NYC Area Has Biggest Jump in Foreclosures

It doesn't have any specifics for the city.

Jason isn't very good with numbers or facts.

Just wait. There will be more

This had what I've been forecasting.

is what Poles loose 220 221 whatever it takes

From the way in which the article is written, it sounds like the NY metro area includes not only 718 and 347 but also 201 and probably 516, 914--and beyond.

That's a rather vastly wide range of areas in the real estate world, but I somehow don't think 212, at the VERY core of the metro area, is following the trend the article describes.

Queens? What are we talking Jamaica?

Jason 10006 and Brooks2:

Stop being such idiots.

Read this.

Or if you can't read, just look at the pretty picture on page 3. Specifically note Manhattan, and how grey it is.

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/osdc/rpt13-2011.pdf.

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/osdc/rpt13-2011.pdf

my alias brooks2 is just playing with jason,

there were 2 forclusures in manhattan before, now it's 4, so it's 100% increase, top of the nation

seems, mj, you are the idiot--the article refers to third quarter 2012 and the recent steep increase foreclosures. then you get all tudinal with a piece using data from 2010--says so right in the pretty picture you cite

moronic stone throwing from dumbly built glass house

In our town, we are seeing nothing abnormal in the better sub neighborhoods, but the lower areas more prone to flooding are more at risk, partly due still to the hurricane of 2011 and the laws that require a flood rider with sales.

Interesting document, matsonjones, especially the by-neighborhood stats for rate-per-homeowner rather than rate-per-household, which is pretty useless in renter-heavy NYC.

Some neighborhoods have 30 times the rate of others.

NWT: Agreed - I thought that point was particularly interesting.... I, too, normally would expect the numbers to be based on rate-per-household, but the article made me rethink that supposition.

I found the document of some value with no surprises. And that the data is 2 years old is certainly of concern.

Re the "pretty picture on page three" that mj cited to reinforce his non sequitur, and to help educate those he called idiots, the graphic displays the per-household data. Now,based on NWT's comment, he's "rethink(ing) that supposition". wow....a supposition....sounds really smart!

MJ, maybe you should call off the idiots you directed to said "pretty picture"?

Like I said, seems you're the idiot in this case.

NWT: you're too smart not to have known long ago that foreclosure rates are highly variable within NYC, and highest in outer boroughs and less well-off neighborhoods.

This was old news two years ago when the piece published.

Thanks, I guess, but I hadn't seen the neighborhood and by-homeowner breakdown before.

Not that I follow these things, except for scanning the public notices looking for NY County and neighborhoods that weren't predatory-lender bait.

Maybe DiNapoli will come out with an update in March 2013, so we can see whether ratios have changed.

yikes I can't hear you. Maybe you could use all caps again.

asshat ... hmm, rangersfan?

yikes perhaps went overboard but yes, I and the author of the article clearly said the AREA, not just NYC or Manhattan.

Bottom line. It's not good news for RE in Mamhattan or the NY "metro" area.
If any of yoose guys think this is good news. Keep buying RE in Manhattan lol

jason10006: Now you're being disingenuous. Your inference was clearly pointed at Manhattan specifically, as if your were drawing a conclusion from the article that this foreclosure activity would specifically affect prime Manhattan real estate. And that is both a faulty inference and conclusion.

I've got to think that the effects will be felt in Manhattan, eventually. 1000 days to foreclose is huge, and our free-for-all lending didn't really peak until later than most of the country. Having said that, a lot of distressed owners have been able to sell to all-cash foreign buyers and/or have been eating what they consider to be an acceptable level of negative carrying costs for awhile. But I know a couple of people who live in coops who bought with the requisite amount of cash cushion and no longer have it. And a lot of people bought their coops ages ago, in the 90's some coops were allowing 10% down, others were asking for very little in reserves. A lot, actually, and in terms of the reserves that continued for quite a few coops into the early 2000s. There have been such escalating costs, and a lot of unemployment, so I wouldn't be at all surprised to see an increased level of foreclosures in Manhattan. I haven't been following the comps recently, but if I were I'd be looking at units, particularly coops, in the $1-2 million range, because I have no idea how the hell they're getting mortgages, without private banking and/or huge amounts down.

Sorry, I realize my post is a bit misleading. I don't mean that a lot of coops were allowing 10% down, although we found a few and bought in such a building. But reserve requirements were much lower for a lot of the buildings. And I looked in a huge number of buildings, both coop and condos, from 1995-2004.

come on aboutready, your point of view suggests that the US is and will remain on a downward trajectory without any impetus for improvement. That's simply unAmerican. There are problems, but there are also solutions.

On your specific thoughts,
>And a lot of people bought their coops ages ago, in the 90's some coops were allowing 10% down, others were asking for very little in reserves. A lot, actually, and in terms of the reserves that continued for quite a few coops into the early 2000s. There have been such escalating costs, and a lot of unemployment, so I wouldn't be at all surprised to see an increased level of foreclosures in Manhattan.

You bought in 1999, you put down 10%, your mortgage still has a good deal of amortization, to assume that these folks are running to foreclosure - I don't see it.

bought 1999, 10% down, 13 years later on your 30 year mortgage, you are 25% paid on the equity. No one is stating that prices today are below 1999 ... there is no good reason for a foreclosure.

