35 Sutton Place...coming soon

If you look at the plan for 7C, it implies that the 'service' hallway is perhaps part of the building (despite that bedroom off the hallway). I'd say it's part of the apartment, and there would be a owner-lockable door separating the apartment hall from the service elevator. Having the hallway bit be part of the apartment is consistent with how 3C and 7C were presented. I don't know the overall building plan -- it's possible somebody shortcut that bit of the drawing, and there's actually a hallway, stairwell, trash/incinerator chute, and service elevator on the other side of that door, rather than just the elevator shown. The plans for 4/5C and 10/11C just say 'service', with no elevator indicated. It would be absurdly expensive ($1m?), but I'd put 9C back to 3C or 7C's layout, which is probably the original design. (10/11C is pretty good as well).

@ali sorry to hear about that. Hoping better times lie ahead for you and for the local market generally.

So the third time was, in fact, the charm for 9C at at 130-134 E67th: https://streeteasy.com/building/130-134-east-67-th-street/9c?lstt=moNqOKSXCx7IB7dxzeHb1-Iay55ENBm9W_IKVT91eV8FhmaKRvKW3YFOGOcon0Rw_0QIb3932BGioSPm&utm_campaign=sale_listing&utm_medium=share&utm_source=web

As for us, we just got our first strike. Board turn down for an excellent contract for undisclosed qualitative reasons (as opposed to financial). Buyers possess no statutorily protected traits; they are just not people the current board wants to live with for whatever reason (most likely not rich enough and/or not New York enough).

All perfectly legal and what we signed up for when we purchased a coop, although we never really thought the board of our building would trend that direction. Part of me says that knowing what we know now, we would have gone condo, but what we have does not exist in condo structure, so there is that. Lucky for us that we love the apartment; looks like my dream of coming back at some point is still alive to torture me, and I am okay with that. We are taking it off the market.

ah, mcr, I'm sorry -- boards have been truly flexing their muscles post-Covid. Maybe your loss will be my gain though...

I'm so sorry, mcr. Hopefully things turn around. Will you rent it out (if that is an option), or continue to use it from time to time.

I cherish the idea that some day, somehow, coops will adapt to meet most people's needs. Proabably a lost cause. Or maybe not as the older generation dies off...

For the most part they do MTH... However, some are living out their Edith Wharton fantasies.

Hhhhh - why yes, of course, to the manner born.

Current board policy is no more rentals, and they just sent notice out lowering max financing back to 65% from 80%, though in reality I suspect nobody will get approved without 50% down.

While not ideal, we are fine with it all. It is a small building that by its terms is set up to be owner-occupied. Most people who buy there intend to stay forever.

We knew all of the above going in and would not have purchased there had we not been prepared to own it indefinitely.

Our scenario highlights why there is such a significant differential between the price of coops and condos. I tried to console the buyers that they dodged a bullet. Now that they have experienced the dark side of coops first hand, maybe they will go the condo route. They can certainly afford that route, but the challenge is finding the lovely factor in the neighborhood in a condo structure - it just does not exist.

At least you are being honest with yourself (and, to your credit, with prospective shareholders).

I was told by a longtime NYC resident who is head of his board that co-ops aren't what they used to be...by which I think he meant many/most are operating more like condos these days.

So, I have an update on our board turn down. I am happy to report that there was a reconsideration with transparency, and the denial of the application was purely financial. The debate within among interested parties was whether one should run the "What if applicant lost their job scenario?"

I believe one should run that scenario, and when the answer is that the applicant would not be able to carry the maintenance for even one month without liquidating retirement funds, then a turn down is reasonable, particularly when the high salary job is brand new (less than one year).

Assets that were material in our acceptance of the offer did not withstand scrutiney. They were both speculative in their valuation and not vested, plus there was a significant employer advance (that exceeded post-closing liquidity) that was subject to immediate repayment should the employment arrangement not work out.

Given the strength of the prospective buyer's employment record, I likely would have cast my vote for approval had I been a disinterested board member, but I do respect and understand the decision makers' conservative relatively conservative approach.

None of this changes the fact that were our building structured as a condo, the purchase would have gone through. However, were the building structured as a condo, we would have had to pay a lot more for the apartment, as would the prospective buyers, so it is what it is. The whole exercise just highlights again that you get what you pay for.

Thanks for sharing, mcr. That doesn’t seem unreasonable.

>> They were both speculative in their valuation and not vested, plus there was a significant employer advance (that exceeded post-closing liquidity) that was subject to immediate repayment should the employment arrangement not work out.

Does “speculative in their valuation” also means illiquid, as in some private equity mark that could be stale/wrong? Or does it mean a speculative asset whose market price fluctuates wildly, like Dogecoin?

FWIW, not counting unvested interests and employment advances subject to repayment makes sense to me. The former is illiquid—it cannot be turned into cash. Moreover, it disappears right when it might be needed most—upon losing the job—just like the employment advance. To the extent liquid reserves are desired by the board, these are not that. They are amounts subject to future employment. If one counts unvested interests, why not future wages? And if one counts employment advances subject to repayment, why not payday loans? I’d be inclined to look at them as part of the candidate’s compensation, not as part of their assets (illiquid or not).

