Printed from StreetEasy.com at 02:07 PM, Sep 21 2014
Talk » Sales » Discussing 'Liquid Me'

Liquid Me
SAVE    RSS

34 comments
Ignored comment. Unhide

It isn't really a "50% down building" if the board has such onerous requirements. It's more like a "you must already have 2.5 times the purchase price in cash in order to buy" kind of building.

Really, 2x the purchase price? Even 2x the annual maintenance is high. What could possibly be forcing them to have such a requirement?

You would have to "age" the loan for sufficient time in your acocunts that it didn't appear as a temporary transfer. Since most coop boards do not require more than the last 3 months of bank statements, aging the funds for 6 months should be fine. There is always the risk that one is asked where the funds came from and having to concoct a lie to cover what is essentially the fraud of the funds being yours. Then the coop could ask for proof of the facts you assert in the lie to cover the fraud. Another consideration is that the funds transfer is techinically a loan and as such subject to tax laws involving imputed interest to the lender and/or imputed income to you if the interest on the loan is forgiven. So your taxes will have to account for the transfer or you will have to also lie to the IRS.

But this is general and more what I'd expect in an average type purchase where some liquidity is required by a board. In the coop you describe, the building is obviously extremely strict (e.g., Park Ave or Fifth Ave exclusive building). They aren't stupid. They are obviously serious about the entry requirements and may be expected to demand more documentation than an ordinary coop in terms of source for funds you claim support your liquidity. That may include bank statements from a year prior or even two or more.

A final consideration is this: if the board rejects you based on not being satisfied about your liquidity, and you attempted to fake your liquidity with the loan you propose, the seller (if she were to learn of what you did to scuttle the deal) could decide you acted in bad faith and then refuse to return your escrow deposit. Voila: litigation. And all the while you are out the escrow funds while they are tied up.

My advice: act honestly in all one's dealing.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Ignored comment. Unhide

It's been done, though, as KW points out, a building that strict might possibly hire a forensic accountant, so aging the funds for three months to bypass "usual" credit check requirements might not be enough.

What does the listing broker say?

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

I thought this post was about something else....

Those requirements seem strict for anything but the unattainable park and fifth ave buildings, where I can't imagine someone as liberal as you (falco) would want to live. You are not telling us everything here.

Another thread with a certain poster contributing blatantly incorrect tax advice. Shocking.

Ignored comment. Unhide

"banks have a responsibility to report all deposits over $5,000 to the federal government."

Incorrect.

It is $10,000 in CASH deposits that have to be reported.

Ignored comment. Unhide
Ignored comment. Unhide
Comment removed.

Yes, Needsafvice, the thought of the federal government trying to analyze the billions of transactions over $5k had me amused! But the tax issue is easily solved. You need a loan agreement specifying a market interest rate (which fortunately for you is close to zero). I've made a short term loan to someone (that I trusted a lot) under similar circumstances. As long as you document the loan and have bank records with cashflows consistent with the loan agreement, you'll be ok from a tax perspective.

Kylewest points out other meaningful obstacles and you might be forced to dig a deeper and deeper hole to keep the lie going. Can you forge old bank statements? Can you have people lie for you concerning the source of funds? I'm sure it's done all of the time, but think about how bad you really want this unit!

And good luck to you.

Falco: I lend you the 750k at 10%, ok?

Ignored comment. Unhide

Falco - Is it coop's general requirement that applicant have 2X purchase price after 50% down or are they asking for number specific to your situation given the other properties you are carrying? In other words, I could understand a coop's requiring higher liquidity for someone who has other properties with carrying costs.

I ask because my husband and I were just talking through a scenario where we technically would meet a generic requirement but would hope that a sensible coop would require more of us given carrying costs of another property we are not willing to part with. Were I managing a coop, I'd want to make sure any applicant had enough liquidity to cover carrying costs of all illiquid assets for some period of time in the event income stream dried up for whatever reason (loss of job, disability, etc.).

Comment removed.
Comment removed.
Comment removed.
Comment removed.
Comment removed.
Comment removed.
Ignored comment. Unhide
Comment removed.

Falco - thank you for solving mystery and good luck with purchase.

I always advise clients to be completely honest in all dealings and subscribe to that course of conduct myself; this thread was most interesting to me because Yikes appears to be okay with a purchaser's fudging the truth here, and I generally find him to be a poster who advocates integrity, so it suggests to me that in NYC, this is not frowned upon. We were also at a dinner not that long ago in a beautiful residence in an all cash building where two people at the table were discussing ways of circumventing all cash requirements. They laughed at the shock on my husband's and my faces and teased us about our midwestern sensibilities.

Ignored comment. Unhide

NYCNovice: it is not any kind of standard operating procedure that people are advised to be dishonest in coop purchases in Manhattan. FWIW, my position on this is without caveat or exception: be honest in your dealings. One, because it is simply the right way to conduct oneself in life. Two, lies come undone in all sorts of unanticipated ways, and in a real estate transaction of the sort discussed here, the escrow funds are most definitely at risk if the deal is entered into based in any way upon reliance on a fraud purpetrated by the buyer. The escrow on a $2MM unit is $200K. That's a lot of money to tie up for a couple years in litigation (not even counting the legal fees that could accrue) and to potentially lose. If a club doesn't want you, either fight to change the rules or walk away--but don't shoehorn your way into somewhere you don't belong by lying.

Kylewest - totally agree. I would not want to be part of any coop that did not want me "as is," and would never fudge anything on application for a host of reasons, most basic of which I think is that it is simply not in my DNA. Glad t hear it is not SOP in NYC.

Re above requirements-you should also consider how difficult it will be to sell this apt. Buyers who meet these requirementsare few and far, so unless you want to spend the rest of your life there, be careful.

Comment removed.

Is this in Sutton Place?

34 comments

Add your comment

 

Categories:

Rentals (2,722)
Market (1,456)
Neighborhoods (568)
Boards (263)
Renovation (1,728)
Anything (2,340)
Sales (22,806)
Developments (577)
Financing (476)
Schools (102)
Brokers (342)
Services (475)