CORE Marketing Group

Core's handling of The Onyx was sketchy. Search "Onyx" on here to see prior threads. In the past Core agents have seemed to attempt to game the streeteasy listing system by listing and de-listing apartments so price changes wouldn't appear or the listings would appear as new and not age. See what others think. I would not deal with them.

I saw Frederic Eklund on the subway platform today.

More significantly, sketchy = what? If you have something specific to say, say it. On this board, just about anyone can call anyone anything in an unsubstantiated fashion.

I think Corcoran is handling the final sales of Onyx.

They are a very solid firm with very good people.

rvargas = employee
they are a lower tier firm....lsitings seem not to be real...agree with kylwest here
also post FSBO as their listing...my opinion, avoid, go reputabel firms

While Core was representing Onyx they suddenly disappeared from the marketing office on 23rd St leaving it looking like they fled in the middle of the night about a year ago. Odd items were left laying in the empty space to be viewed from the street and a water-stained sign with handwritten notes was taped in the window. It was not classy or professional. The note taped in the window said to hurry because only 3 units remained unsold. Around that time, Core started posting that same pitch on line. See, http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/96744-condo-261-west-28th-street-chelsea-new-york . Despite that representation, many many units appeared on Streeteasy as available. Asked to explain the apparent contradiction, Joseph Bongiovani of Core stated in a post: "Streeteasy is an unreliable source of information." Now, a year later, those 3 units left have become at least 4 according to Corcoran which took over from Core a few weeks back. Core is out and Corcoran is in. The old thread about the project is: http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/2278-onyx-chelsea

So 3 units was actually 4, could be for a number of reasons.
And odd items were left and a water stained sign with handwritten notes was left as well.
I think we should get Andrew Cuomo to investigate this.

How about some substance to a complaint?

Excuse me. 3 units were left LAST summer. Now, nearly a year later 4 new units appear. You feel comfortable concluding they are the same 3 that gave birth to one extra? Right. Core was never honest about sales in the building. Plenty of people reported feeling the rep they dealt with was slick and came across as kind of oily. When asked to explain simple discrepancies, Core reps never could. Instead they attacked Streeteasy. If "a number of reasons" existed, all Core had to do was offer them. They never did. When dealing with the largest purchase of one's life (as buying an apartment is for most people), this group did not instill me with a sense of confidence and professionalism that would make me confortable to deal with them. Look, it was my opinion. Disagree if you like. It's a free country.

One additional unit is left over than what was previously thought.
Some people felt that someone associated with the project was slick and oily.

what else? Anyone spill a drink on a buyer?
Did they forget to sign a thank you card?
Did they tell a prospective buyer that it was ok to park a car on the street by the office after 6 but it was actually after 7 and the prospective buyer got a ticket because he or she didn't look at the sign?
Was there dog poop between the sales office and the development that someone almost stepped in?

I'm waiting for substance.

Is verain waiting for substnce? Why the first person today?

Verain,

I have no dog in this fight, and I know nothing of Core, but I can see why kylewest is saying what he is saying. They are his opinion, and qualified as such. I don't understand your tendentious tone, and they undermine your credibility.

verain, in this case it was just pathetic marketing by core. we were following the situation and it was clear there were more than 3 apts available in the building even though advertisments indicated 3 were left. something as obvious as this was clearly wrong and deceptive for potential buyers. in addition, work stopped on the building for a long period of time. when it did continue it looked like the building was going down the shitter. as for core i dont know if they have an idiot coordinating streams of data into streeteasy but as kylewest mentions, they would literally include apts on the site and then suddenly remove them and then put them back on (20 - 40 apts at a time ). basically this happenned to every building core was involved in. it just seems stupid - why even bother. its not like we dont obsessively follow this information.

kylewest is one of the most credible, experienced, and knowledgeable posters on this board and has been since the talk forum started. His opinion has merit without having to explain anything.

CORE did The Jasper, too, did they not?

Anyone have any comments about them in regard to that project?

Core is more of a marketer of new developments than a traditional realtor, and they do represent some premium properties. They are young, so their brokers are pretty hungry and aggressive. They did a poor job with Onyx which was a sub-par development to begin with (mainly location and construction "issues"), but many other marketing groups also manage the amount of apts listed in a new development to limit supply. The "Only 3 Left" claim was pretty ludicrous and transparent (not to mention dumb on their part), but it seems more like a silly mistake of the Core Onyx reps than the overall Core team.

Just out of curiosity, if you are interested in an apt and it's an exclusive listing, why does the listing agent matter? I would assume you would perform the same level of due diligence regardless of who is representing the seller.

also 125 north 10 in williamsburg

I took neither a positive nor negative point of view on Core.
Kyle had a very negative point of view, backed by very poor fact, and more inuendo.
So your questioning of my position, which was merely a refutation of the quality of his argument, rather than a position about Core of which I have none, itself has no credibility. And I separately note your lack of interest in demanding that any of the original opinions provided be supported by any substance.

I'm still waiting for substance.