I guess I’d say the board’s conservatism comes from wanting liquid post-close assets, not from disqualifying these contingent-on-employment assets (a.k.a. “compensation”) as such.

Sounds like you took a flyer with these applicants, especially knowing what your board was probably looking for. I guess when there's nothing else on the table why not?

Not having the ability to pay one month's maintenance after losing a job!? I would have figured your building would like to see 2 years worth of maintenance and mortgage payments. Liquid post close at a minimum: cash, stocks, bonds etc in non-retirement accounts.

We would not have accepted the offer had we known that the liquid assets that were represented to us by our broker were not only not liquid, but also not even vested. We are distressed that our broker neither spotted it nor saw it as a problem after it was highlighted as the glaring problem with the application. Next time around, if there is one, we will take time to kick the tires on what is represented to us.

As a finance person, I think 'nadas view of unvested interests is comletely correct: the interests (absent some document specifying otherwise) will not be paid out if the employee is terminated / quits before vesting. The employer advance is part of the employee's current cash assets (assuming the advance has been received, otherwise it's an valid receivable), but amounts received also need to show up as a term liability on the employee's personal balance sheet, because the repayment requirement hasn't been discharged through completing the employment period, or reduced through incremental repayment, or whatever condition applies. The 'speculative valuation' sounds like the 'assets' might have been stock options that would be granted according to the vesting schedule. If the company isn't public, then the valuation of the options is almost completely speculative (level III assets, for the banker types). There are valuation models, but unless the buyer and the co-op board are particularly financially sophisticated, it wouldn't be unreasonable to discount them entirely. The news is full of former companies that competed funding rounds at ever increasing valuations that turned out to be only so much malodorous emitted vapor.

I agree on all fronts and begrudge the board nothing for the denial.

My overarching sentiment from this whole exercise is disappointment in and for the broker. Not only should I not be having to defend the board's turn down to a seasoned broker, but I would have expected the broker to not only understand the issue, but also highlight the issue in presenting the offer to us.

I thought that maybe the buyer had misrepresented at the offer stage, but our broker's professed failure to understand the turn-down suggests that she knew from the outset and tried to finesse the package?

In any event, as matters stand, the broker has lost not only our confidence, but has also annoyed the board of a building in which she has closed many transactions. None of the board members felt good about having to turn down an applicant, and one expressed frustration that we and the broker put them in that position. I apologized and made sure they understood that there were no hard feelings on our part.

With all of the above said, despite the fact that we would not have accepted the offer had we known what we know now, I still would have approved this applicant myself were I a disinterested board member because the applicant is a professional superstar at the beginning of the serious wealth-building phase of her career. Her personal and employment references were special, plus her extracurriculars signal a seriously decent human being. I am thinking that is why our broker may have attempted to finesse the finances (and why she got approved for the mortgage), and at the end of the day, we are fine with all of it.

It seems to me that the buyer was stretching. Their liquid net worth is presumably ~20% the apt price (the down payment), and their annual nut for the apt ~10% the apt price. This seems like a young, high-income, high-income-growth buyer scraping together every last penny they have ever saved to stretch into buying a home that is will be appropriate for the next N years, even if it’s a stretch today.

I totally get it, it’s what first-time home buyers tend to do. I’m generally surprised when Keith says that most of his buyers have a diversified portfolio, with another ~20% or whatever sitting in stocks/bonds/etc. That’s not in line with my observations of how first-time home buyers work. Possibly this is colored by a lack of trust funds, parents paying, etc. in my circle of peers.

I'm sure we've had a couple of them, NADA, but overwhelmingly most are further along in their careers, buying a second or even third home. For instance, we just signed a contract today with two clients in their late thirties, both well-established in their jobs, first-time buyers after renting in the same apartment in Manhattan for 10 years.. comfortably buying a $3 million condo, 30% down, and a strong remaining portfolio.

A lot of my younger first-time buyers typically are getting significant assistance from family, and usually buy condos. I think a lot of young people wind up renting, which I think makes a lot more sense regardless of your income.

Plus AI is starting to come after the upper middle class and I think it's going to be harder for a lot of them to bounce back from layoffs. Maybe the board was thinking about this as well.

Keith, the 40 year-old first-time homebuyer is certainly “normal” now, but that’s a historical aberration. As recently as 10 years ago, it was 30 (like the many, many decades prior):

https://www.axios.com/2025/11/04/homebuyer-age-first-time

I can also believe the typical 30yo homebuyer you see these days is funded by parents, especially in our markets, but I don’t think it was as prevalent (say) 20 or 30 years ago. A sorry state of yaffairsvv IMO, but it is what it is. I imagine mcr’s prospective buyer is in her early 30s, hardworking, and upwardly mobile with a small fortune self-saved—yet is unable to buy!

* unable to buy in Sutton place/co-op

I also have a buyer having a very difficult time qualifying for some of these ridiculous co-ops over there. Highly educated, Cash buyer that would have a strong seven figure portfolio after purchase, and also a hell of a nice guy!

