2 YOY price changes in Manhattan coops

up 15%~20%

From Sep/Oct 2010 to Sept/Oct 2012? That seems much too high... Any data available on this?

If prime means Miller-Samuel's East Side + West Side + Downtown, then:

Average up 10.3% from second-quarter 2010 to second-quarter 2012.

Median down 3%.

The numbers are all over the place, so best just do your own query at http://aggregate-data.millersamuel.com.

> up 15%~20%

Have the ignorant bears returned? Really, 20%

When the numbers are DOWN.

Nice

Sorry, bulls. Dammit.

SE Condo Index -- manhattan market

sep 2010 - 1.880
today -- 1.997
==================
difference = +6.2%

This is a start point. Since the market doesnt exist in a vacuum, you can ask yourself is today's market 6% higher than it was back in Sep 2010? Thats when you look at real time supply/demand trends. Since the condo index is for manhattan as a whole, lets keep the metric consistent

http://www.urbandigs.com/chart.php?s1=Pending+Sales&s2=Active&mindt=09%2F01%2F2010&maxdt=10%2F01%2F2012&Update=Update&t=Market+Trends&interval_mindt=

Since Sept 2010:

Pending Sales is +41.1%
Active Supply is -21.2%

This clearly puts shift in leverage to sell side. I would say today's market is roughly 6%-9% higher than 2yrs ago. The best idea would always let the building sales trends do the talking and analyze the target unit in mind to recent comparable sales in bldg.

there's that broker shill book again. This is a thread about COOPS and he brings up a condo index..

"The decline in average prices reflected improving sales of lower-priced apartments and more sales of co-ops, which tend to sell for less than otherwise comparable condominiums."

or apartments are pricing lower and selling. that is the conclusion I draw.

or u can listen to Brooks answer to your question -- "apts r pricing lower". Thats where prime 1br manhattan coops seem to be trading today versus sep 2010. Also, since Im writing this, Brooks2 will have something to do for the next 3 days, where all I have to do is hit ignore button.

as i said, the best idea is to look at the bldg trend since 2010 once a target unit is identified -- keep everything constant as every bldg in manhattan tends to be its own 'little marketplace'. if u dont have that, the condo index is by far the most accurate and real-time read on Manhattan price action over time. If your asking about market price action since sep 2010 without a target unit identified yet, thats where i would go first.

If you look at reports on median 1br coop trends, there will be too much volatility and you will have a hard time interpreting a worthy trend with walkups, elev only, f/s, and tons of diff buildings combined into 1 report that is more impacted by what kinds of properties close and when and less useful for determining price action.

Well, let's put this in perspective. Even if you want to buy the SE index and it problematic methodology AND leave out most of the market (the parts more likely to be even further down), the number of 1996....

is same level as August 2005.

That's pretty awful.

Median/Avg are way more flawed. But while we r on the topic, the index is also the same level as...

-- March 2007
-- was crossed in between Jan/Feb 2009

We need to know where we r coming from to paint the whole picture. Certainly we r not at peak and certainly todays market is higher than levels in early 2009.

Again, the OP is basically asking for market price action since Sep 2010. Outside of analyzing building sales from late 2010 to recent sales today for a identifyable trend (which is the best way to go if there is sales vol - but OP doesnt seem to have target unit identified), I cant think of a better report to analyze price action since then. Moreover, if you get granular on median/avg price action it will produce very volatile results that wont make sense.

Yup-- Pretty certain there as a reason why you come up gey when I log in. Was not logged in, saw your BS

i cant hear u brooks, your ignored

lol.. funny.. but you read me loud and clear.. or maybe dim and gray..

> Median/Avg are way more flawed.

Not more flawed than a calculation that doesn't actually include what you are trying to measure... co-op prices.

Especially since international buyers have to focus on condos, and that seems to be an important part of that market (at least if you have been listening to the claims of 99.9% of brokers)... and the inventory of new condos definitely did go down for a bit...

Brooks, it's pretty simple: urbandigs presents facts and you presented "apartments are pricing lower and selling" with absolutely nothing to back it up.

"the number of 1996....
is same level as August 2005.
That's pretty awful."

I don't totally disagree with that, but '05 is when things really went a bit nutty in terms of pricing. According to this thing we're 10% off peak. I wouldn't qualify that as "awful" though it's certainly not what some were hoping for when they bought.

"Not more flawed than a calculation that doesn't actually include what you are trying to measure... co-op prices."

Is the thinking that co-ops have been hit harder than condos? That would be interesting.