As for Lupus - first, pathetic marketing (in your opinion) doesn't make a seller "slick" or "oily." Second, a developer stopping work is a developer's issue. Third, putting up listings and removing them hardly sounds wrong. In fact, it doesn't sound much different than the Duane Reade moving around the aisles.

varain i appreciate you lack of point of view.

maby i need to define the relationship in a clearer fashion. i did not mean to indicate that the developer is "oily". core had some issues which presumably they have addressed with people. my point as mentioned above was that a sales slogan which claims that 3 apts are available when we have full knowledge there are several more than 3 is slightly idiotic and questions the credibility of the people and CORE iteself.

in the case of work stopping yes - as a potential buyer i was concerned with the building and so should the marketer be knowledgable in such aspects. clearly the building had some concerns during construction.

and yes putting up and removing listings is probability not wrong, but it serves no real benefit either. it just looks idiotic and probably not quality of service that CORE is trying to convey.

verain: you claim that you're merely refuting the poor quality of kylewest's argument/ opinion. in fact, the OP was concerned about the ethics of core agents and sought advice about how to handle them, therefore, the honesty, credibility and straightforwardness of these agents is clearly at issue.

1. kylewest's observation relating to their manipulation of the listings by listing and delisting in order to make them appear to not have been on the market too long is clearly an example of a false and misleading practice which supports his opinion that their business practices are "sketchy" and not at all comparable to duane reade moving around the aisles.

2. kylewest's observation relating to core's false reporting of the number of available units 3 instead of the actual four is also an example of inaccurate and misleading information.

3. your information that core has been replaced by corcoran on the onyx project could lead to the inference that the developers were disatisfied with core's services.

based on the above information, i would be wary of dealing directly w/ core agents and if i wanted to buy in a building that they were handling exclusively i would probably get an agent i could trust to look out for my best interest.

Still waiting for something substantive.

Haven't heard of anything illegal or immoral.

Rather blown out of proportion observations - like there were 4 listings instead of 3. Or the developer (not the sales company) had a development problem. Or the developer is now with another firm for the last remaining units (which could be because Core didn't want to handle them anymore, or both decided that Corcoran is best to handle a small number of residual units). Or that they listed and unlisted properties ... what's next, Macy's can't have a sale and lower and then raise prices? The grocery store can't put the milk out with the closest expiration date?

Much ado about nothing.

And you should always get an agent to look out for your best interests. Whether Core or anyone else, they are representing the developer and no one should be under any illusions otherwise.

"what's next, Macy's can't have a sale and lower and then raise prices? The grocery store can't put the milk out with the closest expiration date?"

Pulling a listing only to relist it unchanged for the puropse of erasing it's apparent time on market is plenty immoral.

Immoral? Wow.

Time on the market may be a relevant decision factor of a buyer - I'll leave that up to anyone to decide what is important to them, but time on the market is not in any offering documents, there are no rules regulating time on the market or reporting thereof, let alone rules of thumb to guide what time on the market is a good amount of time on the market.

Is it immoral to release apartments in stages to limit supply and also to test pricing elasticity?

How about if Apple restricts supply with the newest iPod or Microsoft with the XBox?

What about the airlines who raise and lower prices and only make selected amounts of inventory available at any given point?

Transparency of pricing is not a matter of morality, but rather a matter of marketing.

Do you object to marketing? Then what about other marketing tactics? Is it immoral for brokers to bake cookies in an apartment to make it smell nice, when the buyer should well count on the fact that there won't be cookies there every day that they own the apartment?

Think those arguments are silly? Look in the mirror.

And when the broker says "New to market!" when it's 6 months old but they've erased the data, they're lying. Lying = immoral, no?

Baking cookies and manipulating market data are not in the same league.

verain: your comment, "The grocery store can't put the milk out with the closest expiration date?"
sure, however, if the grocer pulls that carton because it's expired then sets it out again for sale, without the date of expiration, i'm pretty sure you'd be upset if you drank it (and probably also sick from food poisoning)... not exactly the same thing, but see how your logic doesn't work?

clearly what they're doing regarding the listing and delisting IS immoral and wrong.

also i think most of the people on streeteasy (such as myself) have found buyer's brokers to be mostly unhelpful and more of a bother but if dealing with unscrupulous agents - it can't help to have someone on the inside... that's all.

verain: your comment, "The grocery store can't put the milk out with the closest expiration date?"
sure, however, if the grocer pulls that carton because it's expired then sets it out again for sale, without the date of expiration, i'm pretty sure you'd be upset if you drank it (and probably also sick from food poisoning)... not exactly the same thing, but see how your logic doesn't work?

clearly what they're doing regarding the listing and delisting IS immoral and wrong.

also i think most of the people on streeteasy (such as myself) have found buyer's brokers to be mostly unhelpful and more of a bother but if dealing with unscrupulous agents - it can't help to have someone on the inside... that's all.

Verain, you set the bar in a pretty odd place if you only take issue with those engaging in immoral and illegal conduct. That attitude is what unfortunately pervades much of the NY RE market and makes dealings so generally distasteful. Yes, verain, we all would avoid people clearly violating the law. But many people prefer to enter into business arrangements with people who behave ethically, honor their word, and who stand by their representations as accurate. Avoiding illegal and immoral actions is not enough. That is likely why the OP asked if Core was ethical--the OP never asked if they were criminals or immoral--whatever that means in the context of RE. Gaming the system blatantly, trying to fool people about anything, or not caring enough to be accurate, that isn't okay. And claiming "but everyone does it" doesn't make it okay. Go ahead and ask others, if after reading your views on this they would choose to do business with you. I'll bet the answer would be a resounding, no. Not because you are immoral or do illegal things--I have no idea about that. But rather because you don't seem to appreciate the role of ethics in fair dealings. The way you minimize and dismiss the problems I described speaks volumes.

