Deposit Losses from Credit Crisis
Started by akallabeth
over 16 years ago
Posts: 47
Member since: Mar 2009
Discussion about
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/realestate/22cov.html?ref=realestate When the sellers had the power to lock people into this awful contracts.... March 22, 2009 Up in Smoke: The Deposit Vanishes By VIVIAN S. TOY SOME of the buyers who thought they would be moving into new condominiums in the region this year are finding that those plans are in ruins as they are being forced to walk away from the... [more]
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/realestate/22cov.html?ref=realestate When the sellers had the power to lock people into this awful contracts.... March 22, 2009 Up in Smoke: The Deposit Vanishes By VIVIAN S. TOY SOME of the buyers who thought they would be moving into new condominiums in the region this year are finding that those plans are in ruins as they are being forced to walk away from the hefty down payments they made a year or more ago. They can’t complete their deals because the mortgages they lined up before the credit crisis took hold have evaporated and they can no longer get financing. Elizabeth and James Pham put all their savings into the deposit they made on a $956,990 two-bedroom apartment at Maxwell Place, a new development in Hoboken, N.J. They signed an agreement for the apartment in 2005, put down $93,199 and were preapproved for a mortgage for the rest of the purchase price. But when their closing date arrived last September, several banks told them that to get a mortgage, they would have to increase their 10 percent down payment by another 15 to 25 percentage points. With no way to come up with that much money, the Phams notified the developer, Toll Brothers, that they could not get financing for the apartment. Toll Brothers declared them in default and kept their deposit. “It would take us another 15 years to save that money again,” Ms. Pham said. The Phams, who have two children, a 4-month-old and a 2 ½-year-old, live in a two-bedroom in Hoboken that is smaller than the one they had hoped to move into in Maxwell Place. But they borrowed on their equity there to help put together the deposit on the new apartment. The rest of the deposit came from Mr. Pham’s work as a real estate agent, income that has all but dried up in the current market. “If we tried to sell our apartment, we wouldn’t make enough to cover the cost of selling it, so we’re really stuck,” said Ms. Pham, who works as a benefits manager at a professional services firm. Ms. Pham said that the developer “made no attempt to work with us; they wouldn’t even return my phone calls.” She added that the sales manager had declined their offer to help find another buyer for the apartment and had told Ms. Pham that “not getting our deposit back was just business.” A spokeswoman for Toll Brothers declined to comment because the Phams have filed a lawsuit to try to get their money back. Brokers and developers say that every new development probably has a handful of buyers who are facing this difficulty. (The Web site Streeteasy.com lists 460 new developments with active sales listings in Manhattan and 438 in Brooklyn.) Some who signed contracts have forfeited their deposits. Others have tried to renegotiate their contracts to reduce the purchase price. Some have scrambled to find money to increase their down payments so they can get financing. And still others have downsized to a smaller apartment in order to qualify for a smaller mortgage. These are their options, because until late last year, virtually all developers required buyers to sign noncontingent contracts committing the buyers to the property regardless of whether they could get financing. The number of people defaulting on contracts at new developments will probably increase in coming months, said Jonathan J. Miller, the president of Miller Samuel, a Manhattan research and appraisal company. “Initially people were walking away from deposits because they were spooked by the market, but now it’s for more pragmatic reasons — either job loss or difficulty getting financing,” Mr. Miller said. “It’s going to get worse before it gets better, because it will only start to ease when credit stabilizes.” Alan Rosenbaum, the chief executive of the GuardHill Financial Corporation, a mortgage broker in Manhattan, said that for people buying in new construction, bank “guidelines could not have changed at a worse time.” For conforming loans in New York City — ones below $729,750 — banks generally are now requiring at least 20 percent down. For jumbo loans of more than $729,750, Mr. Rosenbaum said, lenders are requiring down payments of 20 to 50 percent. So, for a $1.12 million apartment — the median sales price for condos in Manhattan at the end of last year — a buyer who put down a 10 percent deposit of $112,000 about a year ago, now must come up with an additional $112,000 to $448,000 just to get a mortgage. In September, Dr. Martin M. Beitler and his partner, Jeff Bretl, had to forfeit a $173,000 deposit on a $1.73 million two-bedroom apartment at Chelsea Modern, a new condo tower on West 18th Street. They had signed a contract for the condo early last year, but when their closing date arrived, mortgage brokers told them that 90 percent financing no longer existed and that at best, even with impeccable credit, they might qualify for a no-income-check mortgage of $1 million. Unable to come up with the additional down payment that banks were requiring, they reluctantly walked away from the deposit. They are now suing the developer to try to recover some of that money. “That’s a lot of money that we can’t afford to lose,” Dr. Beitler said. “It’s just so unfair that with all the bailouts and other stuff going on there’s no relief for people in our position. And we didn’t do anything wrong — an unfortunate confluence