" but the market doesn't seem to be paying attention to it. You cannot 'will' other sideline buyers to rent instead, so why try?
Posted by anony2010
Fri Mar 12th, 2010 04:33 PM
Is it me, or is this blog supposed to be about buying. Why is renting part of the discussion at all. I would like to buy and care about that data, renting is not relevant here. I don't want to rent.
Posted by Noah
Fri Mar 12th, 2010 04:52 PM
The way I look at rent vs buy, is that it is imperfect logic; can I say a phrase like that. First off, I look at the argument most use here in terms of time...is it better to buy or rent IF I am buying for 1 yr, 2 yrs, 3yrs, 5 yrs, 10yrs and stick to that decision for the entire term - and with this the longer out you go the chances increase that something will pop up that affects the time period used for the original analysis. But if you plot all the variables for both buying vs renting, renting will be the right choice short term, buying right choice long term, and at some point in time the lines will cross: but when given what inflation rate and what if the market does some crazy thing right at the end when your selling??? Again variables we cant account for.
Its different for everyone: i.e., tax incentives of owning even though you are taxed to own, opportunity cost of down payment, transaction costs for buying then selling, market swings one way or another, entry points, exit points, rate of inflation, cost of money, and on and on.
For these discussions, people tend to use buy vs rent in regards to a market barometer of sorts for whether trades are overpriced or underpriced; well I never saw it underpriced in last 10 years. The prob I have with that argument is that whatever standard formula is used for most markets outside of Manhattan and for income producing (mixed use / investment property) in Manhattan doesnt make sense for residential; yet the markets continue to trade and function? So how could that be? Standard mixed use/investment property value is what, 10x-12x annual rent roll? Simple math. usually works. The numbers must make sense. Over that you are pricing in either future appreciation in price or other appreciation potentials OR pricing in downside risk due to uncertainties + cost of money, availability of leverage + health of rent rates and labor markets and neighborhood business. Residential doesnt operate under that formula, or very few trades would occur. For years this has been the case. So, the standard reaction is the market is overvalued and must come down. But what if it doesnt? What if it comes down but not to levels one would expect for standard formula to make sense and normalize again? What if the market trades under a different formula? Thats my point for that argument. If you analyzed all trades over time vs rental rates, I have strange feeling the standard would be higher than most other markets use, maybe 20x annual rent instead of 15x.
I own a 900sft JR4 (1br/1bth + dining alcove) in FTDM bldg in E 80s west of 3rd, PS6..On open market as co-op, this would sell for what 775k-825k? Im paying 3000/mth rent. So that is about 21x-22x annual rent...using standard 15x annual rent formula, open market value should not exceed $540,000 for this apt. yet trades are happening everywhere for these types of similar comps closer to 750k-850k...how could this be? Maybe its because this market does not operate in a vacuum and variables are just that, things that make straight formulas like buy vs rent, quite hard to justify for every apartment. You may not see the value in it, but someone else will and will bid for it. Hence the markets. And I always say, markets are irrational because of human nature and emotions involved; especially when speculation and leverage gets involved
Posted by Fred
Sat Mar 13th, 2010 10:28 AM
Noah - I would distinguish between the financeable segment and the rest because that's where the future uncertainty is: not in what values are but in what financing is going to be available over time? That said, I did hear this week that there are some jumbo securitizations on deck. That's right, someone feels that demand is out there for non-gov't guaranteed long term residential obligations. Now, it's going to take a lot before we are anywhere close to where the debt markets were in 2005 but it is the single most important factor in terms of projecting prices in Manhattan.
I just happen to think that the main reason we saw the $1mm+ levels go through the roof was not a function of demand - but primarily a function of cheap, accessible debt in the non-gov't guaranteed credit markets pre-crisis. Do you really think that demand for brand new 2,000 SF 3 beds @ $1,500 PSF would have been as strong without the option ARM, I/O, jumbo markets in full swing? Yes there were cash buyers, but I would argue those buyers felt comfortable plopping down all cash because they saw that liquidity was there.
Monthly changes are interesting but this is real estate and merits a long view as well as a short and medium perspective. What I don't see is any questioning of the long view as to ownership in Manhattan. Rather, it is simply taken as a fact that if you hold for __ years, then it is better. In my estimate, that's the issue on deck - whether or not the same long run trends are in place to sustain the same kind of appreciation that Manhattan enjoyed over the last 30 years?