In the end, many in business believe that ethical dealing doesn't only mean not crossing the line, but rather it means not even dancing around it. Core at the very least, in the light most favorable to them, was sloppy and careless with the Onyx. My impression was that they were not stupid at all. I felt they knew exactly what they were doing. The conduct I described is unethical and for that reason I responded to the OP.

This tells me everything Kyle: "Core at the very least, in the light most favorable to them, was sloppy and careless with the Onyx."

So you've convicted them because they are sloppy and careless. Nothing more.

And as for NYC08 - listing date or time on the market is not a term of sale. A buyer can feel free to take that into account, but there is no element of contract between the buyer and the seller relating to time on the market. Selling expired milk is illegal and unhealthy.

verain, all those things you state are illegal if done in collusion. So if 3 brokerage firms - Corcoran, Elliman, Halstead - control 67% of the market (which they do) and they control new development releases (which they do), and all decide together to withhold inventory, then yes, it is a violation of antitrust law.

If Apple and all the makers of similar devices get together and decide to raise prices, or withhold inventory, or divide the market, then yes, it is illegal.

Listing, delisting, and relisting would be illegal if there is still a valid listing agreement through the delisted phase.

Listing a property as "sold" when it's not is just as illegal.

Or what Core Marketing does, which is the list their units as sold then raise the price after the property entered contract, is also illegal: you can't list a property at one price, sell it at another, and record it on this website at a third. Check out any of Core Marketing's "In Contract" listings, look under the listing history and see the pattern.

Tenemental, I forgot about you for a minute.

Market data is simply market data. It has no bearing on the terms of the contract between the buyer and the seller. A buyer may want to know the amount of time on the market, but the seller is under no obligation to provide that information, nor would hiding that information be grounds for getting out of a contract for the property between the buyer and the seller.

Steve-
1 - no. First, properties are unique. Second, developers make those decisions, not brokerage firms. Brokerage firms advise developers on best practices for marketing and maximizing value.

Apple doesn't make an iPod similar to anyone else.

Listing, delisting, and relisting isn't illegal in any case under any circumstance. The marketing firm's agreement is with the developer, so your point about a valid listing agreement through the delisted phase is merely a matter for the developer to consider. And if the developer consents there is no issue, certainly no illegality. And if the developer chooses to do this, there also is no illegality.

Listing (on a web site) a property as sold when it is not isn't illegal. That could be unethical (or "immoral" for all you righteous moralists), sure. If they record it with the city, yes, that would be illegal.

And on your what Core Marketing does paragraph: I'll give you that, absolutely. But I'll also point out that your example, presuming true (and I have no reason to know either way), is one of the few actual examples of somethign unethical that anyone has posted on this now 30 string thread. So yes, if you were on earlier and pointed this out, perhaps we some of the others wouldn't have had to resort to calls of "oily" or "slick" as so-called examples of unethical, poor, or questionable activity by Core. And just to be clear, that wouldn't be illegal unless a false instrument were filed with the city.

Verain, properties aren't unique. That's a myth. They are for the most part fungible. Yes you may like one more than another, but at the end of the day they all do the same thing: provide shelter.

As an economist I can tell you that it doesn't matter whether Apple's iPod is similar to an MP3 or any other device. What matters is they all play music, and if all music playing device manufacturers got together and decided to limit the market or raise prices, it would be market manipulation, and illegal. Serius and XM were allowed to combine precisely because their "relevant market," as it's called, is radio, encompassing terrestrial, satellite, digital, and cable radio. Therefore, they may be a monopoly in the satellite radio segment, but not in the radio segment.

If developers make those decisions to limit inventory upon advice of their marketing experts who effectively control a market then that is collusion if those marketing experts advise everyone of the same thing. Unquestionably. The developers are not the ones colluding; the brokerages are.

Regarding "false advertising," see New York State's General Business Law Section 349:

(a) Deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state are hereby declared unlawful.

S 350-a. False advertising. 1. The term "false advertising" means advertising, including labeling, of a commodity, or of the kind, character, terms or conditions of any employment opportunity if such advertising is misleading in a material respect.

I think that's pretty plain: publishing false information about any commodity - that is, a valuable thing - is illegal. If it is false that a listing is "new," then it is illegal to publish it as such. That is in fact something that a buyer needs to know. Listing a property as "sold" when it in fact is not, is false advertising.

Nobody agrees with you verain.

OP here. Thanks for all the feedback on CORE. Actually, one of the properties I was interested in was at 141 Fifth Ave - does anyone know anything about this development? The building has received a lot of press, and it was claimed that by late November 2007 they only had 3 units left out of a total of 38. Yet on Streeteasy there are 18 active sales listings and on even on the CORE website there are currently 10 apartments listed as being available. Furthermore, none of the 11 previous sales on Streeteasy are shown to have closed (there are just lots of up-pointing arrows). So nothing adds up. Did they blatantly lie in stating that they only had 3 units left or did people back out of their contracts en masse? If there are 38 total units, then where are the other 9-20 units? The building is not supposed to finish construction until fall 2008. If they are that untrustworthy, what other claims about their buildings are false? Alternatively, if they screwed up the Onyx and there is any chance that they may lose their exclusive on 141 Fifth to a more reputable company like Corcoran, then perhaps it would be better to just wait for that to happen. We also thought some of their other listings looked attractive, but if they're really FSBOs (as one of the posters stated above) then that is bad news too. Something doesn't seem right about CORE, and I don't know if anyone has any advice about how to get around them to the properties that we might be interested in....

