Co-ops propping up pricing

No.

Are you sure? I heard of some stories where the co-op gave concessions during closing in order to preserve price stability.

Only concession I can imagine is some negotiation on a flip tax, if the coop imposes on.

I love these co-op myths that crop up out of nowhere. Here in a county where a very large percentage of the housing stock is co-ops.

Where there're shareowners following every nickel in and out, can't imagine where the money for a buyer kickback would come from.

kickback would ultimately come from the seller!

That is not happening.

As if a seller would care about maintaining price stability in the co-op they've just sold out of. I just don't see where all the parties who'd have to be involved in such a conspiracy would find it worth their while.

We're not talking about no-money-down house sales out in the boonies, where sellers will pay buyer's closing costs. For this to work would require major money changing hands.

as president of my co-op board i demand that I get to sleep with the wives of all new buyers on the first night in their new apartment.

How is this 'urban myth' not possible?

Buyer negotiates with Seller on price X. Seller agrees, sends proposal to Coop. Coop agrees to proposal, lets Seller sell on condition actual home price X is too low, must add Y to closing price for price stability in building. At closing, price X + Y is closed on with Coop concession of Y, mortgage is on X price, Y never gets added, closing officially closes at X + Y. No monies change hands.

Again, no. No way to get the principals at the closing, let alone their lawyers, the bank's rep, and the managing agent to accede to a misrepresentation of the sale. Does not happen.

Ok, thanks. Just wanted to see if this was a real thing or not.

what does happen, i think, is that the coop board rejects all potential buyers unless the price is "high enough". i had this happen to a friend in a fancy UES coop. the board told him not to bother bringing in applicants below a certain price. the poor sucker is eating the mortgage and maintenance.

lol petrfitz. but beware..you saw how well that went over.

streakeasy - great moniker!

"I heard of some stories where the co-op gave concessions during closing in order to preserve price stability.I heard of some stories where the co-op gave concessions during closing in order to preserve price stability."

Give ONE address or STFU.

wow, 30yrs, never knew how much of a prick you were. This so-called myth should be explained and understood for any buying population. whether or not you feel it is a right is another question. This was not a bash on coops for that matter, rather an understanding of the myth itself.

30yrs, do you happen to have an address?

Ah, the aroma of a cabal...so the co-op gets assessed for let's say 100K, and the former shareholder gets an extra 100k he/she didn't negotiate and the remaining shareholders are indifferent and the buyer's, seller's and lending bank attorneys don't blink an eye at the closing because, whatever;

What color is the sky in your universe?

"what does happen, i think, is that the coop board rejects all potential buyers unless the price is "high enough". i had this happen to a friend in a fancy UES coop. the board told him not to bother bringing in applicants below a certain price."

I call BS on this as well. A "friend" huh? Either this is one of those, "I heard from a friend of a friend of a friend stories" or your friend didn;t want to tell you why they didn;t get the apartment.

I also think this myth has been spread around way too often. Evidence please....

Why would a buyer agree to a 'kickback' from the seller after closing? who would enforce it? doesn't make sense.

"Some years back, an Upper West Side co-op was in receivership due to a mortgage dispute with the building's sponsor. During the same period, the co-op was losing tens of thousands of dollars in revenue from the garage beneath it, which had a 15-year, far-below-market value lease. On a hunch, the board president checked the public estate records of the deceased owner of the building, and found what resembled a kickback. The documents showed the property owner had received $100,000 from the garage owner. It had been recorded as a loan repayment. Coincidently, the garage's first "loan" payment came due the day the lease began."
http://cooperator.com/articles/45/1/Checks-and-Balances/Page1.html