Question for Brokers by a newbie

Mack...what is the current competition(comparables) listing at?

Delusion?

: ) Squid, I considered that. But I refused to categorize it as a *valid* reason.

Any chance the current owners bought at a substantial discount from a friend, family, etc.? Or it's address is 15 CPW.

Starfish, neither. It was new construction and this is the first resale.

SteveF: Everything else (in the country) is down.

Celebrity-owned and hoping to sell to star#$@%er?

Alas, no, Malthus.

OK, the lack of any valid point is a good indicator that the seller is not the least bit motivated to sell then, right?

I am not a broker and wouldn't call it a valid reason but just a reason would be to cover the interest only mortgage they took along with second mortgage that covered the down payment and the costs they incurred for lawyers,taxes, and fees on the purchase along with costs (broker fee,prepayment penalties,etc.) for the now sale.

Because that's what it's worth.

how about this.
Maybe the owner is so sure that this property is so special that if you visit it you will see the value also and pay the increase. We all know this is not going to happen and in a few short weeks so will te seller. Then it's get serious time. Do they stay or sell for what the market will bare (bear!).
if you like the place put it on your save list and keep looking. You just never know.

Case in point, an apartment building I considered before the crash which thank god they were "too busy" to return a phone call for me to schedule a viewing.
The A building on the 13th and 1st ave. Not my neighborhood of choice and yes I read the amusing tales of degenerate poolside parties in the building but the apartment fit what I was looking for.

421 east 13th st PHD (2/3 year old building)
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/463240-condo-425-east-13th-street-east-village-new-york
StreetEasy History
03/27/2008Previous Sale recorded for $(insiders only)
09/16/2009Listed in StreetEasy by Corcoran at $2,350,000

Purchased in March '08 for 2,050,000.
1280 square feet interior and around 350 sqare feet exterior.

Has 2 mortgages totaling 1,598,000, and after expenses paid closer to 2,100,000.
If sells with no hitches, a broker's 6% fee on $2,350,000 equals $141,000.

Unfortunately, this seller will be lucky to get 1,600,000 for this apartment now.

You'll find many new construction buyers from 2 years ago will fall into denial about their stupidity on their market timing. And in the end like always, only the ones that "have to" sell will sell.

"Starfish, neither. It was new construction and this is the first resale."

Mack123, above is your answer, and, frankly, the only one that makes sense. This person may have purchased at the "insider" price when the OM first was released in, say, early 2005. That means that the price would have been set below 05 levels to draw early buyers (otherwise you go out and buy a mkt rate apt in 2005, w/o the risk of construction, the future etc). So, the listed sale price in 07 actually could reflect an under mkt deal for 2005. This happens all the time and generally is the reason you can find a lot of listings on SE that show sales in 2009 well above closing prices in 2007. In fact, the disparity could be even wider than many because 05 to 07 saw a huge run up at the end of the bubble. For example, say I paid 1.5mm in 05 (when for arguments sake it was worth 1.7 finished). By 07 when I close the same apt is going for 2mm but my closing price shows 1.5mm. I sell now for 1.6, which is 20% less than the 07 "mkt value" but still 100k over my 07 closing price.

Could this apt be a sponsor unit?

I have a listing just like that: http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/466965-coop-435-east-65th-street-lenox-hill-new-york
The reason for the significantly higher price is that it was initially purchased from sponsor in estate condition. It needed everything from floors to sub-floor, kitchen, bath, etc...Sometimes that is why you see an increase vs. 2007.

nyf: you missed the OP's "assuming it is not related to renovations"

>>Could this apt be a sponsor unit?<<

Huh?

Thanks all for your thoughts

mktmaker- I think maybe you're on to something. I'll have to see if I can find out more about the building's original sales.

Squid: What I was thinking was, could this apt have been owned by the initial developer, used as a rental and now relisted?