Welcome to the world of Core Marketing. Nice to see they are up to their old tricks. More inadvertent accidents and forgiveable sloppiness, I guess. Sorry--I have no suggestions on how to get around them. I'm not a new construction pro. Others on here know more about new developments. Maybe they can chime in. Good luck.

Having been burned once, I would absolutely, positively, 100% stay away from new development. I bought in Miami Beach in 1999, the plans said 1340 square feet, wound up 1190 when you don't count things that you can't use like the insides of walls, the developer went bankrupt, shoddy construction, the finishes didn't look like the model, they forced me to close (after bankruptcy) in 2005 on a TCO with no shower heads, no toilet seats, no working kitchen, etc., etc.

That said, I made a fortune on the place because I sold it the day before Hurricane Wilma. If I tried to sell today, I could MAYBE get back my initial purchase price, but nothing is selling in Miami Beach.

If the building is there and you can see the rooms and touch them - it's tangible - and can have the property inspected, then fine. Otherwise, it's a huge risk. And remember, if you have a contract and a deposit and something happens to the building, under NYS law you lose your deposit. And being on the other side of bankruptcy ain't pretty: you do everything honestly and in good faith, unknown to you you're dealing with a skank who mismanages the project, hires an untested builder, does all sorts of sweetheart deals to enrich himself, and the bankruptcy court awards him your money. Neat.

Not that all developers are like that - the majority aren't - but why take the chance? I never would again.

Steve: Properties aren't unique. That's a myth. They are for the most part fungible. Yes you may like one more than another, but at the end of the day they all do the same thing: provide shelter.

In which case, given the proportion of existing property to new developments and given the geography of reasonably suitable alternative areas to live, it would be hard to make an antitrust claim.

Steve: As an economist I can tell you that it doesn't matter whether Apple's iPod is similar to an MP3 or any other device. What matters is they all play music, and if all music playing device manufacturers got together and decided to limit the market or raise prices, it would be market manipulation, and illegal.

It doesn't seem to me that an economist is qualified to make these assumptions. This is a matter for antitrust lawyers.

And Apple does limit supply of their own product exactly because it is unique and they can create demand scenarios that are most profitable to them. But that said, there is no one who NEEDS an iPod. Going to be difficult to make your argument.

Steve: If developers make those decisions to limit inventory upon advice of their marketing experts who effectively control a market then that is collusion if those marketing experts advise everyone of the same thing. Unquestionably. The developers are not the ones colluding; the brokerages are.

Except that brokerages marketing new developments in Manhattan include: Corcoran, Elliman, Halstead, Brown Harris, SHVO, Core, Developer's Group, Cantor Pecorella, more ... where was the conspiracy in restraint of trade?

Steve: I think that's pretty plain: publishing false information about any commodity - that is, a valuable thing - is illegal. If it is false that a listing is "new," then it is illegal to publish it as such. That is in fact something that a buyer needs to know. Listing a property as "sold" when it in fact is not, is false advertising.

If a property is listed as sold, then it is not for sale.
If a property is listed as "new" that is different than a listing that is "new". The developments, as they are being newly constructed (and in most cases not even completed at the time of listing) would by definition be new.
What was the deception?

And:
Steve: Regarding "false advertising," see New York State's General Business Law Section 349:

(a) Deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state are hereby declared unlawful.

S 350-a. False advertising. 1. The term "false advertising" means advertising, including labeling, of a commodity, or of the kind, character, terms or conditions of any employment opportunity if such advertising is misleading in a material respect.

Find me the most recent state prosecutions for "false advertising" and then we can have a discussion. Until then, anyone can read out of a law book but that doens't mean you know or understand the law.

Verain, fungibility and antitrust have nothing to do with each other, or "the proportion of existing property to new developments and given the geography of reasonably suitable alternative areas to live." Silver is fungible; the Hunt Brothers tried to corner the market in the 80's. Christie's and Sotheby's were prosecuted for collusion, in a market that is not fungible: rare art. You don't know what you're talking about.

Have you ever been involved in antitrust litigation, mon verain? Well I have, and quite a bit of it. The primary tests for antitrust action are "abuse of a dominant position," "collusion," and "relevant market." The determination of dominant position and relevant market is an economic one, written by economists. Collusion is forensic. The fact is that three firms control 67% of the Manhattan real estate market, making it an oligopoly (by definition). Two firms control half of the Manhattan real estate market: Corcoran and Elliman. It makes collusion easy: three firms with a dominant market position. The legal determination to be made is whether they actively colluded or not. I don't have the answer to that.

I don't understand the middle part of your argument, and the end is nonsense. But just so you know:

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2007/may/may16a_07.html

Cuomo filed suit against Dell on May 16, 2007.

Stop publishing nonsense. Nobody believes you.