I am a long run bear on Manhattan until we have a meaningful correction for the following reasons: (1) while the country has repriced back to 2001 levels or earlier, NYC sits at 2006 (which means new equity is not coming in evidenced by limited activity in the non-gov't guaranteed price levels); (2) liquidity, expressed as sales volume, in the $1.5mm+ price point remains extremely muted; (3) job growth in NYC remains bleak; (4) expenses are going up (which probably means higher paying jobs to be created will be done so outside of NYC); (5) boomers are either looking to exit or downsize because most of their retirement is tied up in their home; (6) the gov't is going to be exiting the MBS business in various stages which is going to increase interest rates, there is no way around that, and (7) for the contrarian in me, folks are just too rosy-eyed in love with owning RE here still.
Now, this doesn't mean that the sub $1mm price point HAS to correct further. But, the chances of their being some serious discounting in the $1mm+ segment, in my opinion, is very high - the question really is how much will the mid/high end have to come down before we see liquidity step back in and to what extent will that force a repricing in the highly liquid sub $1mm level? I am bearish on that trend but understand why folks who are only looking at the $1mm and below level see it as relatively "safe". I just think they aren't looking at the relationship between the mid/high end to the low end (as an aside I find it hysterical that we define the mid range as one that is subject to a "millionaire" tax when the number of millionaires is the US is less than 3% of the population).
The rent vs. buy analysis is just one perspective to look at where values are. And I would say that the rent vs. buy becomes much less compelling for the sub $1mm price point, simply because most of what you see for rent in the sub $3k or $4k range is, to be nice about, unattractive. So, because of liquidity in the credit markets, buying something that you like for 800k versus paying rent is much more within reach and let's face it, $200k is not that much money if you've been working for 10 years and have exercised some modicum of savings. The problem of course is you can't raise a family in 900sf. In fact, you can barely get married in 900sf.
For the record, we do own land which over time is the main enduring equity component in real estate - it also has a much lower carrying cost (assuming no debt of course). As for NYC, we rent 1,200 SF @ $5,000 / monthly. To buy a similar unit, you'd pay $1.5mm or so or 25x gross annual rent. But that isn't meaningful because it's not the rent or price that determines the depth of buying interest: it's the credit markets. In 2006 for example, one could have gotten a 90LTC loan no problem. So for 150k in equity we could have owned, in theory, our current digs. Today you are looking at 500k minimum in equity plus 500k in liquid investments plus 12 months P&I. This is not the same case for the sub $1mm price level - and in many ways, the sub $1mm is more liquid from a credit perspective, especially for first time home buyers who qualify for FHA programs.
I love this board but there is a tendency to only look at the FNM-driven price points which misses the bigger picture of why ownership in Manhattan has been so good to so many people for so long. It's not that studios and 1 beds are worth so much; it's that everything else got so crazy expensive that it dragged the low end up. Now, the low end is on its own and the question is can it survive without the unrelenting appreciation in the mid/high end????
The sub $1mm price point represents something like 20% of the overall residential market from a "value" perspective. It's kind of like GE - they've got some great industrial businesses but the 15% YoY earnings growth under Welch was not from dishwashers and airplane engines; it was the massive expansion of their financial services business, which we now know, is, shall we say, going through a "transformation". We don't know what GE is worth because we don't know where growth will come from. Clearly GE has value but the question is what's the appropriate multiple? Similarly, NYC real estate is all of the price points and just because you can get an easy loan for a 800k condo doesn't mean the big picture isn't in a very different situation......
Have a great weekend and thanks for the blog!
Posted by Fred
Sat Mar 13th, 2010 12:21 PM
Noah - Just for kicks thought I'd throw this thread out there. What a difference 40 months makes......
http://www.urbandigs.com/2006/09/good_rentals_at.html
Clearly, the hyper-bulls have toned it down but is interesting to see that the same differences in opinion seem to outlast market conditions. One observation I would make is that folks on the "renting is better side" seem much more focused on the time value of money whereas "owners rule" grant more weight to the subjective benefits of being King or Queen of one's castle. I wonder which one has a higher investible asset base?
I'd also say that this discussion is very very NYC. There is a lot of implicit tension between the seller and renter universe because renters are by definition rejecting of sellers. Luckily, here we have the option to rent decent space that works, which is not the case in most other areas of the country. Usually if you want something decent, you have to buy it or build it......
