Coop shares effect on value

Maintenance is determined on a cost per share basis, and so are assessments. You annual real estate taxes will be based on shares, as well. The more shares you own, the more expenses you will have to pay. So, to me, having more shares is not always a good thing. If I had my choice of two identical apartments with different shares, I'd grab the one with less shares. That being said, this doesn't sound kosher.

You are correct in that the uppermost floors are typically assigned more shares (albiet not many). As you descend each floor, the shares (and therefore, maintenance) should also decrease. When you say 4% more shares, how many are you talking about? If apartment #1 has 200 shares and apartment #2 has 208 shares (4% difference), both paying $5 per share, they would only be a $40 difference in monthly maintenance. It's a simple formula. If you can't apply that formula to the two apartments you are speaking of and the numbers don't add up, then a mistake appears to have been made somewhere.

My building has one apartment that has the wrong share amount assigned to it. An apartment on the first floor has one extra bedroom, as a result of the lobby configuration. When the sponsors were first creating the offering plan, they thought all the apartments on that line were identically configured. They were not. So, the first floor 1 bedroom, was in reality a 2 bedroom and was assigned two few shares. This was never corrected, and consequently, whoever owns that apartment is getting a true bargain on their maintenance.

The only exception I could think of is perhaps a waterview. I don't know if any apartments facing the East River or Hudson are allocated more shares based on their prime position facing the water. Obviously the ones facing the water are more valuable, but if that value is related to shares in anyway, I don't know.