I recently dealt with them on a home I was considering buying. They seemed like good marketers of the home, were on time for evening and weekend showings, straightforward in their negotiations, seemed to understand the market and do what it takes to make the sale. I can't speak to what others have experienced in dealing with them, but mine was positive.

Which property owner is hoarding all of NYC property to drive up prices?
None

Which brokerage firm was the discussion about? Core.
Which brokerage firms are you railing about having a monopoly on listings (which seems more a seller issue than a buyer issue?) ... Corcoran, Elliman and Halstead

I have been involved in antitrust litigation and received an FTC subpoena in 1998.

As for nobody believing me ... I've made very few pronouncements - I'm trying to quash foolish postulations by you and others. So there's not much on my account that I'm asking people to believe.

With respect to the Dell suit ... find me the resolution? None yet?

From my limited experience, I think CORE does often make a deliberate attempt to obscure the sales data for the properties they market. This may not necessarily be immoral or even unethical, but they are, at the very least, less than forthcoming. One has think twice before they buy an apartment from someone who is actively trying to prevent you from obtaining information that is relevant to your purchase.

That is a fair and balance statement Bill.

This was about false advertising, verain, which led to market control. Whether the Dell suit has been settled or not is immaterial, and it's not what you asked for. And since you've been involved with antitrust litigation you know that what I'm saying is true.

Who is controlling the market? You haven't proven anyone is controlling any market.

But you have postulated (but not provided evidence) that 3 parties are controlling the market. But still, Core is not one of those who you claim is controlling the market.

And what market ware we talking about anyway? The market for new development listings? In which case the developers have a case. But that isn't proven.

And the non-settlement of the Dell matter is relevant. Charges are not convictions. You were better off bringing up the Valueclick matter. Not that either of them prove your case of false advertising because none of what you have suggested by the developer's sales agents is material in any respect, nor does it for the basis for any elements of the contract between the developer and the buyer.

The thread did seem to shift from the questionable ethics of a single brokerage to the ethics of brokers in general to firm legal definitions (which I never mentioned but seemed to be brought up when the ethics argument was failing) back to questionable behavior which may or may not be unethical.

I agree that billshiers post was a worthwhile addition to the discussion. If the brokerage pulls listings and relists in a vacuum (ie there is no discussion of time on market w/ potential buyers), then I can see how that would be considered "marketing," however distasteful. But, in the real world, where so many brokers lie about whatever they can, this will likely be accompanied by a statement like "New to market!", which is a lie. It what field is lying ethical/moral?

Obvious lies regarding things that are subjective, "charming" when charmless, "great block" despite nearby projects, "loft-like" because there's no bedroom, etc., etc., are one thing, but misstatements of facts are another.

verain, you said, "Find me the most recent state prosecutions for "false advertising" and then we can have a discussion."

I did - it is a criminal and civil prosecution that's not yet settled. In case you don't know, courts are slow.

I never accused anyone of anything, and I never said there was collusion. I specifically stated I didn't know.

Regarding market control, the figure is based on the number of listings that each brokerage currently has, divided by the total number of listings available. It's not 100% accurate, but close. And I didn't claim that Core controlled the market. I said "if" there was collusion. It's not up to me to prove that - we are simply discussing hypotheticals.

Wow!

That is a fair observation Tenemental.

New to market may indice someone to visit a property, but is hardly a major factor of consideration. Certainly it isn't even a part of the contract between the buyer and seller.

And despite Steve not understanding what I was saying, how can new to market, new listing, etc. be at all relevant in a new development that is being marketed prior to the completion of construction. A buyer needs just to visit a sales office or development site to see that a property isn't yet completed and is therefore new. Or pre-new.

Though to be clear, Verain (as much as I hate risking the currently gentlemanly exchange while blood is being shed on other threads), I do think time on market is important for the buyer to determine demand when planning negotiations. Even in the case of new development, the rate at which units (regardless of whether or not they actually exist) enter contract will tell you a) how likely the developer will be willing to negotiate b) how likely the unit will hold it's value during the period between contract and closing (many outer borough buyers, not to mention purchasers at The Charleston, have been badly hurt in this regard). If time on market is long enough (a property where sales have stalled), I would definitely consider it a major factor of consideration. It does seem that it is not illegal, as it isn't, as you noted, part of the contract between the buyer and seller, but as soon as misstatements are made to buyers, it becomes unethical.

Steve - you don't know but yet you spew such vitriol over these parties?

And you didn't make a claim on Core? Well, wasn't this whole thread about Core?

verain, get real - you're as bad as the rest.

You said, "Haven't heard of anything illegal or immoral."

I said, "verain, all those things you state are illegal if done in collusion. So if 3 brokerage firms - Corcoran, Elliman, Halstead - control 67% of the market (which they do) and they control new development releases (which they do), and all decide together to withhold inventory, then yes, it is a violation of antitrust law."

I was merely answering your question. How could I possibly accuse someone of an illegal act without knowing the facts?

The claim I made on Core is this: "Or what Core Marketing does, which is the list their units as sold then raise the price after the property entered contract, is also illegal: you can't list a property at one price, sell it at another, and record it on this website at a third. Check out any of Core Marketing's "In Contract" listings, look under the listing history and see the pattern."

To which you answered, "But I'll also point out that your example, presuming true (and I have no reason to know either way), is one of the few actual examples of somethign unethical that anyone has posted on this now 30 string thread."

