In the latest Offering Plan amendment for this 1989 co-op conversion, somebody made a boo-boo and included the individual rents for the sponsor-owned apartments, rather than just the usual totals: http://97.74.35.99/243wea-21stamendment.pdf

One of the great advantages of converting back then was that an apartment whose tenant didn't buy at conversion immediately falls out of regulation when the tenant vacates or dies. So, while conditions at the time made the sponsor want to sell as many as possible right away, it turned out to be the fewer the better, as long as the conversion minimum was met.

Another is that the mechanics of being a landlord are much simpler. Many of the costs -- taxes/finance/labor/fuel/etc. -- are covered by the one monthly check to the co-op. Repairs that are the shareholder's responsibility rather than the co-op's are done by the co-op's staff with a bargain-rate charge to the maintenance. You get economies of scale, no matter how few apartments you still own.

When a regulated tenant vacates, you can renovate or not, and then either rent or sell, depending on the market for each option.

This sponsor held the shares for 46 apartments, as of July.

26 are market-rate. They bring in $49,200 per month, with maintenance of $18,300. The minimum/average/maximum rents are $1550/$1891/$2700.

20 are regulated. They bring in $15,300 per month, with maintenance of $15,600. The minimum/average/maximum rents are $446/$765/$1071.

Two or three apartments deregulate each year. Of the last five, the sponsor has sold three and market-rented two.

41 of the 46 are straight studios, and five are small one-bedrooms (that's the $2700 high) so the stats aren't useless.