GUEST POST: What NYC's rent multiplier tells us about housing prices
GUEST POST: Published by Yaron Sadan of TheHardTrade.com
=====================================================================
As a resident of New York City, this topic is near and dear to my heart, and I am obviously a biased observer; however, today we’ll just focus on the numbers.
Bloomberg recently had an article about New York real estate prices and new condo development. Within the article, was this:
The relationship between home prices and rents typically remains steady within a market, Miller said. In Manhattan, the average apartment, adjusted for inflation, cost 8.1 times annual rent from 1991 to 1997, according to Miller Samuel data. That means that in those years, buyers in Manhattan concluded that the long term benefits of owning an apartment — tax savings and property appreciation — were worth an initial investment of eight times the cost of renting.
Then in 1998, Manhattan prices began a decade-long climb, with year-over-year values rising by 10 percent or more in most quarters. By the second quarter of 2008 apartment prices peaked at 22.4 times annual rent, according to Miller Samuel data.
For the full article, click here.
I went to look at some apartment listing around the different neighborhoods. Here are some of my assumptions:
Assume you bought a 2 bedroom for roughly $900,000 (we’re talking about $750 sq ft) – a good deal, not the top building and a discount for the fact that many buildings in New York are co-ops that face a discount for a host of reasons (annoying boards, lack of liquidity, rental limitations, etc.). The rent on the apartment would be roughly $4,500/month at current rates.
At a rent multiplier of 15 (average of 8 and 22), we’re looking at a “fair value” of roughly $810,000 – a 10% drop in real estate prices. But rents have been falling – the article suggests by 6% from last years levels. Let’s assume a conservative 6% drop going forward to $4,230. If that’s the case, we’re facing a 15% decline in real estate prices.
Those are some serious assumptions – so let’s take a closer look.
1. Rents might stay stable, but with financial services continuing to be a big loser in the most recent unemployment figures (over the last 5 months, financial services lost 58,000 jobs) and those being the drivers of high rents in the city, it’s tough to see rents staying stable. A 6% decrease is just based on the rent decrease last year, however, rents could certainly drop by more. With a lot of the new developments mentioned in the article as shadow inventory for either sale or rent, one or the other will be pressured, probably both.
2. Rent multiplier: I used the average of the high to low mentioned in the article. It’s probably a fine long term assumption, but the trend has been for the multiplier to come down and it could certainly overshoot to the downside. At stable rents (not likely) and a multiplier of 10, we’re looking at a 40% decrease in prices.
3. Range of prices: I used a conservative $750 per square ft. assumption. Many listings are at $1,000 per square ft. or higher, and while the rents in those buildings might be higher, there were plenty available at lower ranges. That would translate into very different rates of change for the higher level and new construction apartments.
4. Condo vs. Co-op: New York is a quirky market. Co-ops are more restrictive, and most apartments are owner-occupied. Additionally, co-op boards have much stricter entry requirements for down payments than banks, so their conservatism means that their owners will face less pressure to sell. In turn this may actually result in MORE selling pressure in the condo market as investors and real estate owners who own both will have more liquidity in the condo market than co-op.
5. External buyers have always been attracted to New York. Pied-a-terre’s for retirees or international owners are relatively more common than most other cities. In 2004 to 2008, it was common to hear about European buyers coming in as strong bidders. Except, at the time, the euro was strong and getting stronger. These days, real estate in the US looks a lot more expensive and many investors don’t want to lock up their money. Not that there won’t be foreign buyers looking to lower their exposure to their home currencies, just that it will be more of a hurdle.
All of that leads me to be quite concerned about New York City real estate prices.



Posted by SteveF
Wed Jun 9th, 2010 09:42 AM
Ana Maria, is 1991 to 1997 supposed to be the benchmark for the 400 years that Manhattan has been in existence? 8.1X for 1991 to 1997 means what exactly? Does that represent every supply/demand scenario that ever existed for manhattan? 1991 to 1997 had a tremendous amount of oversupply so prices reflected that. Now we have no supply. Also rents have been depressed for the past 4 years but they are ramping up now. Maybe they will bring the rent multiplier back down to 8.1 in 2 years, who knows? Also, the world grows smaller every day.