There is no vitriol. I made no accusations. I merely pointed out fact after fact after fact, all of which you don't feel like admitting are true.

Haven't heard of anything illegal or immoral related to Core. CORE CORE CORE. This discussion was about Core.

Not that I've heard anything illegal related to Halstead, Elliman or Corcoran either. I haven't heard anything about collusion. Or even of their power of collusion, given that, in fact, there are guys like Core out there who are successful.

The brokerage firms are merely brokerage firms, they are not the developers who are creating and selling the properties. And the brokerage firms have the relationships with the developers, not the buyer. Sothebys and Christies were found to have colluded on fees to the seller. Is your whole case about trying to protect the sellers?

If the developers made no new development, would someone be doing something illegal? You have stated that a new development is no different than an existing property ... they all provide shelter.

I can record anything I want on a web site. How is that illegal? Its not recorded improperly with the city. In fact, I just made up this name out of thin air within the past two weeks. Is that illegal?

And if you haven't made accusations, you've certainly made strong inuendo about collusion and illegal activity. Why would you mention illegalities if there are no illegalities.

False advertising - we've been though that before.

I made NO innuendo about collusion or illegal activity. I gave a hypothetical answer, but I'm not going to go through it anymore.

Alright then, very little of concern over Core.

verain, you certainly feel that way, but seems like the rest of us dont since we do have something to be conerned about. the point of the post was to ask for this information, several of us have provided opinion. i dont think it was intended for you then to validate this opinion. even though i appreciate some of your comments.

Did anyone come up with a specific example of a situation where a buyer was cheated/defrauded/etc? What should we be looking out for?

I don't know what you are looking for here beyond what has been said. There isn't a magic answer. I and others have felt uncomfortable with Core's overall attitude and approach. Having read the above, you get the idea. So now, go in with your eyes open and with healthy skepticism--as you would in any deal reall--and be sure to have a very good attorney to conduct due diligence and explain things to you--not a hack who only knows how to turn a crank and make a closing come out. Have all the fine print explained and ask what kind of clauses that might protect your interests have not been included in the contract of sale. Rely on YOUR attorney for these explanations or confirmation of what CORE says. With people having sounded the warning that yellow flags should be waiving, simply raise your level of wariness.

As for whether you 'need' an agent to negotiate, of course not... unless you are uncomfortable negotiating on your own behalf or have a strategy that you think would benefit from using an intermediary.

Shaun Osher and Tom Postillo from Core totally misled me regarding 141 Fifth. They also represented 260 park avenue south when they were still employed by Douglas Elliman. They lie and stretch the truth to their benefit and when challenged they take no responsibility and point fingers as others. buyers beware and do not trust them.

Can you please give specifics on this? They misled you how? And how did their misleading you cause you harm?
260 PAS you bring up in what specific context?

Thanks

at 260 PAS they told me a unit that i was going to buy in the rear of the building was going to clear the building across the courtyard. in fact, not only was this not the case but I was staring right into a neighbors apartment less than 40 feet away. luckily the market was very strong at the time and i was able to sell the unit before i moved into it. As for 141 Fifth, they pre-marketed the building to me prior to the release of the offering plan. they offered me a "friends and family" discount and told me on the day that the units were released, i would have the ability to going into contract on a pre-determined price. Well, I was ready to give a deposit and at the last possible minute they raised the price by over $700,000 and told me that there was strong interest in the building so they revised their original price. So much for "friends and family".

frederic12, did you have the sense that the units at 141 Fifth would NOT be as advertised (i.e., finishes etc)? Perhaps they'll lose the listing and the price will come back down after they complete construction. After all, there are a minimum of 10 apartments still available....

Amity95, I think the finishes would be the same as I saw the model apartment. Didn't know there were so many apartments still available.

Yes, if you look on streeteasy there are 8 active listings, and 10 in contract - not sure if that means the other 20 apartments are not even released yet. Streeteasy records price increases on 8 apartments on 12/27/08, but no closings at all: http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/building/141-fifth-avenue-new_york. Even if you look on CORE's own website, there are 10 apartments listed as available: http://coregroupnyc.com/listings,18,130558.html.

So Frederic, you are a real estate flipper?

matthecat, no I am not a real estate flipper.

Funny, we started with much complaining about Core without anything specific, then we moved on to Steve who has some specific complaints but nothing meaningful and more a tendency just to be bitter about the real estate industry for some reason with all sorts of wild claims like antitrust pertaining to parties who weren't even part of this discussion, and then finally we get Frederic who actually had a real issue, but instead of taking a bath on his problem he made it someone else's problem.
Great.

Verain, I was misled, I purchased an apartment off-plan and did not have the opportunity to look at the views prior to signing a contract. the couple that purchased the apartment from me were able to see the physical apartment and form their own opinions based on fact before signing a contract.

any thoughts on shvo?

So Frederic, basically Core sold you an asset that appreciated. No harm, no foul?

"So Frederic, basically Core sold you an asset that appreciated. No harm, no foul?"

That was also materially different from the asset they represented they were selling. I imagine Frederic suffered quite a bit of harm when he realized this. Appreciation has nothing to do with it.

What was the harm? Mental?

By the way, 260 was a conversion, how could Frederic have been hoodwinked about the view? Maybe the blinders were on for a flipper in a rising market? See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

"What was the harm? Mental?"

