Newport East at 370 East 76th Street

thanks

They are for investment only so unless you have money and lots of time, few will be able to "buy and hold".

I clicked into look at these listings for the first time as I was curious, although it comes up on the search all the time (how can you do the search so that these investment only sales won't come up? Anyways,) so if it's an "investment only" and you have low income tenants in place, how long do you have to wait till you ask them to leave and move in yourself? or is it never? Why would anyone do this deal if you only get paid $2,000 in rent while your outlay is $4,000+? is it soleyly for the price appreciation?

Sorry this is the link. the ones I've looked at says "Investment only"

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/building/370-east-76-street-manhattan

jjun, when an apartment-building owner converts the building to a condo or (in this case) a co-op, some tenants will choose not to buy their apartments. If it's a non-eviction plan, those tenants can stay in place as tenants of the sponsor (or the sponsor's successor, a holder of unsold shares) as long as they could have had the building remained a rental. Typically, as those tenants leave or die, the sponsor sells their apartments. That could happen decades after the conversion. Those periodic sales make up for the monthly shortfall. This seller says the block of apartments is "cash-flow positive". That means the total rent roll is more than the maintenance, but they're not saying how much more.

The docs referred to in the ad will detail the rent roll, giving the rent paid and status (controlled, stabilized, market) of each apartment.

The tenants aren't "low-income" per se; they simply chose not to buy.

See also http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/12361-why-buy-an-apt-wrent-controlled-tenant

thanks, very helpful

BTW, just came across a stash of offering-plan amendments at www.midboro.com. Not really amendments, but more a reporting requirement re: the status of the sponsor. Was surprised at how many sponsors were cash-flow-positive as far as rents-maintenance went. (Maybe not when they add in management costs, etc.) Suggests that RS rents tend closer to market than I'd assumed.

I think that these are 'cash flow positive' because the sponsor is assuming that the apts will be purchased for all cash(ie no mortgage). With any mortgage, these will be under water big time. These have significantly less than a 5% cap rate.