Posted by Potential Buyer
Sat Mar 13th, 2010 10:11 PM
Noah and Fred,
I think Fred has made some valid points about the market and why the long term outlook for NYC real estate is not so great. I agree with a lot of his points but I still am afraid prices will still go up in the market that I am looking at (classic 6 in prime UES/Carnegie Hill Park & Fifth Avenues).
Do either of you think this market (which is $1.5MM and above) is illiquid and will be as affected by some of the factors that Fred discussed (higher interest rates, higher taxes, slow job growth)?
The rent vs. buy argument doesn't really apply to this market since you can't rent on a long term basis a pre-war on Park or Fifth Avenues (I also own and am trying to trade up). I am a buyer who is bidding conservatively (not low balling) because I am worried about the economic outlook of NYC and this country (we will be hit with higher property and income taxes). However, I have noticed lately that apartments in this market are selling and maybe this area of the market has recovered a bit and may go up.
I would appreciate your thoughts.
Posted by Marshall
Sun Mar 14th, 2010 10:23 AM
Rent vs Buy is ok for informational purposes but I dont believe most buyers base there decision on this calculation and especially buyers that already own and are looking to make a move.
As far as financing hell yeah it effects the price. If there is no financing you reduce the amount of buyers by a lot. Less buyers assuming the same number of sellers prices go down. The plus 1 million dollars sales have definitely been affected reduction in the availability of jumbo mtge financing. And the prices have taken a hit. As I understand from speaking with the mtge brokers jumbo financing is back not like it was at its best but a lot better than it was at its worst. So its available how available im told 25% down reasonable rates its available. That restores a chunk of potential buyers which will help with sales and pricing. Also while us real estate producers have been slammed it seems like the government has given sufficient backing to the banks so that some of those bank bonuses will go back into the housing market that is a positive for sales and prices. One of piece of information on financing we should consider. It is near impossible to get financing for new projects that translated into very little new inventory coming onto the market. Assuming that the usual factors of absorption and that there are new households supply should go down or be somewhat stable and demand should increase thats positive. As far as all the negatives out there in the economy and government
I dont disagree they exist. And I hope we have a happy resolution to our great recession and other problems. Dont count nyc out Ive made that mistake before and diversified. God I wish I just stayed in NYC were doing a hell of a lot better here than in a lot of other places. Yeah its expensive. Yeah the government tortures you with taxes and harrasses you with fees and ever increasing fines and paperwork and it doesnt get easier as you get older. I look at what I paid in private school tuition for 3 children from preschool through high school its just not rational. Rational would be more like renting a home in North Carolina or something like that. Somehow I havent been able to extricate myself from nyc I lived here basically my whole life and I still am not sure why I am here. Personally I cant totally comprehend it but I am convinced it doesnt come down to a simple excel spreadsheet of rent vs. buy.
Posted by Noah
Sun Mar 14th, 2010 10:54 AM
there is something about Manhattan that makes many feel the way you do Marshall! After 11 years here, we left for 1 yr and were miserable after 3 months. Sometimes I guess it takes a break from something, or losing something to realize just how much you enjoyed it and loved it.
private school? 35k for kindergarten? not sure that makes much sense to me. for others, Im sure it does. I went to a public school my whole life prior to Union College, and I dont feel disadvantaged at all; granted it was on LI. But when I do buy again in Manhattan, it will certainly be a location that I deem safe for current quality school zoning, because I have no problems sending my kids to PS6 or PS 290 on UES or PS 87, PS 9, or PS 199 (maybe PS 166 too) on UWS..thats not advice, thats my personal opinions on the 2 neighborhoods that I would like to stay in if I buy
Posted by Fred
Sun Mar 14th, 2010 12:35 PM
Potential Buyer - I think the two main issues are higher rates and retiring boomers. I just don't see a new generation of wealth creators behind the boomers. On the contrary, you've basically got a nanny state generation waiting to collect their inheritance so they can run out and buy stuff. In defense of the uber-wealthy and their RE, if anything has been smacked hard in NYC, it's what you are focused on and it may be the case that the discount today is sufficient to take the risk. I'd argue that once you are in the $5mm+ range, though, you are dealing with a very different market and buyer balance sheet? The most vulnerable market, in my estimate, is the $2mm to $5mm - because that's where most of the speculative capital came in this cycle and remains in large part dependent on the credit markets. All those Wall Street jockeys who bought pre-construction on the assumption that (a) their bonus would make them whole and (b) real estate is a great hedge (except when it's not).