Partly, but just because Frederic's apartment appreciated in value doesn't mean that there isn't any financial harm. When he moved in and realized that he didn't like the apartment because it didn't match the description of the brokers, he sold the apartment and, if he purchased another place, had to pay additional closing costs that he would not have if the apartment was as described. In addition, Frederic probably ascribed a certain value to the property. When he moved in, he realized that it had a different value. So, based on an inaccurate description of the property, Frederic paid for features that the apartment did not have. If Frederic's story is true, I think this would be a significant ethical breach by the brokers, regardless of the fact that Frederic may not have actually lost money on the deal.

verain, you seem extremely invested in defending CORE by undermining those who have reported bad experiences with CORE. You are sounding suspiciously like someone who works for CORE....

verain, yes 260 was a conversion; however, the interior courtyard of the building was expanded to create additional apartments. I was unable to view my apartment until almost a year after i signed a contract. to my surprise, the view which was explained to me by Shaun Osher (Core) would be "open sky" turned out to be facing essentially a brick wall from all angles. This is how I was "hoodwinked" about the view.

caveat emptor

Was the "open sky" view in the offering plan?

Lying seems like fair game ... buyer should be ware and only rely on the specific claims, representations and warranties in the legal document. Anything else, statements from salespeople, etc. are meaningless and it truly is shame on the buyer.

-ps - Amity, I'm for openness.
What we have here are a lot of people complaining non-specifically about Core, or without being clear on who they are or what their own intentions were when dealing with Core or buying real estate.

Me thinks that there is a lot of hypocrisy by these accusers.

I have no relationship to Core, or any brokerage or sales firm, or any real estate developer, or any owner of a multi-unit rental property, etc.. When I say relationship, I mean direct relationship, one-degree of separation, or two-degrees of separation (beyond that I have no idea). I also do not have a property on the market, and have no way to benefit or be hurt by my statements about any firm, any developer, or any property.

I merely think real estate is interesting, and like calling people out for their own bullshit. Of which there is plenty here.

frederic12 had a very specific claim: Core brokers lied to him. Totally in keeping with the topic of the thread. Their lie was about a specific feature of the unit, not about a subjective impression. Do all Core brokers behave that way? I have no idea, but frederic12's experience in worth keeping in mind for Amity95.

Calling bullshit on brokers is one of StreetEasy's greatest functions.

Verain - "lying seems like fair game"?? What the hell kind of comment is that? Brokers make a very decent commission on these sales and no, lying is NOT fair game. Especially with something as integral to a purchase as a view. Personally, I would have sued the guy for misrepresentation and bashed his firm along the way. Further, any broker who adopts that kind of business ethic will not last long in the upscale markets. New Yorker's are far too savvy to allow guys that that to exist.

I looked at 125 North 10th Street. The brokers there couldn't have been nicer.

Stealth1, you would have lost your lawsuit, if you could have found any attorney silly enough to litigate it.

tenemental - Frederic's claim is silly. He was buying something for over $1 million, and he didn't even diligence core aspects of the purchase? He then went ahead, hired a lawyer who went through the contract, and knew full well that there was no specific claim or representation to the effect of the statements by Core.

I'm not saying the buyer shouldn't beware or shouldn't perform due diligence - he should and should. That doesn't change tha fact that the brokers lied about the unit. If the question is "can broker X be trusted?" when broker X is known to missrepresent facts, the answer is no, regardless of the fact that reasearch on the part of the buyer and his lawyer should be performed.

I am afraid verain is a troll. I wish he was a CORE broker -- that would be a more rational explanation for his posts. But given his disavowals of a CORE relationship, I see no other rational basis to his posts. As with all trolls, best to ignore. Res ipsa loquitur.

I agree it's best to ignore verain, but I don't believe his disavowals of a CORE relationship. I think he is probably one of the CORE founders or someone else deeply invested in CORE. The fact that he openly states that "lying seems like fair game" makes it very likely that he is lying about his lack of a relationship with CORE. I think it would be best to group him with shong, closein10days, SteveF and others on this site who come off as being sleazy and untrustworthy. Furthermore, I had hoped that CORE might have some smidgen of integrity, but now I feel that CORE is probably best placed in the same category as Countrywide in terms of businesses that should be avoided at all costs. It is unfortunate, but it seems that CORE is a group that cannot be trusted at all.

If Verain is associated with CORE then it confirms my belief that he is incredibly stupid. He has just exposed the firm for what it is, on a Board that a majority of purchasers in the NY market visit every day. What a horse's ass.

Anonymous people calling other people liars amuses me.

Popomobile, I am certain that you would not be so amused if it was you who was lied to about a view on new construction. Doesn't get any worse than that.

I don't think Amity95 could have gotten a better answer to his question.

Methinks Popomobile = verain with a new screen name.