Hey BJ how about this? Brooks2
about 4 weeks ago
Posts: 2433
http://ycharts.com/indicators/case_shiller_home_price_index_new_york

Case-Shiller Home Price Index: New York, NY is at a current level of 163.19, up from 161.89 last month and down from 166.66 one year ago. This is a change of 0.80% from last month and -2.08% from one year ago

Brooks2
about 4 weeks ago
Posts: 2433
Member since: Aug 2011 Data for this Date Range
June 30, 2012 163.19
May 31, 2012 161.89
April 30, 2012 160.92
March 31, 2012 160.44
Feb. 29, 2012 160.63
Jan. 31, 2012 161.47
Dec. 31, 2011 162.50
Nov. 30, 2011 164.03
Oct. 31, 2011 165.20
Sept. 30, 2011 167.54
Aug. 31, 2011 167.06
July 31, 2011 167.86
June 30, 2011 166.66
May 31, 2011 167.00
April 30, 2011 166.99
March 31, 2011 165.22
Feb. 28, 2011 166.10
Jan. 31, 2011 166.66
Dec. 31, 2010 167.94
Nov. 30, 2010 168.60
Oct. 31, 2010 169.36
Sept. 30, 2010 172.07
Aug. 31, 2010 172.20
July 31, 2010 173.44
June 30, 2010 172.77

May 31, 2010 172.25
April 30, 2010 171.37
March 31, 2010 171.93
Feb. 28, 2010 172.02
Jan. 31, 2010 171.90
Dec. 31, 2009 171.66
Nov. 30, 2009 171.72
Oct. 31, 2009 172.77
Sept. 30, 2009 172.91
Aug. 31, 2009 173.32
July 31, 2009 172.95
June 30, 2009 172.42
May 31, 2009 172.74
April 30, 2009 172.42
March 31, 2009 175.53
Feb. 28, 2009 178.76
Jan. 31, 2009 181.15
Dec. 31, 2008 183.13
Nov. 30, 2008 185.58
Oct. 31, 2008 188.09
Sept. 30, 2008 190.14
Aug. 31, 2008 192.00
July 31, 2008 193.10
June 30, 2008 194.93
May 31, 2008 195.75

Brooks2
about 4 weeks ago
Posts: 2433
Member since: Aug 2011 that was: Case-Shiller Home Price Index: New York, NY Historical Data

and it looks like it is down from 2 years ago too

the market has been stable/rising since Sep 2010, so I dont see how a regression analysis, condo populated index is that far off when it comes to price action.

but again, Ill repeat it for a 3rd time -- its best to have a selected target building where u can track the trend in sales since late 2010. Since we dont have that, Im telling you that any median 1BR co-op only trend for Manhattan would be way more volatile, and less useful, than the price action trend the SE index is showing since late 2010

"I don't totally disagree with that, but '05 is when things really went a bit nutty in terms of pricing. According to this thing we're 10% off peak. I wouldn't qualify that as "awful" though it's certainly not what some were hoping for when they bought."

You are forgetting that we are talking about 7 years. The CPI went up 18% in that time. The real number is more like 25-30% even if that number is right.

"Is the thinking that co-ops have been hit harder than condos? That would be interesting."

Well, it is what the stats say. But the whole "foreign money is propping things up" thing, if true, certainly pushes condos more than co-ops. And the fact that less entered the market, relative to a period of incredible growth (but not as much in condo).

Noticed the same thing with regards to '05. If you look back historically there was a big jump between '04 to '05. In '04 purchases actually made sense from a renti-it-out or buying vs. renting standpoint. If that "resistance level" as they call it in the stock market every gets broken it will be interesting to see what happens

Brooks2, this is surely old news for most regulars here, but the Case-Shiller index has this little problem that sort of applies to NYC:

"The S&P/Case-Shiller indices do not sample sale prices associated with new construction, condominiums, co-ops/apartments, multi-family dwellings, or other properties that cannot be identified as single-family."

"You are forgetting that we are talking about 7 years. The CPI went up 18% in that time. The real number is more like 25-30% even if that number is right."

Not disagreeing there. But as eriegel points out, 2005 is a bit of a cherry-picked year to compare to.

"Well, it is what the stats say. But the whole "foreign money is propping things up" thing, if true, certainly pushes condos more than co-ops."

Agreed.

i would think condos were hit way harder than coops, if only for the ease of getting financing (reachable for more buyers), more leveraging ability (easier requirements for % down), and lack of co-op boards looking out to protect shareholders from rock bottom deals; which happened plenty in early to mid 2009. Condos rose faster and higher towards the peak, and fell faster and harder in 2009, and reflated quicker through 2012.