Anecdotally, one of my wife's friends refinanced her Murray Hill studio a year ago and went to refi again a month ago. Guess what? Bank came back with an appraisal that was a full 24% under the appraisal from a year ago - on a studio! It would be really interesting to be able to track the delta between contracted sales prices and bank appraisals - I know - totally impossible but would be cool nonetheless.
Posted by Marshall
Sun Mar 14th, 2010 06:48 PM
hey Noah I went to public school in queens I just noticed in the papers a while back they plan to close the high school jamaica high school i attended we had 4400 students on triple session I was against sending my children to private school it wasnt just about the money. I thought there was something not right about sending the my kids to school with a bunch of "rich kids". In addition I didnt like having to be interviewed by their preschool and have a home visit from their prospective teacher I mean how much can they find out from a two or three year old child i thought it was absurd. Not coming from the private school world I initially thought all you had to do was to be willing to pay the cash price of admission and you would be in. No No No there is a whole system that is anything but rational. Im still not sure if we did the right thing I have to say i like a lot of the kids but sometimes the expectations of entitlement that they had were way out line. I guess there were a lot of positives but also lot of things normal people I think would find disturbing. Anyway after high school i went to college upstate (RPI in Troy) not far from Union. I liked it upstate things were simple and so cheap. I realized early on some of the other students that attended good schools on long island, or some of the better parochial schools and city schools like Bronx High School of Science and Brooklyn Tech were better prepared coming out the gate. Im not sure how many real nyc type private school kids attended RPI rich kids generally dont go in for engineering schools but I would guess many of them would have been better prepared.
Anyway I wouldnt worry about the next generation of wealth creators they may not be our children but they will come some from here some from places like Minn, south america, china etc And they do seem to come to New York It may not be easy here but there is always a level of action and energy. Yeah Interest rates will eventually rise but they will not be able to raise the interest rates and remove all the support and guarantees until the system is sufficiently healed and in good health. We are certainly no there yet. Im a small business person I deal with banks I talk to other small businesses I dont need to see any statistics Small businesses have been devastated there has been a lot of damage. The banks and the regulators still have not got it right. The government bailed out the banks and got a free ride off the taxpayers. Actually this is a positive for nyc. But the banks and the regulators and the gse blew it. They restricted financing unnecessarily causing further damage to the banks collateral and hurting a lot of small businesses. Keep in mind they created a lot of the problems by having almost no standards and letting the governments implicit guarantee attach to just about anything. Then we have the crisis. What happens these basically bankrupt entities end up over-reacting and doing further damage to every one. Instead of tapping the brakes they decide it would be better to lock them up and show the public how prudent they have become. Well the system is still broken getting better but still broken. They have a lot of work to do before they get the system straightened out. They cant just lift interest rates and get rid of their government guarantees. They dont have the
b lls to do it and risk further damage to the economy. So my guess interest rates are going to be moderate for a longer period than many think.
Time will tell.
Posted by anon
Wed Mar 17th, 2010 12:03 AM
Fred,
what job do you have that gives you the free time to post so much on urban digs?
And do you really care THAT much?
Posted by Farmer
Wed Mar 24th, 2010 08:02 PM
If, as you say, "mental math" involves "'a' long math problem", then the answer to that single long problem is NOT 17. You get to 17 only if you don't look at the problem as "a" math problem, but rather a series of operations to be performed one at a time.
If it is "a" math problem, you have to take into account the order of operations (multiplication and division comes before addition and subtraction).
The problem is, viewed correctly, the following:
(7 x 6) + (8 / 5) - (2 x 9) + (3 / 3) + (9 / 2)
The answer is 31.1.
Posted by Noah
Thu Mar 25th, 2010 08:45 AM
Farmer - as a kid in elementary school, it was meant as a series of operations in order. the purpose of the post was not really the math problem, rather that in this residential real estate market you need to keep a mental history of where this market has come from to know how to properly value any one property using the best method I feel possible - same line comps in the same building with same exposures and same footprint that sold at varying times.
Well how do we adjust for time?
Posted by coach handbags
Thu Aug 12th, 2010 10:00 PM
By doing this you will know not only where this market seems to be trading, but where it recently came from. I consider this to be one of the most important services a broker can offer their client's when devising a buy side strategy and doing a property valuation - where is this market trading right now????