So far we've been told thank you but no thanks. After submitting a financial profile to the selling agent to be shared with the board treasurer.

Understanding how employees at large financial firms and tech companies get paid is a critical part of being a broker/agent in New York City.

We just sold a two bedroom at 39 power Street in Brooklyn that we listed. These were young first-time buyers in their twenties, no help from Mom and Dad because it's a condo and it's relatively affordable.

And I can add that the couple we sold it to previously, were late twenties early 30s. Very good tech/ finance jobs, purchase something they could comfortably afford.

>> ridiculous co-ops over there

I don't think MCR's coop board was being ridiculous in their assessment of the finances. The buyer wanted to put in every last penny she had to her name for a minimum downpayment and sign up for an annual nut that takes an income of many hundreds of thousands. Not a particularly fancy apt, in a pretty no-in-demand neighborhood.

This is not on you, nor for you to defend, but when most grown-ass adult 30 year-old buyers are dependent on parents for their finances, it's a sorry state of affairs... without casting aspersions to any individual broker, grown-ass 30 year-old, or parent for the state of affairs.

Yes, I agree with you. In this case the broker failed to qualify these buyers. That said, there is a reason these Sutton place co-ops trade at low valuations and can take years to sell.

Nada,
For NYC in general, due to largely unch prices in the last 10+ years and incomes growing, the affordability is better for buyers. I suspect, many young buyers - call it 35 or less - buying in top 15-20% percentile by value in NYC have always gotten some help from parents. It is just inheritance.

There is also tax free inheritance transfer by grand parents paying for grandkids private schools and college.

>> For NYC in general, due to largely unch prices in the last 10+ years and incomes growing, the affordability is better for buyers.

I doubt it. According to the BEA (which you can look up via FRED), Manhattan incomes have increased by 58% over 10 years… same as national. Inflation is up 37%, which is the more relevant number. So inflation-adjusted Manhattan RE prices are indeed down to 1/1.37=0.73x what they were 10 years ago. But I think cost of financing has approximately doubled, which when combined with taxes & common charges, would put affordability right around where it was 10 years ago as far as how these things are typically calculated (taking into account mortgage costs).

"Understanding how employees at large financial firms and tech companies get paid is a critical part of being a broker/agent in New York City."

I will suggest that how they’re paid has changed substantially over the years, and people haven’t kept up. Year-end bonuses for finance people were and continue to be the norm, and while there were some signing bonuses, and cash only, those typically happened only for fairly senior people – many likely already homeowners. Sales traders might get advances or some type of sales-performance compensation promise but again, cash-only and rare, unless they were senior with a book of clients they were expected to bring with them. As most traditional trading firms were partnerships, there weren’t stock options to be handed out – only limited- or full- partnership shares, which came with various sized buckets of tangible cash – no future valuation needed – the only issue was whether you were employed by a ‘good’ firm (i.e., old-line NYSE member firm, with the ‘right’ sort of partners - trading was not really viewed as 'acceptable' employment). With the rise of corporation-owned trading firms in the early 2000s, option-based compensation became more commonplace (not just for senior executives and managers), supplanted by rulings in 1995 on companies’ accounting treatment and disclosure of options valuation and outstanding options. Banks (which were already corporations) traditionally paid bonuses directly in bank shares, then got into options once the accounting issues were settled. Options-based compensation wasn’t legal until the tax code was changed in 1950 – one could argue that co-op boards are still in a pre-1950 valuation mode.

Tech as a highly compensated industry generating significant NYC sales essentially didn’t exist until the late 1990s. It would be interesting to know how co-ops in San Francisco have fared (my understanding is that SF is really the only other city with co-ops, and even there, they’re fairly rare), and how their acceptance practices have changed, assuming they had hurdles and barriers like we see in NYC.

So I did some calcs using Fred time series for 30 years.

$1.5mm mortgage.
Tax benefit due to mortgage amount deduction change from $1mm to $750k roughly offsets increase in pre-payment benefit increase with higher rates.
30y rates up 60%. Sub 4% average of 2014-2016 to current around 6.2%
Inflation 37%.

Better get more help in down payment from mom and dad to keep monthlies the same.

300, these home affordability calculations tend to look at 30yr mortgage payment amounts, not interest, right or wrong. A $1000K loan at 6.2% works out to about 37% more than the monthly payment on $1000K at 3.6%. $4500/mo vs $6100/mo.

But deduction effect is there, as you say. Beyond the $1000K vs $750K thing, back then a buyer was itemizing anyways because of SALT (or at least planning on it). In 2025, that’s not the case. OTOH, saving the 20% down payment is now 37% easier to acquire. But overall, I think it’s a wash.

Aaron2, that’s a fascinating history of Wall St compensation! I have one friend who was a trader of yore (had a company with a seat on an exchange, etc.), and it’s interesting how that world completely changed.

Agree. It is a more or less a wash after your factor in the inflation adjusted lower down payment.

I just did Interest. But people would look at month payments vs rent.

That makes me think about affordability of NYC vs NYC burbs where prices are up 35-50%.