Strong sale and rental activity in established prime condos too

This is just too easy.

2-bedroom at The Sierra:

http://www.nybits.com/apartmentlistings/95633b0a9ec933570fc154325d2fdc26.html

asking: $7,795.

They can ask what they want.

$9980 - $966 common - $915RE Tax (*50% for tax deduction) = $8566

What math is this? Asking Rent * Fudge Factor = I Proved My Point

This is helpful to post as a comparison.

For $9980 your opportunity is in an owner-occupied condominium vs. in a rental building with greater transience and lower quality of neighbor.

You also have in this particular apartment listed in the condominium beautiful finishes, kitchen, bathroom vs. rental type finishes (as you can see the closet doors in the Related building show the lower quality).

The condo is also a duplex, better layout, has unobstructed SOUTHERN views.

Generally it quite clearly shows that the condo rental is underpriced and the Related is overpriced, plus it is a rental building.

"lower quality of neighbor"

LMAO.

"rental type finishes"

Go into the Sierra and get back to me. Marble everything.

"duplex"

Generally less desirable.

"Related is overpriced."

Actually, it's rent stabilized.

"the condo rental is underpriced"

40x $9,980 = $399,400 annual income to pay the rent.

LMAO.

Monthly payment 30-year 80/20 mortgage 7.5% = $11,159 + $966 + $915 = $13,040 --> net cash-flow basis loss of $3,000 per month IF he gets his ridiculous price. Likely loss of $5,000 per month, $60,000 per year.

Oh, I forgot! The tax deduction!

Hi Steve, I don't know LMAO if that is a term of art in real estate.

Anyway, the owner building that just sold at a very impressive $1400 psf in an estabished building pretty much tells you that this is a much more high quality apartment than the Sierra apartment you showed. The apartment is a high ceiling true duplex, big southern facing windows with a great view, great customer owner-chosen finishes, and in a building that is owner occupied. Surely you've seen some of the rental buildings, even the better ones like Related (they aren't rent stabilized, and certainly not at the prices you are talking about!) and the finishes can't compare and the people are of slightly a different class.

With respect to $10K per month, yes, you would need to make a hefty salary, and the owner of the apartment isn't going to rent out that apartment for someone even making $200K per year, so $400K or $500K per year is appropriate for what we are talking about.

Lastly, there wouldn't be a tax deduction in this circumstance or in the Sierra rental either.

"(they aren't rent stabilized, and certainly not at the prices you are talking about!)"

Yes they are. It's an 80/20 building, with stabilization lasting for 15-20 years, depending on the building. The rents reset to market rate upon vacancy, and stabilization increases apply thereafter.

"pretty much tells you that this is a much more high quality apartment than the Sierra apartment you showed."

No it doesn't. It shows he overpaid. 5 years ago the property would have sold for $700 psf. Real estate has never, ever increased at that rate ever in the history of the world anywhere and stayed, nor is it sustainable here.

"there wouldn't be a tax deduction"

The owner would get one on a portion of the mortgage and on that hefty $60,000 loss that he incurs every year.

The Related Rental doesn't look nearly as nice as the 22 West 15th Street. The condo is also bigger at 1400 square feet, and has a better layout.

I think most people know that renting doesn't get you a tax deduction, so that argument is a wash between both buildings, even if the rental is rent stabilized where only the Related company owner gets a tax deduction.

I don't see what the issue is.

"oesn't look nearly as nice as the 22 West 15th Street."

That's in the eye of the beholder.

"I think most people know that renting doesn't get you a tax deduction."

Yes, the tax deduction. You can get a tax deduction if you lose your wallet, as well. Do the math for me including the "tax deduction" at the taxpayers' likely marginal tax rate, include the value of investing the principal in the S&P 500, do it for more than one year as the "tax benefit" depletes and the value of an investment accretes, and get back to me.

Hi, I do rental brokerage in the city and believe me there is no tax deduction for renting either of those apartments.

Please contact me if I can help you with any high end rental.

Thank you

"I do rental brokerage in the city and believe me there is no tax deduction for renting either of those apartments."