Just a word of caution on quoting Jon Miller: Jon Miller's interest are with prices dropping, trust me. As Casey Stengel used to say "ya, you can look it up"
Posted by Fred
Wed Jun 9th, 2010 09:45 AM
Ana Maria - Thanks and terrific post. One of the consequences of over valued real estate is that potential buyers remain sidelined for myriad reasons, but they point is they aren't participating in the recycling of equity and therefore the creation of new equity. Looking at renting vs buying is a great way to gain a sense for possible direction of the market. You can't have a rally if the participants don't show up and the fact is 2006/2007 was an anomaly in terms of prices, transaction volume and velocity of sales. If you remove those years from the long run averages, Manhattan has barely repriced versus other metropolitan markets.
Posted by SteveF
Wed Jun 9th, 2010 09:52 AM
Fred please stop talking in riddles what the heck is the following supposed to mean? ---"but they point is they aren't participating in the recycling of equity and therefore the creation of new equity."--- it sounds like something out of the Bible.
Posted by Ana Maria
Wed Jun 9th, 2010 09:55 AM
Thanks for the comments everyone. I wish I could take credit but this article came from Yaron Sadan of www.thehardtrade.com.
I'm certain he will pitch in soon to answer your questions.
Posted by Fred
Wed Jun 9th, 2010 10:08 AM
SteveF - thanks for the feedback. what that means is if new buyers aren't participating, growth will be hard to achieve. the proof is in the inventory numbers. they aren't coming down - they are going up. it may not be what you want to hear but it is what it is. ask anyone in retail, if buyers don't spend, you have a pricing problem. but then again, you just seem angry which is understandable since this market is bound to deliver a long series of disappointments until pricing gets more realistic.
Posted by SteveF
Wed Jun 9th, 2010 10:23 AM
Fredo, well why didn't you just say that sir? I want to hear it all my good man! Quite the contrary, I'm far from angry. Have a great day.
Posted by Yaron
Wed Jun 9th, 2010 10:26 AM
Hi,
Thanks for your feedback.
With respect to using a rent multiplier or any model for that matter, there is always a risk that it doesn't capture all the nuances. On the other hand, real estate tends to have a mean-reverting quality that, over the long term, can be captured through these models. The gist of the article was that we are at the high end of valuations based on current rents.
In terms of over/under supply - it's a matter of perspective. With a few thousand apartment coming from new developments, and shadow inventory from apartments that have been forced into becoming rental properties, we may see continued pressure.
Lastly, demographics will be the big determinant long term. If New York can continue to attract the young, the retired, and the international populations we'll work through the current supply. However, should those trends change (for any number of reasons, including loss of jobs, increased crime rates, etc.) the pressure will be exacerbated.
Posted by SteveF
Wed Jun 9th, 2010 10:30 AM
Yes Yaron Sadan from the hard trade! Excellent, didn't know you were in existence there Yaron but always willing to listen to those with some thoughts. As Fred would say, please heartily, amplify your conclusioning reasons!
Posted by SteveF
Wed Jun 9th, 2010 10:41 AM
Yaron what is the mean reverting quality for the rent multiplier? High end of valuations for when, 1991-1997, 1981-1987, 1971-1977, 1961-1967, how about 1875-1975 shall i go on?
Shadow inventory? you've been reading Miller's rhetoric huh? please provide proof we will be swept away by this shadow inventory.
3rd paragraph is meaningless.
As Ben franklin used to say "love your enemies they tell you your faults"
Posted by OT
Wed Jun 9th, 2010 10:41 AM
Yaron - where did you get the number 58,000 for jobs lost in fin services over the past 5 months? A total of 18,400 jobs were lost in 2009 (source: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/wall-st-just-isnt-what-it-used-to-be/?hp) which makes your number very difficult for me to believe.
I don't agree with much of your post but appreciate your taking the time.
OT
Posted by Yaron
Wed Jun 9th, 2010 11:39 AM
Hi everyone,
Here are some more links:
The 58,000 jobs lost in finance was from an analysis by The Liscio Report and quoted by John Mauldin (http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/gateway.asp). For additional information on jobs lost and gained, we use the BLS site (http://www.bls.gov/).
