"no longer listed" question

All it means is that the broker pulled the listing. Sometimes the property was sold and delisted rather than the broker changing the website to reflect "sold," I believe. Sometimes, it is simply taken off the market for other reasons than being sold--like the seller decided it wasn't a good time to continue trying to sell the unit. With new construction, a lot of games get played and it is very difficult to decipher exactly what is going on from the listing history.

Thanks for the insight. I've been watching this new contraction and had the building saved and I remember when it "entered contract" back last fall. So I scratched my head when it got changed to "no longer listed" and the unit is now no longer listed on the broker's site.

kylewest, just so bobert know how two-faced you are, you say: "With new construction, a lot of games get played and it is very difficult to decipher exactly what is going on from the listing history."

You do like to contradict yourself from one thread to another:

On another thread I said:

"kylewest, the only problem with streeteasy is those listing prices are entered by real-estate agents. Helpful data, but unreliable."

You said:

"What in the world are you talking about? Of course the offer price is listed by the broker--who else would list it? The final sale price is recorded in ACRIS and listed next to the offer price (most often) in the Streeteasy tables. If the listing broker changes the offer price, it will be reflected on street easy as a changed price. If the system is completely gamed and the initial listing is deleted and a "in contract" or "sold" listing replaces it (and I'm not even sure that is possible), then report it to the site manager--they're very responsive. But I've never seen that. Again, what in the world are you going on about now?"

I said:

Kylewest, tenemental, check out every single "in contract" listing for 415 Greenwich. They all follow a pattern:

03/23/2006 Listed in StreetEasy with Douglas Elliman at $3,695,000
04/04/2007 Price increased to $3,775,000
04/17/2007 Listing entered contract
07/24/2007 Price increased to $4,000,000

Initial price $3,695,000.
Listing on 4/17/07
Price increased on 07/24/2007 to $4,000,000, after it had entered contract at $3,775,000.

Real estate agents just take properties off the market and put the back on at different prices to show whatever they want. How naive can you be?"

You said"

"What is impossible about you steve is that you take exceptions and try to turn them into generalities and in the process attempt to dupe the uninformed into believing your grand pronouncements. Here, of the things on Streeteasy you have to sift through to support your Mr. Smarty-Pants "teacher-teacher-pick-on-me-I-have-the-answer" contribution, you site the bizarre Tribeca Summit at 415 Greenwich with all its twisted history and problems. Hardly the norm. Please. You are just exhausting. And you managed yet again, on yet another thread, to completely shift the content which addressed an initial post about tracking a properties prior sales history to some b.s. about offerring prices being changed at a troubled new development. I think what you are doing on these boards really narcissistic and it sucks."

I said:

"kylewest, you asked me a question - "Of course the offer price is listed by the broker--who else would list it?" and then regarding the inaccurate data I had mentioned, you said that you'd "never seen that," so I showed you. Then you say I'm narcissistic?

The fact is, if you look at the "In Contract" listings by Douglas Elliman and Core Marketing, most of them follow the same pattern. Some from Corcoran, as well, which are listed as "in contract" with no "in contract" date but a higher sale price than listing price. It's a fact; I checked, because I was curious to see so many properties going up in value in this market."

You said:

"Core Marketing is a pretty discredited group and Streeteasy has had to deal with abuse of the system by them a number of times--particularly by their (former?) agent Eklund or something--the ex-porno guy. Again, just like citing Tribeca Summit, your citing of Core is hardly pointing to anything representative. And generally, Streeteasy does a pretty good job of tracking properties. If you see outright abuses report it and they'll address it. Whenever I've pointed something out, they not only look into it but also get back to me and let me know how the problem was resolved. Pretty responsible and concerned about the integrity of their business."

I said:

kylewest: "your citing of Core is hardly pointing to anything representative"

And Douglas Elliman? And Corcoran?

And the rest?

No, actually, kylewest, I'm not a bitter renter at all. I'm also an owner. I'm just not stupid enough to listen to real-estate hype when the fundamentals are so out of whack, and buy, as some say, "at any time."

How actually, kylewest, am I distorting things? I tell you that agencies are messing with the data, you pick 1 of the 3 I mentioned, said it was run by a porno-somebody, and failed to comment on the biggest agency in the city, Douglas Elliman, caught doing the same thing, which you then again blame on me: "you site the bizarre Tribeca Summit at 415 Greenwich with all its twisted history and problems."

So what? A lie is a lie. Is a lie is a lie is a lie. And Elliman's brokers do it a lot. And streeteasy isn't catching them, like you claim. You say, "Again, just like citing Tribeca Summit, your citing of Core is hardly pointing to anything representative."

Prove that.

AND YOU ACCUSE ME OF MAKING STUFF UP!

Oh goodness gracious, stevejhx.

:0

stevehjx: How do you know that Elliman listing went to contract at $3.775MM? Of course, it may not have gone to contract at all. But if it did, the price could have been anything. $3.775MM was simply the listing price at the time. As far as I know, sale prices are never disclosed until the deal closes. If it doesn't close, you'll never know.

steve, what would be your take on the new construction listing in my original post? One more thing to add...I am a buyer in the building and when I received a letter stating that the offering plan now is in effect because they went over the 50% in contract point, this unit was the last one to put them over that mark.

W81, I don't, and it doesn't matter for my argument. What I was saying was that the data on this website aren't reliable. By definition you can't have a price increase after it goes into contract. The price increase isn't there, so the data aren't reliable.

Bobert, it could mean anything. The offering plan is simply a filing with the attorney general's office. It's a technical thing, it means that they now have the ability to sell contracted units. They could still rent out the other 50% is they don't sell them, or rent units if people back out. The same type of offering plan effectiveness clause exists in co-op conversions.

I think what steve misapprehends and gets all exercised about is that if a price is gamed on here, it is usually pretty apparent because things start to not add up when you review all info for the site. I am not at all interested in new construction and accept that all sorts of bizarre things happen with those listings. Nowhere are agents sleezier in RE than in the world of new construction in Manhattan. All those condos that are sold out, then have units available, then switch agencies, then claim they are 99% sold out, then post 20 new units for sale... I don't deal with them, I'm not interested in their shoddy construction, 1000% markups for a Subzero, or the nightmare of resale when the tax abatements expire at the same time that the once sparkling new building is getting dog-eared and construction defects emerge in full. In run of the mill coop sales, I find the streeteasy price histories and property histories extremely helpful in painting a historical picture. If the offering price is changed for some reason it really doesn't impact me since I'm more focused on sale price which is all that really matters. That was all I was getting at in this and other posts. As for steve, i've seen people who suffer from OCD and Asperger's syndrome before (it's a kind of autism) and so I understand why he is kind of off. I imagine he isn't a bad guy and his crazy long redundant rapid fire posts all day and night are more a product of what's emerged as a pretty clear problem he can't help.