The tax deduction is for the person owning the apartment, on the $60,000 he will lose on a cash-flow basis every year.

No need to pay a rental brokerage fee. nybits.com is no-fee rentals, of which there are oodles right now.

No fee rental buildings are generally not as attractive. I agree that the Grosvenor House is much better than the Sierra.
But you were comparing the two rentals and then throwing in the tax deduction into that comparison which doesn't exist for either.

This a strange thread. I'm not sure what the point of the initial post was and I'm not sure what the point of Steve's initial response was and his reference to the Sierra. I live in the Sierra. In fact I live in that very same layout except I also have a big terrace. I like the building don't get me wrong. Its nice and well run. Re the "all marble" comment. The Sierra finishes are fine. The bathrooms and Kitchen are nice enough, hardly luxurious. The floors are weak, the ceilings low. Regarding the people. the people are nice. Are they a lower quality of neighbor? Well that depends in what you want in a neighbor. Re the rent stabilized point. It is but I'm not sure why thats important. Its still a very expensive building.

Not sure what you mean debgarcia: "No fee rental buildings are generally not as attractive." That's a pretty broad statement. See, for example, 24 Fifth Ave. Pre-war, prime address, outstanding building with smart layouts and full service. And no fee rentals. This is a decent building to use for rent vs. buy comparisons in the central Village area.

Kylewest, I think debgarcia probably means that "no fee rental buildings are generally not as attractive" FOR THE BROKER. I find it hilarious that someone that supposedly specializes in high end rentals could make such a comically stupid statement. But DaBulls still wins the idiot award with the "lower quality of neighbor" in rental buildings comment.

Agree Goldie, for young people certainly there is no difference with rental neighbors.

I think for families, generally they wouldn't be interested in living in a building with higher turnover than in an owner-occupied building. Families, people with stability, etc. want to be in with similar, and rentals are a different mentality than owning where you live. Owners have more at stake in keeping their place nice rather than expecting others. And since they live there longer, they would be more neighborly.

just my 2 cents on that.

As for ccdevi, that's actually a pretty insigntfull comparison between what is deemed a luxury rental and a nice condo. And of course you are right with rent stabilized in that stevejhx said it was rent stabilized and then said it was reset to market with each vacancy.

4 cents total now.

There are some fantastic rentals available at 20 Pine, The Collection, downtown in the financial district. A hot new development available in a condominium building without long-term commitment.

Contact me if any interest in this building or any other high end condominiums.

Thank you

I saw this apartment when it was up for sale. It was originally listed at $2.2 and sold for $2.
Great apartment and great view. When I went to see it, the doorman told me that Gwynneth Palrow had also just seen it. Doesn't surprise me, and if someone needs to make $400K per year to rent it, you can get a junior guy on Wall Street for that who isn't yet ready to buy. I would definitely not compare the apartment to any of the Related rental buildings. I don't know anything about neighbors however.

I'm sorry that people think I offended renters.

However, some of the advocates for renting seem to have some serious misconceptions. A lot of non-comparable data has been spewed here trying to suggest lower quality alternatives to the high quality condominiums in Manhattan available for purchase and rent.

"you can get a junior guy on Wall Street for that who isn't yet ready to buy."

Can you? Guess you haven't been reading the news.

When prices decline by 20%, there is no anecdote you can give that makes buying a better deal.

WELCOME TO THE CRASH, BOYS!

Ok I'll play. Let's use exact same apartment 201 West 72nd 10-O
Closed 1,005,000
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/212433-condo-201-west-72nd-street-upper-west-side-manhattan

Now renting 4k/month
http://www.brownharrisstevens.com/detail.aspx?id=917624
It shows 10-O bc they have an open house.

Which is 20.9 cost/rent.

So you mean their mortgage payments alone are $5k, and they're renting for $4k, despite taxes and common charges?

Where is Suze Orman?

30e 200 Riverside Blvd. Sold 1.7 M, rented 6200/month = 22.8 cost/yearly rent
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/building/200-riverside-boulevard-manhattan