The valuations used were based on the most recent 20 years of data, but you are welcome to use your own data if you think it's more appropriate. The idea is that some ratios can't grow forever nor decrease forever, i.e. they will fluctuate around a mean. It flows from the fact that real estate prices are bounded by GDP growth, demographics, and other limited factors that can be accounted for.
For demographics data, we use information from the Census (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/36061.html) and back out organic population growth as opposed to immigration. I hope you find it useful.
Posted by Fred
Wed Jun 9th, 2010 12:59 PM
SteveF - where is demand for housing coming from in NYC exactly? which industries are creating high paying jobs and what is the expected employment growth rate? how about no where, none and zero.
you make a good point that the 1991-1997 period is a snapshot but what else is there to talk about? the fact is inventory hasn't changed since January, after dropping significantly off the 2009 summer lows.
i almost laughed when you pooh-pooh'd the existence of shadow inventory. perhaps Miller is over estimating but are you seriously going to argue that there isn't a massive number of vacant completed units in NYC? we look at Extel's dark towers on the Hudson every single night. midtown west rentals are back to offering concessions. high paying professionals are leaving NYC because there is zero job creation here, and I mean zero, nothing.
frankly, it would be smart to just slice prices in half and start over. real estate is no longer an investment here - it's all expense - which is why you will see a growing trend toward renting and growth of rental inventory as for sale units get converted to rentals once the banks start pulling the plug on construction loans......it is now common knowledge that it's a bad time to buy real estate in NYC.
Posted by Prague-Noah
Wed Jun 9th, 2010 01:26 PM
Great to see a post by Yaron on UrbanDigs...when the new site launches there will be an OPINION, my version of an op-ed, section that I hope will get more popular for just these types of discussions.
On to some of my thoughts.
Im not crazy about ratios for this market because of the nature of this highly segmented marketplace, outliers and data availability/accuracy that serious flaws the numbers used for any ratio..To me its not the most reflective formula for valuing manhattan real estate in regards to whether the current market is under or over priced at any given point in time. Rent data is highly affected by concessions, as discussed before I left and therefore overstated in slow times big time. Also, rental rates data and trends are highly inconsistent and lacking, in my opinion. Sales data are subject to a highly segmented market and recent change in ACRIS with the inclusion of cash and non cash considerations..think of buyer paying seller sponsor taxes or a seller renovation escros skewing the actual agreed up sale price.
In short, I dont trust the data..especially the rental data. So to me, this ratio carries little weight. But for sake of argument, I always stated on SE discussions of this topic that this market needs a tweaking of the normal formulas used for most other local markets. Are we to believe 12-15x rent multiplier (im going to use this range because this happened to be the one used in many other discussions on this topic) is the normal range for both Manhattan and say a Commack, Long Island?
I rent a 900sft JR4 1br/1bth in a full time doorman building in PS 6 with very nice N/E views onto 84th & 3rd. I pay 3,000 a month. So lets do some math:
12x annual sales valuation ---> $432,000
15x annual sales valuation ---> $540,000
So, anything over $540,000 is a bubble waiting to burst? My argument is the 12-15x formula is low for this market...sure it applies to Commack, LI and suburbs in CT and Jersey, but to Manhattan as well?
I say 18-22x is a better formula..
18x annual sales valuation ---> $648,000
22x annual sales valuation ---> $792,000
At 22x, the top end of my range and where the market would be toppy, would equate to $880/sft for a f/s doorman bldg in PS6..Thats what Im saying. I dont think my argument means Im drinking the kool aid or failing to see a bubble.
All I know is its virtually impossible in our residential marketplace to buy a place using normal leverage and rent it out at a profit, or even breakeven, unless you got an insider price on a conversion. Commercial, different story. Commercial is all about the numbers. Its residential that needs the tweaked formula, or else you'll constantly expect this market to dramatically correct due to the dislocation; and over time history proved otherwise.
Still, as I started this long comment with, I dont trust the data that goes into these ratios so not sure I trust the ratios muchb either other than for conversations like these..i would not apply it as a major part of my consulting for my clients.
