difficult building

Yes. Same thing happened to me. They must be prejudice!!!!

Yes. Same thing happened to me. They must be prejudice!!!!

I've heard they're not likely to approve buyers who respond to their own posts in public forums.

Ha

LOL.

On a more serious note, perhaps explaining the circumstances of your denial here would be more fruitful, Confused.

The price was too low.

10D where a contract appears to have fallen through is priced the same today as it was in 2005. Or the owner could have put it in the Nasdaq and had a 7x return. That 2005 buyer's heirs probably wish he had been rejected back in the day.

More like 11x.

Requires you to have 1-3x contract rice in assets liquid, 50% down, 2.5% flip tax, 0% appreciation, difficult board, all for units which are below my price range but dumpier than where I live now?

What demographic do they think are going to be attracted these days? Anyone with the money to meet the qualifications can buy something nicer elsewhere. Anyone shopping at this price range won't meet the financial qualifications. And either group will find the units lackluster.

Older age group with plenty of savings but not necessarily high income. These coops are making it a retirement community without realizing it.

I get that some Park/5th Ave coops can still get younger generation as there is not that much supply of condos in that area and people still want to live there.

But nothing will change by new laws as politicians don't care about people who are rich enough to buy a $1mm+ apartment in NYC. Perhaps some legal judgement which will declare the long established coop practices illegal just like legal decision on bundling of commission for the seller and buyer took a long time.

What are the building's rules on parents buying for children, pied-a-terre, and diplomats? I can see these demographics buying there.

That D-line that seems to have lots of availability is a particularly lousy floorplan. Sometimes even the greatest architect can't create magic when the raw materials are lacking.

Paying all cash and draining your liquid reserves is not a great idea in a lot of cases. Certainly does not make someone appear more wealthy or impressive as a buyer in my opinion. No idea about the specifics of this building, although do live nearby.

Requiring all cash isn't about being good for the shareholder, It's about being good for the co-op

Good for the coop? What's that old saying among the waspy coops -- "All Cash, All Christian"

George,
There are plenty of Jews in all cash Coops. Back when Stewart House was all cash maybe the most prevalent ethnic group?

But you're really trying to obfuscate the issue playing that card. There is no question that all cash Coops have infinitely less issues when it comes to certain things. LIKE FORECLOSURES.

At the cost of higher illiquidity, less valuable units, and a loss of highly valuable tax benefits. Yes the coop can take out debt so then everyone can get foreclosed upon, and don't forget the land lease buildings. Meanwhile the blue-hairs on the Board bought for $200k back in the day with $600k liquid; now they expect people to pay $2m and have $6m liquid. It will take a lot to convince me that the goal is anything other than maintaining the building's demographics in fear of the elevators stopping on every floor on Friday night, curry odors in the hallways, and having to share an elevator with George Jefferson.

This co-op already requires 50% down. Don't see any material benefit to a co-op in being all-cash vs 50% down, other than snob value maybe.
I do think a *buyer's* profile could be considerably worse from a co-op's perspective if they use up a lot of their liquidity paying all cash, vs maintaining higher post closing liquidity.