of events is causing us to have this misery.” Dr. Beitler, an internist in Manhattan, said he had bought and sold property before and had always qualified for no-income-check mortgages. Dr. Beitler and Mr. Bretl, who is an advertising consultant, were not the only buyers at the 47-unit Chelsea Modern to have trouble meeting the more stringent mortgage requirements that banks have instituted in recent months. Robert Gladstone, the chief executive officer of Madison Equities and the developer of Chelsea Modern, said that four other buyers who had qualified for mortgages when they signed their contracts also could not get financing. “We felt that this was through no fault of their own, so we offered them 20 percent of their deposit back, even though we had no requirement to do so,” Mr. Gladstone said in a statement. “For the most part, everyone was sadly satisfied with the return of 20 percent, given that they had no expectation that they would receive anything back.” He said that Dr. Beitler and Mr. Bretl were the only buyers suing to get back their entire deposit. Like many New Yorkers, Louis Andriopoulos figured in 2007 that buying real estate would be much safer than investing in the stock market. He decided to buy a two-bedroom at Fifth on the Park, a new condo tower in Harlem at Fifth Avenue and 120th Street. Mr. Andriopoulos, the owner of a delicatessen on the Upper West Side who lives in Queens, hoped to rent the apartment out for a while and someday sell it for a nice profit. He put down a $100,000 deposit for a $995,000 apartment in summer 2007, and was approved for a no-income-check 90 percent mortgage. But he lost that approval as credit tightened and in recent months was told by five different mortgage brokers that he would need to increase his down payment to 30 percent to get a mortgage. “If I knew this, I would never buy this apartment,” he said. “Ten percent used to be more than enough and I never had a problem with financing before.” The 160-unit building is almost completed and the developer hopes to start closing contracts next month. When his closing date arrives, Mr. Andriopoulos expects to forfeit his deposit. “There’s nothing else I can do,” he said. Out of 98 contracts at Fifth on the Park, about 10 buyers have already notified the building that they are having trouble with financing, said Lewis Futterman, a co-developer of the property. “But I think we may be able to salvage all but three or four of those sales,” he said, adding that the development has been working with banks and buyers to keep deals alive. He said he and his partners were willing to offer second mortgages of 5 to 10 percent of the purchase price to help buyers secure their primary mortgages. But finding banks willing to make 80 to 85 percent mortgages to those buyers can be tricky. “It’s not finalized yet,” Mr. Futterman said, “but we’ve talked to a couple of banks that have said they would consider that kind of program. If banks loosened up a bit, that would help us with our buyers and it would help us pull a lot of potential buyers out of the woodpile.” Even people who work in the real estate industry have found themselves caught in the predicament. Mr. Andriopoulos’s broker, Jill Sloane, an executive vice president at Halstead Property, is in contract to buy a $1.4 million two-bedroom at the Harrison, a 132-unit development on the Upper West Side where closings are expected in August or September. “I’m hoping it’s later rather than sooner,” Ms. Sloane said, “because I need to figure out how to make it work financially. All I can hope is the spring market is going to be crazy busy.” She has already put the required 20 percent deposit down on the apartment, but has been told by her bank that she will have to come up with another $140,000 to get a mortgage. “If I had a crystal ball for this year’s situation back in December 2007, I would have definitely thought twice about buying this apartment,” she said. “But back then, nobody believed that this could happen to the market.” For some buyers, the only way to save their deposit is to trade down. Last fall, Scott Leith and his partner, Paulo Siqueira, faced losing a $170,000 deposit on a two-bedroom apartment at the Chelsea Stratus on West 24th Street. Mr. Leith and Mr. Siqueira both work in the fashion industry. Mr. Leith said they tried several alternatives before they decided to walk away from the two-bedroom and instead buy a $1.185 million one-bedroom at the Stratus. They considered filing a complaint with the attorney general to recoup their deposit, but were told that at best they might get half of their money back. They tried renegotiating the price, but the developer offered a discount of only about 5 percent. They asked if the developer would lend them the $250,000 they needed to increase their down payment, but the answer was no, Mr. Leith said. By downsizing, Mr. Leith and Mr. Siqueira held on to their deposit, but instead of becoming homeowners, they are now investors who plan to rent out the apartment. “At the end of the day, the only thing we could do was switch to a smaller unit,” Mr. Leith said. “It’s not what we really wanted to do, but we absolutely did not want to lose the savings that we worked so hard for. “We can only hope that even with the current market, this makes sense as a long-term investment.” [less]
Add Your Comment
Recommended for You
-
From our blog
NYC Open Houses for November 19 and 20 - More from our blog
Most popular
-
30 Comments
-
23 Comments
-
23 Comments
-
52 Comments
-
17 Comments
Recommended for You
-
From our blog
NYC Open Houses for November 19 and 20 - More from our blog
"When the sellers had the power to lock people into this awful contracts...."
Sellers did not lock anybody into contracts. The buyers signed them on their own free will. Nobody put a gun to their head. The buyers locked themselves into the contract.