Posted by AvUWS
Wed Jun 9th, 2010 01:46 PM
While I am also in the bear camp as to R/E (mostly sales but possibly also rentals) nothing will happen regarding the shadow inventory until it the developers/banks are forced to do something. People will avoid selling something at bellow cost so long as they don't have to/can afford to.
That said, the longer it takes for prices to return to where the developers make a profit the more likely it is that the environment will change on them and some might be forced to sell/convert to rent. Then, if it in fact is a house of cards, there will be a steep decline. I think it was Jeff who had written about why no one will move until forced.
Noah,
Your adjustment to 18-22x rent is still highly analogous to higher PE's on growth stocks or stocks in general in a low rate environment.
I made the argument before. NY has been a "growth stock" (better employment, cleaner, safer, better schools, more families, etc.) for 30 years now. But if we had matured (and/or if rates increase) then can one still charge a higher multiple? Instead of wanting to own, people might only want to buy the options which are going for cheaper than the underlying stock (to stretch the analogy to its breaking point).
What if conditions decline? They don't have to reach the nadir of the late '70's. What if Subway service continues to be cut? Schools stop getting better? Garbage collection declines (or we go back to the days of summer garbage strikes with piles of stinking garbage)? How about a return to squeegee men or steel shutters on all storefronts?
These are not predictions. My argument is that even if currently fairly priced, NY is more at risk of declining than returning to its former pace of growth. (Said as someone who grew up here and has a long memory). Even a cut to 16-18x rents means a significant decline.
Posted by Prague-Noah
Wed Jun 9th, 2010 01:53 PM
very interesting persepctive avuws, but the social and rate elements you discuss add a very interesting angle to these types of discussions. hard to argue with you, as you know i love dong with commenters. i think your pretty spot on and i agree
Posted by AvUWS
Wed Jun 9th, 2010 02:36 PM
Dang it! Stop agreeing with me. How am I supposed to refine/test my own view if you are going to agree. :P
Posted by drtomaso
Wed Jun 9th, 2010 03:06 PM
For me the question always comes down not to rent vs buy, but rent vs rent- by this I mean comparing renting property to renting the money needed to purchase property. This is a more accurate description of reality, unless you assume there are loads and loads of all cash buyers floating around out there (and while I admit NYC has more of them than any other market, they are far from the norm).
In this case, I always compare rental rates to the debt service (less tax incentives) plus real estate taxes and condo/coop maintenance (less tax incentives). What I can see is that in most cases, condo charges plus taxes usually are 3/4 my rent, and debt service added in blows my rent out of the water. Thus the only reason to purchase is if you expect appreciation- something that is hardly guaranteed for the immediate future.
Posted by nycjoe
Wed Jun 9th, 2010 05:29 PM
"frankly, it would be smart to just slice prices in half and start over. real estate is no longer an investment here"
Yes, can someone please cut all the NYC prices in half so that Fred can own and start talking about how much better it is to buy than rent?
"high paying professionals are leaving NYC because there is zero job creation here, and I mean zero, nothing."
I can't speak for other industries, but IT hiring is certainly a lot more than zero. Not ultra high paying, but I get emails from banks posting new $100K-$200K positions every other day.
Posted by cfranch
Wed Jun 9th, 2010 06:21 PM
So what is the future for NYC? Unlike AVUws I don't think we are an aged growth stock about to decline or flatline. Look at what has happened the past decade: major terrorist attack, 2 wars, failed terror attacks and possibility of a successful one at any time; 2 stock market crashes, recessions, real estate bust(tho not as bad as FL,CA, NV). If NYC were a stock and RE were the price I'd say the correction in prices nowhere near reflects the bad things that happened. that means NYC has relative strength to the rest of the market(all other RE markets). that tells me to buy this correction. And what has the smart money been doing the past decade: building 2 stadiums; digging an 8 bil. tunnel under the hudson river; renovation parks and building new ones on reclaimed waterfronts; reclaiming former derelict areas(w'burg etc), major companies flocking here(google, walmart, disneyfication of times square. i could go on but this city is a much better place to live than it was 10 or 20 years ago and continues to improve. so the gleeful doomsday predictions fall flat. are we going to have a runaway RE market? hell no but the crash is over, prices are decent and interest rates are at historic lows. and everyone wants to live here. period.