I should clarify myself ... 10% down, PLUS 25% from amortization (maybe 20%).

wtf? why are you limiting it to 1999? I'm talking about people generally who can't afford their apartments due to loss of income or increased expenses, including massively increasing maintenance fees. a lot of coop owners are not at all wealthy. I think a lot of people unfortunately do not put their homes on the market when they first get into difficulty, and particularly for some coop owners the problem may be compounded. the interesting statistic for me, and it's incomplete but relevant and i haven't heard the numbers recently, is how many homeowners are in arrears on their common charges. i'd love to know the numbers for coop mtc.

wtf, you included in your examples purchases made in the 1990s. If you'd like to pick a different, earlier year in the 1990s as an example, please do.

"And a lot of people bought their coops ages ago, ***in the 90's*** some coops were allowing 10% down, others were asking for very little in reserves. "

***Emphasis mine***

is the subway train to sussex, nj local or is there an express?

"jason10006: Now you're being disingenuous. Your inference was clearly pointed at Manhattan specifically, as if your were drawing a conclusion from the article that this foreclosure activity would specifically affect prime Manhattan real estate. And that is both a faulty inference and conclusion."

No where in this thread have I said Manhattan. TOP says "NYC Area". That is what I typed. You are insane.

uh huh

Jason/Brooks/Yikes/anyone else who has opinion: Any predictions as to what what prices will be for 2/2 in midtown in 5 years compared to where they are today? It is frustrating for potential buyer today who cannot find a well-priced unit. If we end up buying, we are prepared to have no capital gains when we decide to sell, and would even be prepared for a loss up to a certain point because we have such strong preference for controlling our living space. Question is, how much is any such loss likely to be? (10%? 20%). As noted in Phillips Club thread, we were/are prepared to bear 100% loss of capital there. That would not be the case with larger purchase. How much worse do you think it is going to get?

Well, according to brooks2, west67, and others, the average price per square foot for prime Manhattan real estate should/will be $500 psf.

But of course, they've been claiming that for about four years.

MJ - So they are thinking $500 psf will be as low as it will go? That is info I am looking for. I know there are lots of differing views on this; I am just collecting them from every source I can.

HB - I also would love to hear from you on this question to the extent you are willing to share views.

Where's jason?

RE in NYC is expensive no matter what, buying or renting. Will it hit $500? - I'm not exactly sure what this measures and what the figure is today, but somehow I doubt this prediction will come to pass, the normal way or through the "backdoor" http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/25684-w-67s-prediction-come-to-pass-thru-the-backdoor. I believe that those buying today should buy with a prudent amount of leverage and with moderate or zero assumptions about appreciation for the next decade to be conservative.

Thanks HB!

Never said that mj, was just pointing out the instances when w67 was right or close to it

I would agree with the burg

2/2's in midtown east and UES have barely bounced, if at all, from the 2009 lows, while the rest of the city has to varying degrees. And midtown east/UES were hit the hardest of all neighborhood throughout the city.

I think nominal prices for midtown east/UES underperform inflation and the rest of the market--which could include going lower.

If one is considering a buy/sell in these hoods, given transaction costs I predict a loss on any purchase engaged now.

That's because of the amount of inventory. So many high rises. Downtown has lower towers and is less populated.

Don't be a control freak re your living space--i own a house and have owned coops and condos in NYC over the years. I have lived in a decent rental here since a lucky sale in 07, and have found no lack of "control", in fact I may have more control than one might in some coops.

And it's been refreshing to not have concern re my living space beyond superficial decor, etc--i engage interests other than home-related projects during my free time with reckless abandon.

Now re my house, a perfect storm would have it wiped clean of my property this evening, where thew left of the northeast would be untouched. The house is pretty much a teardown which works fine for occasional use, has beautiful water views, but would be a poor investment to rebuild. So i am apathetic with that also and, while there, worry about activities, not house projects.

After owning, renovating many pieces of RE the novelty of projects and control is over for me.

"the rest of the northeast would be left untouched" click and proof!

I'm tellin' ya folkz - all prime Manhattan = $500 psf!

(not)

excellent discussion ??!?!?!?

matsonjones: You need to type more zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

What happened before and what may happen again is a flat Manhattan market in nominal terms but a down market in real, inflation-adjusted returns. What is unlikely to happen is just flat out declines.

I say "might" because Wall Street is permanently shrinking mainly because of Basel 3 and to a lesser extent D-F. Also, interest rates will EVENTUALLY go up. Foreign money can prop up the high end, but not enough.

You just can't see a Manhattan collapse in prices though, because of all the projects, co-ops, and rent controlled units that are not subject really to the market. Not in the same way things would be if everything was market-rate and we had 65% ownership like the country at large.

NYC -area foreclosures, however, do make the comparative cost of moving out of the Isalnd to the boroughs or 'buebs more appealing to US residents.

Yikes - I am working on control freak issues; economics of continuing to rent are very compelling. Hope your house survives the storm.
Also, thanks Brooks2 and Jason10006 for weighing in.

"Take a load off Fanny
take a load for free
take a load off Fanny
and, and,
And
You put the load right on me...." ("The Weight", Levon Helm and The Band)

> What happened before and what may happen again is a flat Manhattan market in nominal terms but a down market in real, inflation-adjusted returns. What is unlikely to happen is just flat out declines.

this is SO FUNNY!!! Kind of like the brainwashing exercise most were practicing during pre-crash times, by repeating over and over: "real estate prices don't go down... at worse they stay flat OMMMMMM"