Toll Brothers has deep pockets and it is my understanding that as an incentive to new buyers, they
recently offered attractive fixed rate mortgages. If they are in the position to offer mortgages, clearly they could offer a mortgage to the Pham family mentioned in the New York Times story. If the
NYT story has all the significant facts, then the fact that Toll Brothers would prefer to take the family's deposit rather than offering the family
a mortgage plan reflects very poorly on this company. To be sure, Mr. Pham should have obtained
a contingency clause and not doing so proved to be both short-sighted and foolish. Nevertheless,
a more congenial outcome that does not ruin the Pham family could have been obtained, even if Toll Brothers would make a little less from such a transaction than they would make by keeping the deposit.
Toll Brothers may be in the right, so far as the law is concerned, but as someone who is looking
to buy an apartment, having read this story, I will
instruct my agent not to look at any Toll Brothers properties.
I hope others will feel the same way.
Toll Brother ended FY 2009's first quarter with $1.53 billion in cash, compared to $956.6 million at FY 2008's first-quarter-end. The Company's cash position was down slightly from $1.63 billion at FY 2008's fourth-quarter-end, principally due to the payment in 2009's first quarter of previously accrued taxes and the retirement of purchase money mortgages and other debt. In addition, the Company had $1.32 billion available under its bank credit facility, which matures in March 2011.
TOL reported a FY 2009 first quarter net loss of $88.9 million, or $0.55 per share diluted, which included pre-tax write-downs totaling $156.6 million. This compared to FY 2008's first quarter net loss of $96.0 million, or $0.61 per share diluted, which included pre-tax write-downs totaling $245.5 million.
Toll Brothers may need this cash - no I am pretty sure they need that cash to survive.
No developer wants to take a buyer's deposit and keep the unit. That is the last thing they want. As far as why they did nto give a mortgage to the family in the NY Times story, maybe they are not credit worthy. Maybe they have a low credit score. Maybe one of them lost their job. We don't know.
NYT should have at least mentioned the reason the toll couple could not get a loan. Maybe they left that part out to portray them as victims
I would suspect could only get a NINJA loan .. No symphaphy here...
People who are saying it is "foolish" to not have a mortgage contingency don't realize that Developers did not offer this option (or offered watered down versions). This means a buyer had 2 choices - either take the risk of not being able to get a mortgage, or stay out of the market. If they chose the latter, many bulls on here would have told them they are foolish, considering banks were - at that time - making 85-90% loans on a regular basis. So, why not get into the game!
In hindsight, the smarter choice would be stay out of the market. This is still the smarter choice and will remain so indefinitely, at least with respect to new construction where you sign a contract and don't close for a year or more.
I agree that in 2005, it would have been very hard to envision the late 2008 no-loan situation. One might have reasonably envisioned a market downturn but not one so severe. That said, given a three year lag period, I would never have forked over my whole life savings. That is where the "what-if" questions should have led them to pull back.
it is tough out there
"This means a buyer had 2 choices - either take the risk of not being able to get a mortgage, or stay out of the market."
Or they could have chosen option 3, which is to buy an EXISTING condo!
I guess I noticed a couple other things. 1) they put all their savings into the deposit 2) Phams say it'll take them another 15 years to save another $93K. 3) They were buying a 2-bedroom in Hoboken for $950K. 4) They borrowed against their current apartment to come up with part of the deposit. 5) James Pham is an RE broker.
So, let me get this straight - they severely overextended in order to buy a grossly overpriced apartment in Hoboken. Is it any wonder no bank will give them a loan? They sound like poster children for the excesses and stupidity of the boom. No one forced them to agree to anything they signed. Pretty tough for me to feel sorry for these "victims". I do feel bad for their young kids, who will certainly feel some of the financial consequences of the greed/stupidity of their parents.
alpine292 - you are correct, I should have included option 3. I think many of us have learned a lesson the hard way: never buy a new construction condo without an iron-clad mortgage contingency. Which Developers will never give.
So the lesson is: never buy new construction, period, unless the building is already complete, and Developer is ready to close immediately.
Anyone who is a buyer at Maxwell Place, have NOT closed, and are interested in getting the deposit back (or price negotiation), please contact me at 1125maxwell@gmail.com. Thank you.
"They sound like poster children for the excesses and stupidity of the boom. No one forced them to agree to anything they signed. Pretty tough for me to feel sorry for these "victims"."
A fool and his/her money are soon parted. Let not bail out all of these fools, or we will just encourage more foolish behavior in the future.
"Sellers did not lock anybody into contracts. The buyers signed them on their own free will. Nobody put a gun to their head. The buyers locked themselves into the contract."
Oh please. In the last climate, if you didn't sign certain contracts, someone else would. It's not an issue of free will, it's where the power is. The power has shifted. Let's stop being naive.
"They sound like poster children for the excesses and stupidity of the boom. No one forced them to agree to anything they signed. Pretty tough for me to feel sorry for these "victims"."
During the boom, when 90% of anyone around would have laughed at the scenario that played out, the "fools" were those not flipping and making insane profits every few years. The moralizing in retrospect, when so few voices were heard during the bubble, is as sad as it is funny.