Posted by AvUWS
Wed Jun 9th, 2010 11:41 PM
Wow, where to start.
Absolutely this city is resilient. But the events you describe don't rate even in the top 10 of things that NY has survived in the past.
2 new stadiums? you mean to replace the two new ones (c. 1970) that they themselves replaced? And at a cost to the taxpayers but for private benefit? Not evidence of progress.
9/11? Horrible. I didn't believe the towers really fell. I had seen them go up in my childhood. But in terms of destruction they don't come close to matching the scale of destruction caused by the Cross Bronx. Nor does ground zero compare to the razing of a dozen "super blocks" around Manhattan in the 50s and 60s.
One new RR tunnel? In what, the last 60-70 years?
Wal-Mart and Old Navy in Times square? Does that replace the companies that have left? NY used to be the home of TWA, American Airlines, AND Pan AM. The retail HQ of the world was here (now it is in Bentonville, AR). We don't even have the tallest buildings anymore.
NY IS a great city. The greatest. Gotham, Metropolis, etc all rolled into one. But the NY that people have been paying up for is the one that has been climbing from a death spiral that ended some time in '76-'77. The improvements had been consistent since then. In fact they were more dramatic in the 80's than the 90's though most weren't here to remember that.
But the pace is slower, and probably unsustainable. In the 2000's Finance, NY's one remaining significant industry, was more than enough, it accounted for 30-40% of ALL corporate profit in the US. But that isn't exactly a diversified portfolio. And that industry may (may) find itself in the target cites of Washington. So is it enough to build growth?
Going back to the stock analogy, I think the multiple is more likely to contract than to increase or stay the same. But that also depends on rental rates. They are the leading indicator of sales potential. If they go up quickly we will stay at inflated levels. If they stay flat I think the multiple will contract, though maybe slowly. If rents contract, especially if the rate is significant, prices will likewise drop, but I think the multiple will also shrink.
Posted by AvUWS
Wed Jun 9th, 2010 11:46 PM
Sorry, I forgot to add one other big catalyst that may be missing int he future. Good leadership.
The one hick-up in NY's growth also coincided with it's one bad mayoral term since Lindsey (Dinkins). The question is who is in the wings to replace Bloomberg? Quinn? Green? The city hasn't been lead well by city politician. (Koch was a Congressman, Giuliani a USDA and Bloomberg a businessman).
It will have to be someone who can stare politically powerful interests in the face and tell them the money isn't there.
Weiner is a congressman. Maybe he can do it?
Posted by OT
Thu Jun 10th, 2010 09:30 AM
AV - great points all. I sit on the board of my building and in the past 2 years have reviewed 4 buyers. 1 pilot, 1 accountant, 1 works in marketing, and the 4th a doctor. Properties ranged from 500 - 950. We are in a nice building on prime UWS. Actually, of all 45 units in the building, I only know of 3 owners that work in finance. Anecdotal, I agree, but I don't think finance drives buying/selling in the median range of the market as much as some would think.
There are many, many people that just prefer to own, don't know the first thing about a rent/buy ratio, and are happy to commit based on recent comps. As far as where the money comes from, well the above individuals all earn around 200K, and median assets were around 300K (some much higher). They were all comfortably able to afford the median price of 650 in our building.
In addition, I don't believe NYC has to create a ton of jobs for there to be stability in the real estate market. I have many friends/contacts around the world who are very eager to buy in NYC; some have already pulled the trigger. There continues to be a tremendous amount of wealth in the world.
I think that having taken the big post-Lehman hit, and recovered slightly, we will see NYC real estate putter around within a 5-10% range for the next 5 years. But hey, your guess is as good as mine.
(As a side note, units in our co-op now are going for about 5% off of peak prices in 2007/8 range, some traded sideways - this speaks to Noah's points about how highly segmented the market is)
Posted by AvUWS
Thu Jun 10th, 2010 10:29 AM
OT - It is one of your very comments that makes me nervous. "I have many friends/contacts around the world who are very eager to buy in NYC". I too have family oversees who want to own in NYC. They don't want to because they come here so often (they have visited maybe 3-4 times in the last 20 years) or because they love NY. They are interested because they all know someone who has made money in NYC R/E and for 20 years you couldn't lose money. You made it in huge sums.