What qualifies me as a troll vs. any other poster here?
My points are fourfold:
1 - I don't believe that the responsibility is solely on the broker / seller. I believe that buyers need to do their own diligence, and hire their own lawyers to carefuly review contracts. They should put promises in contracts. In absence of being able to do that, they should steer clear of buying pre-construction. Plenty of quality property exists in the market that isn't pre-construction. The risks are significantly higher and if you do sloppy buying, sloppy legal contracting, it should be the buyer's fault. And since it is pre-construction, the buyer should have KNOWN to be smarter about his actions. In fact, they are giving you a discount to buy early, in hopes that you won't ask all the questions. Yes, lying is fair game. And when I show up at your brokerage / sales office, I'm expecting you to be a liar, regardless if you are or aren't, regardless if you are Core or Corcoran (see above) and so I'm going to check out the details, check out the contract, etc. __before I spend my money__.... and not to make such a long point, when I show up to buy pre-construction at a discount, I'm assuming there is a price to pay for the discount.
2 - The posters here, with their claims which started out just plain whiney (Core said there were three listings but there were acutally four; they are oily or slick or sketchy, they had a water stained sign in their office) have few concrete claims. The only one that was meaningful was Frederic, but then he dumped it on someone else. The buying was done in a rising frenzy market (I believe 260 PAS was done in 2005?), where facts seemed to hardly matter, and the risks if the facts didn't work out were minimal because he could dump the property on someone else after he bought it at a discount. Seems like part of his bargain.
3 - Lots of further obfuscation for who knows what reason. We had a whole segment of this thread about a complaint about the brokerage industry hoarding property. Just plain silly. And then when pressed, the brokerage industry who was acting illegally included three names NOT INCLUDING Core, who is an upstart and is probably a thorn in those 3 guys' sides.
4 - Poppmobile (who is not me) is exactly on target. This is an anonymous board. No one knows who I am ... few seem to believe that I'm not associated with Core (I say again I am not, but regardless of what is true about me or not, my points remain valid regardless). But all these guys complaining about Core - tell us who you actually are? Do you work for a competitor? etc. Are you upset that you lost a development to Core and are trying to sully their reputation? Where are you coming from - show us who you are and then you can legitimately call Core or anyone else a liar. But don't do it hidden.

Thanks

After 90+ posts little new is being said here. Fair to say the bottom line appears to be general consensus that Core either actively misleads or is cavalier or indifferent to the truth and accuracy. And for verrain and other IDs on here, his point seems to be anyone relying on Core's representations deserves what they get. Nice. Sounds like a company you just can't wait to do business with, huh? So nearly 100 posts later, we end where we began. Be wary of this company.

Verain: i have a good friend that reminds me of you. he's a total douche that never makes a clear point about anything, but he totally thinks he's on top of arguments and thinking logically about everything, and in the end, everyone just sorta gives up on him because he's annoying and so beyond logic.

now, with that said, can someone help a newbie? i'm currently looking at the Jasper, which is by Core. everyone i've met there has been nice and cordial. and in the end, i think i'm gonna buy there. but can someone tell me why, if i like a place, that i should have second thoughts because of this supposed shadiness of Core? ........ now i'm not denying that they may be shady, i'm just asking whether if they were in fact shady, that should change my decision on a place that i happen to like.

make sure anything you ask is answered in writing.

yes it's been going back and forth via email. and we have a contract out, where some terms are being added as "riders". my attorney says it all looks legit. i'm just wondering why sales have slowed there a bit.

So Luciato, your good friend is a douche because he can't make a clear point.
Let's take a look at you: you've managed to read, as Kyle counted, 90+ posts, so subtract mine and you have say 70-80 posts all about Core. Yet you still have no conclusion on your own about whether you want to deal with Core. Good luck.

luciato, what would your response be if your good friend is presented with ambiguity and inconclusive data in an untimely manner over a long period of time?

Soon jmcbyr8 will be accused of being me or shilling for me.

But jmcbyr is exactly right - lots of ambiguity on this thread, vague, unsubstantiated, or foolish accusations, as well as questionable motives, and buyers who want to place all blame on the sellers when they should know the risks and are part of the problem by buying blind.

I'm not saying Core is honest or dishonest - I haven't had dealings with them - I know who they are as an observer of the Manhattan residential RE market. But, EYES WIDE OPEN, buyer beware when dealing with any real estate purchase from any firm, and then, if you've done your homework, had the right advice, made sure the contract said what you wanted, and you yourself have acted rationally and honestly and are reasonable with your own intentions (e.g. flippers are in the same game as the developers, seller agents and brokers to begin with, all trying to make a fast buck by asking as few questions as possible as long as the going is good and tides are rising), then you can go and call someone out if they have acted out of bounds.

Verain: whatever dude. i didn't actually read all of the posts. that's the point, this stuff just tends to be blah blah blah uninformative b.s. for the most part. i really do have better things to do than sit and post a million times on a silly board to defend my good name. :) p.s. my good friend (bless his heart) doesn't have the critical thinking skills to tell the difference between "ambiguity and inconclusive data" and anything that were more concrete. the worst part is that he *thinks* he does. whatever. you can post back, but i'm done.

back to my original question: can someone help a newbie? i'm currently looking at the Jasper, which is by Core. everyone i've met there has been nice and cordial. and in the end, i think i'm gonna buy there. but can someone tell me why, if i like a place, that i should have second thoughts because of this supposed shadiness of Core? ........ now i'm not denying that they may be shady or not, i'm just asking whether if they were in fact shady, that should change my decision on a place that i happen to like.

Whatever dude, I'm out. Not talking to douches like you anymore about other shady douches. Its just all just too much detail when I'm spending big $ and committing to a place to live for the next few years. I have a headache. Whatever.