The only similarity to 2005 in my opinion, got my license in 2004 and started in 2005 by the way, is the lack of inventory. For price action, I think its more like mid 2006 levels -- 10-15% below peak levels or so depending on the product/location/view amenity.

Brooks2
about 8 hours ago
Posts: 2436
Member since: Aug 2011
ignore this person
report abuse
Yup-- Pretty certain there as a reason why you come up gey when I log in. Was not logged in, saw your BS

If you think he's an idiot or an ass, ok, you are entitled to your opinion - certainly I agree with my good friend w67thstreet when he mocked urban's nonsensical "gap up" analysis.
But you have him on ignore - that makes you the idiot and the ass.

It's a strange mix out on the market.
Pick'ins in my sub market of interest are slim.
Asks are aspirational, closes from Q1 and Q2 closed at predictable pricing. Inventory is incredibly unremarkable but the volume of sales from earlier this year have driven confidence in seller pricing. OK, I'll bite....where the hell is all that shadow inventory I couldn't stop talking about 3 years ago?

shadow inventory is easier to carry based on 3% IO mortgages.... the fact sellers can't raise their prices given the 1/3 decrease in mortgage payments is an ABSOLUTE DISASTER FOR SELLERS.

IN A REGULAR MARKET, 1/3 decrease in mortgage payment should be reflected in a 1/3 to 1/5 increase in price.

$1MM PV, 30yr 7% mortgage = $6,653.00

$6,653 pmt, 30yr 3% mortgage => PV of $1,578,026.

The fact the sellers are only eeeking out a sale price of $1MM means the market is SHIT, as opposed to UD's rosy GAP the FK UP bullish POV.

But when I log in as caonima, str33teasier or Al_Assad he's not gray and you are. Go figure

Good point from w67st. The next question is, what happens if mortgage rate goes back to 6 or 7% when the current buyer is ready to sell? If people are having trouble getting mortgages at the current low rates and prices, how can we expect higher prices with higher mortgage rates when current buyers want to sell in 7 or 8 years? A better economy in 7-8 years might mean higher salary that can offset the higher mortgage rate, but not sure it can also also lift prices at the same time. So flat at best?

Sunday, I don't think there's any doubt that rates in the 6-7 range (or higher) will have a significant negative impact on pricing. I just have no confidence the Fed will make that move anytime soon.

agree, sunday that an increase in rates may coincide with a (finally) recovered, thriving economy, such that RE prices might actually go higher, despite the greater finance cost of owning

historically ny re has often done very well in the face of increasing interest rates

all else equal, an increase in rates makes rent/buy even more favorable to renters

jack white and the peacocks--longer, better

"historically ny re has often done very well in the face of increasing interest rates
all else equal, an increase in rates makes rent/buy even more favorable to renters"

Funny, those statements are quite at odds with each other, huh?

Also, new drinking game: every time bottoms says "all else equal," take a shot. Preferably Boone's Farm to match the quality of the post.

Boone's Farm...that brings back memories.
That was the deicer I used on virgins in the late 70's.
The bang for the buck was well worth it.

sadly, falco, ive never been to the flower garden--and given my singular focus, it seems i will be toe-tagged without having visited

ive been to lots of other places, if that counts!

I have no problem with "all else equal" in general. You just apply it willy-nilly and somehow find it to make for good/useful advice. The very definition you posted demonstrates as much: it's useful for scientific inquiry and academic discussions of potential causal relationships. But rather useless for someone looking to make a decision in a moving, active market.

"the first clearly refers to the fact that ny re prices (buy/sell market) have often fared quite well in increasing interest rate environments. simple enough...no?"
"It says quite strictly that, where interest rates rise, and all other variables to the situation remain constant, it is better to be a renter than an owner"

So, in an environment of increasing interest rates, NYC RE does quite well, but it also means renting is way better. Nothing at all incongruous about that.

But you're far more interested in the ad-hominem bullsh!t you spew so easily and claiming I'm "obsessed" or some other weird self-aggrandizing garbage. Makes it easy to distract from the generally poor quality of your posts.

read carefully my words, not yours. my words clearly say what i mean. your words are, largely, dumb.

your obsession is completely obvious to all. you are unable to allow a post of mine to stand without attempting to debunk, often (as in this case) with the dumbest of illogic and porr expression.

troll on!! dumbtroll! enjoy

i've now bored of you, and so won't be providing you with any attention for a while. sorry

bjw, maybe you can get rangersfan to back you up, bore yikes even faster.

"completely obvious to all"

Didn't realize you spoke for (or to) all. I was totally off-base on that self-aggrandizing comment, huh?

"the dumbest of illogic and porr expression."

Priceless stuff. You couldn't make that up. "Porr" bottoms.