But that is like wanting to own a stock every-one-wants-to-own. Eventually (and it happens much faster in stocks than in R/E) things revert to what is supported by the fundamentals. Jobs, income, rents, etc.
NY is NOT Vail, CO. The available real estate, despite being an island, has not and is not close to being exhausted. In Vail they quite simply ran out of space. So much so that it paid to clean up a mining town of the environmental contaminants. (It was so bad that the town was evacuated in hours once the soil was tested.)
But NY gets more "prime" real estate by rehabilitating neighborhoods. So now people want the LES, in the '80's the Village became hot and expensive, the UWS became desirable only 10 blocks every 10 years. Park Slope was the poor neighbor to Brooklyn Heights.
The point being that if people want to own at higher prices than the fundamentals then there has to be some magic offered to do it. Until now it was a NY that had been dramatically and noticeably improving for 30-35 years. But will it continue? The biggest problem is that the growth of revenues has stopped, but the automatic increases of expenditures (pensions, healthcare, etc.) continues apace. Will it hurt the magic? NY was Gotham before we got the movie "The Warriors". It was resurrected. I don't think we are going back there. But it doesn't need to go back there for prices to drop. All you need is for expectations to change a little. It is already too closely priced to "perfection" so there isn't enough protection on the downside. That might be fine for a place to live, but not for an investment.
Posted by cfranch
Thu Jun 10th, 2010 11:08 AM
AvUWS: comparing 9/11 to the building of a highway or lincoln center shows that you are not all there.
what a loon
Posted by AvUWS
Thu Jun 10th, 2010 12:19 PM
or perhaps a failure of your understanding/imagination.
There is no comparison between the human damage of the two events. But they did not have similar effects on the economy of where they happened.
If you are going to compare what big events do to a city then their causes (and the human suffering) are not going to be questioned by the invisible hand. So my argument is that 9/11, a horrible travesty committed on us by forces who hate our exiwstence, was not a devastating blow as an event in the history of NY. Those happen much more slowly.
The Cross Bronx Expwy destroyed the Bronx for 30 years +. In fact the Bronx has still not recovered. The Cross Bronx created the S. Bronx (a moniker that didn't describe an area prior to the construction) which became THE poster child for urban blight in this country and would taint the Bronx as a borough for generations. The Cross Bronx also destroyed a large and thriving middle class neighborhood (Tremont) by slicing right down its middle. Once the middle third disappeared, the other two 1/3s could no longer survive being split from each other. Small businesses died and the people moved.
Things DO happen that can damage a NYC. Just as the aforementioned $8 billion tunnel can have an unintended consequence. (What if it makes commuting so much easier that someone considers a 4000 sq. ft. home in NY/NJ for 800k instead of a small 2BR for the same price in NYC?)
When the Cross Bronx was built they also added 3 lanes in each direction on the GWB (it only had 1 level until the '50's). Both projects were supposed to be for "through" traffic. The unintended consequences? When I was at NYU we had a as a speaker in our class the asst head planner for the Port Authority. She admitted that they had never planned for or considered that all the people leaving the city in the 50's and 60's would use the Cross Bronx and GWB as a commuting route back into the city. (The huge traffic tie ups then into the city was a new phenomena of the early '80s as the NY economy started growing again.)
On the other side, the single most positive event in the development of NYC was the opening of the Erie Canal. Anyone in class know why and what the effect was...?
Posted by Christine Toes
Thu Jun 10th, 2010 12:30 PM
I purchased my one bedroom West Village (very liberal) co-op which allows immediate and unlimited subletting in July 2008 and closed in September 2008 for $520K, putting 20% down. I spent $15K to renovate the bath, expose a brick wall, and refinish the floors.
My monthly 30 year fixed mortgage is $2,170 for the mortgage (~$553/month of that is going towards principle right now, so the mortgage is 75% tax deductible). The maintenance is $636/month (35% of which is tax deductible). My total monthly payments are $2,806. Of that amount $1,849 is tax deductible, so in a 40% tax bracket, my after-tax payments are $2,067. When I bought it, the tenant in place had been paying $2,900/month for two years. It would still rent for $2,900/month-$3,000/month depending on the time of year. It would sell right now for approx $550K based on recent sales I have done in the area. So I am very happy with how my "rent vs buy" calculation worked out. I am also happy that my money is in my primary residence rather than in the stock market or a savings account. You should invest in what you know. My Bed Stuy property is somewhat of a different story. It is only a break-even after all the affiliated expenses. The value of the property is down. But it is a 30 year hold for me, and I may move into it soon (would be nice to have more space and a garden!). Since it is a break-even, even after expenses, I don't particularly care about the market fluctuation.
Real estate is a very personal thing. It isn't right for everyone as an investment and that's ok. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.
Posted by anonymous
Thu Jun 10th, 2010 01:09 PM
Christine, you seem to have a decent deal. I would, however, add something like 5k annually to your costs for tying up your equity and probably allot some cost to maintenance that you'll need over time. With perfect hindsight, you may have lost some money if it were in the stock market, but if you look long term, you could put equity elsewhere with a reasonable expectation of a return. However, the unknown which has a large impact is how real estate prices track in the future including future rents, which is hard to predict given the extroadinary circumstances we are in. I'm not criticizing your decision, but if you are to look at financial metrics from an investor standpoint, you need to include all costs, seen and unseen. Obviously, there are enough non-financial personal factors to sway the merits in either direction.
Posted by AvUWS
Thu Jun 10th, 2010 01:50 PM
Christine is also lucky/wise to have bought in one of the neighborhoods in the city least hit by the downturn.
Posted by lars
Thu Jun 10th, 2010 02:00 PM
From Fed beige book (June 9):
Activity in Manhattan’s co-op and condo market has leveled off, following a modest pickup in the first quarter. The pace of new contract signings has retreated a bit in recent weeks, while prices have held steady at about 20-30 percent below their peak. There remains a large supply of units on the markets, though one contact notes that the inventory of competitively priced units is fairly lean. While the home-buyer tax credit has had little impact on Manhattan’s high-priced market, it has reportedly had a positive effect elsewhere in New York City, where prices are considerably more moderate. Manhattan’s apartment rental market has strengthened since the last report. Rents have recovered modestly, and landlords are offering less generous concessions than last year or even a few months ago. The inventory of available rental units has stabilized.
Posted by OT
Thu Jun 10th, 2010 02:24 PM
AV - indeed there may be many outside NY who look to Manhattan properties as investments only. Those I refer to are ones that want to have crash pads. It is a distinct luxury to have a New York property to crash during visits, and also somewhere you can send family, business associates, political connections etc. Not sure how large this market is, but I know several people that own for this purpose, and others that are looking to get in. I know the truckloads of Irish and other Europeans who were buying units sight unseen and in multiples stole headlines during the peak, but I would venture to say that the category of buyer I describe may be even larger. Definitely don't have any data to back this up, only anecdotal experience. So frankly, not particularly relevant. Oh well...
Posted by Bubblebath
Thu Jun 10th, 2010 02:49 PM
Christine's apartment has an expected return for an investor of zero on an equity investment of $130k: her monthly costs are the same as her expected rents.
Why is this not bubble pricing???
Posted by Bubblebath
Thu Jun 10th, 2010 02:57 PM
At the ratios Noah proposes, any rental landlord could make more money by selling to an owner-occupant. Of course, each such sale tends to bring prices down and/or rents up.
What exactly is going to stop this ordinary market process? Why won't it continue until investors are indifferent between holding to rent and selling to pied-a-terre occupants--meaning when prices of rental properties and prices of owner-occupied properties are basically the same?
As Noah points out, investor landlords can't make a living with ratios over about 8-12 x rents. So what will stop prices from dropping at least to those historic norms?
Posted by SteveF
Thu Jun 10th, 2010 03:13 PM
Great post OT and great one liner:
"There are many, many people that just prefer to own, don't know the first thing about a rent/buy ratio, and are happy to commit based on recent comps"
you are totally with it
Posted by SteveF
Thu Jun 10th, 2010 03:21 PM
Christine,
I hope you are including your pricipal paydown in your bed-stuy cash flow analysis. That has to be included, although not liquid, you are still paying down your mortgage. I pay down one investment studio loan $775 a month and it increases every month! That loan is toast!
SteveF
Posted by SteveF
Thu Jun 10th, 2010 03:25 PM
I remember when you were giving us the play by play with that bed stuy investment right hear on UD. I'm glad to see you did it. Smart move.
Posted by Fred
Thu Jun 10th, 2010 03:53 PM
Christine - that's a 12% return on equity and pretty decent at that. the issue with the market isn't the low end - it's the $1.5mm and above or thereabouts. what happens to the low end if the mid/upper corrects? that is the $64,000 question.
Posted by ZenDaddy
Thu Jun 10th, 2010 11:49 PM
Hey Av - when you say the first RR tunnel in 60-70 years - you're forgetting the 63rd St tunnel. You've done a good job at reading "The Power Broker" - but your missing on some other points. Still an interesting read.
Posted by carlitony
Fri Jun 11th, 2010 09:31 AM
Not sure I understand this analysis as rents are currently going up, and even at a strong pace in areas like FiDi...this analysis sounds like it has been written 1 year ago, not now.
Posted by AvUWS
Fri Jun 11th, 2010 11:34 AM
Never read "the Power Broker" actually. I was just working off my own memory of the history of NY. I knew a lot of the Cross Bronx history from having grown up in the Bronx. (Granted it was Riverdale, but friends were from Co-op city, Pelham Pkwy, and my dad's first home in NY was on the Grand Concourse, so I knew family stories.)
I didn't know the story of the 63rd st. tunnel, but it is more a lesson in what can go wrong for this city than in what is going right. First of all, it took 30 years instead of 10 for it to come to fruition. Like many great projects, the cities economic hardships in the 60's and 70's meant that projects came to a halt. This history bodes ill for great projects like the 2nd ave subway, the 2nd portion of the 63rd st tunnel, the new NJ tunnel and myriad other great ideas. For example, even before the crisis the #7 extension lost the stn on 10th and 41st, something I would think made huge sense from an urban planning point of view. 2 stations and NY opens up a huge swath of underused real estate in mid-town.
So the Q is, what happens if budget problems halt all those things we are already betting one? 2nd ave subway (in the works 70-80 years already). LIRR portion of the 63rd st. tunnel, the NJT tunnel, etc. etc. etc.
Another thing few talk about. What happens if either Tunnel 1 or 2 fail before Tunnel 3 is done? My point remains that pricing for perfection doesn't take into account possibly remote tragedies, unintended consequences, interest rate increases, or an number of factors.
(Now they are reopening talk of ending the mortgage deduction. http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/101883-axe-may-fall-on-tax-break-for-mortgages )
I still think this is the greatest city on the planet. But it's prices don't reflect fundamentals or risk.
Posted by anon
Fri Jun 11th, 2010 02:11 PM
SteveF - what, STILL haven't been able to unload your properties??? How long have they been on the market now, 3 years??
Posted by SteveF
Fri Jun 11th, 2010 05:00 PM
hey anon, no, doing just fine thanks. How about you? Still not able to afford one yet huh. Hang in there maybe in the next life.
Posted by Home For Sale Clifton Park
Fri Jun 18th, 2010 08:43 AM
Great post! Thanks for all the valuable information. The comments are great too, I like to read all the different points of view... it really puts things into perspective.
Posted by links of london
Wed Jul 7th, 2010 02:22 AM
good post.thanks for sharing.
Posted by coach handbags
Fri Aug 13th, 2010 04:49 AM
this may actually result in MORE selling pressure in the condo market as investors and real estate owners who own both will have more liquidity in the condo market than co-op.
Posted by power balance
Sat Aug 21st, 2010 04:29 AM
The Power Balance bracelet is made of pure surgical grade silicone that is extremely durable. Its stretch feature optimizes users' comfort level. It comes equipped with two, visible power balance holograms and this sporty and stylish bracelet goes with everything.
Specification:
Silicone Power Balance Wristband Bracelet
The band made of 100% silicone rubber
With 2 visible hologram disks for balance power,waterproof.