Only 10 co-ops costing more than $4 million sold in the first quarter

holy sh_t... i can't believe they sold that many!

Out of curiousity, what is the average number of coops over 4 million sold per quarter?

I tried to find that #, too.
So far not much luck.
At least we know now that Q1 2008 which still was kind of hot but slowing down, did see 50 transactions

jmk - I wish I had some numbers to back this up, but I'll give it a shot and say that whatever the average is, that number doesn't tell us much given the expansion and deflation (or, if you prefer, bursting) of the bubble in recent years. I believe that $4mm was pretty rarified territory until recently - there would always be sales in that range, but smaller numbers - then during the bubble there was a rapid expansion of trades in that range and now it's come back down. -80% vs. Q1 2008 is a dramatic headline. It's probably a big negative number vs. Q1 2007 as well. I wonder just how big it is vs. 2006, 2005, etc. I would bet that it wasn't too many years ago that 10 coop trades above $4mm was an OK quarter. Focusing year-over-year or change-since-peak statistics, it is easy to lose sight of just how powerful the run-up in prices was over, say, 10 years. Mot so long ago, $4mm was a big number.

So back to the question about averages. The answer depends on the time period. Over the last 1-2 years, a big number. Certainly much more that the current 10. Over the last 5 years, not as big a number. Over the last 10 years, a much smaller number. Pick the time period.

It would be great if someone more talented at locating and manipulating Manhattan RE statistics than I am could give this one a shot and show whether any of this theory is actually supported by data. Not that the existence of supporting data is in any way a prerequisite for posting views on SE, as we so often see...

Here are the quarterly and cumulative figures for coop sales of at least $4MM, per Streeteasy. The query doesn't seem to work very well once you get to mid-2006.
Last 89 days (Q1 09): 9 (9)
Prior 92 days (Q4 08): 34 (43)
Prior 92 days (Q3 08): 56 (99)
Prior 91 days (Q2 08): 81 (180)
Prior 91 days (Q1 08): 61 (241)
Prior 92 days (Q4 07): 45 (286)
Prior 92 days (Q3 07): 62 (348)
Prior 91 days (Q2 07): 80 (428)
Prior 90 days (Q1 07): 51 (479)
Prior 92 days (Q4 06): 35 (514)

I kowtow to west81... may i kiss your ring?

okay everyone... just move along... nothing to see here... just a dead $4MM+ market... come on make room for the coroner....

oh crap! now the $3MM market is dead too... just make space.... please move along .....

No wonder another poster recently called West81st the MVP of SE. That may actually be the one thing that is undisputed on SE.

Too bad about the length of the data series. It only covers late bubble through present and I don't think much can be inferred from it.

I think a more interesting statistic would be to look at the decline in 3Br or larger sold in Q1 2009 vs. 2Br or smaller. A lot of people are predicting that there will be an oversupply of larger-sized apartments given that larger families have stopped buying big apartments in the city. Curious to know if this hypothesis is true. It may just be near impossible to unload a classic 7 that 9 short months ago would have sold in a multiple bidding war. This could cause tremendous pain for families who need to sell asap! Given the absurd demand for these units such a short time ago, today's predicament seems surreal, almost! Who would have ever thought....?????

Are families through with raising 3+ kids in Manhattan? Was that just a fad? Or, was it a trend? Maybe the data can help us draw the real conclusion.

sideline,

you don't think we can infer much from the fact that there has been a year on year decline from 61 to 9 in this price range? seems like we can infer, oh, i don't know, the almost complete death of the high end market in nyc.

thanks for the great info westie.

Excellent data West81! Surprisingly consistent, if a little small. Peaks occur in Q2, valleys in Q4. If I didn't know these were RE data points I would be tempted to investigate Q109 as an outlier but - hoo boy- this could be the big one for the high end market. Where are the flippers at The Plaza and 15 CPW to save the high end sales?

I would also add that the Q2 peaks appear aligned with Wall Street bonus payouts which tend to clear into employees accounts Q1. Add a few months of bidding wars and Q2 is looking good. And anyone who has ever lived on a bonus cycle knows you're always poorest right before your next bonus.

hr - the collapse from late last year to present is given. It's in HT1's original post and discussed in the NYT article over the weekend that is the source of the data. Or as w67thstreet, who has a lot more blogging style than I, put it, "nothing to see here... just a dead $4MM+ market..." I think we all get that, thanks.

The question was what is the historical average, so that one might compare it to the current number. Of necessity, this means we have to look at the historical numbers, not the current ones. If you are unclear about the distinction between current and historical, I suggest the following resource: http://www.merriam-webster.com/home.htm . As to the historical numbers, I don't think that they go back far enough to give us a pre-bubble, or even early bubble or mid-bubble, view of the number of $4mm transactions. I believe that it was much lower not that many years ago and that if we had those numbers it would be yet another indication of how excessive the bubble really was, but I can't prove any of that with data. The Q4 2006 number is tantalizingly small and for many on SE would be enough to infer a trend back into earlier periods, but since the Q4 number is the lowest in each of 2007 and 2008 I wonder if Q4 is seasonally low and not an indication of earlier anything.

Also, thanks for the sarcasm. You are one of the more productive posters on SE, but your knee-jerk reaction to anything that smells to you of less than total dedication to the Chicken Little theory of market forecasting harms your credibility. The evidence in favor of the bear view is pretty overwhelming right now. Making a reasoned case on the evidence is more persuasive than scrambling the SE thought police SWAT team every time someone posts something that you deem insufficiently negative. All the more when you misunderstand the post.

80's man - seems like good analysis on those numbers. I agree that it is a bit tough with the small sample size, but it is what it is. Based on the historical numbers then, Q2 2009 should have about a 30% increase in sales compared to Q1 2009, so that would be about 13 sales (10 for 1st quarter).

So does anyone want the over/under on 13.5 for Q2 2009?

waverly - my gut tells me to take the under, but I thought I'd see what the data suggest. I start with the assumptions that (i) most of what will close in Q2 is already in contract, and (ii) most of what is now in contract will close within Q2. We could debate the degree to which both of these are approximations, but I think they are very reasonable starting point given the lead time for board approval and closing at high end coops. Anyway, to the data:

- A screen on SE for Manhattan co-ops in contract and last listed above $4mm produces 31 listings
- One apartment is listed twice, so 30 unique properties
- Of the 30, 7 have been in contract for seven months or longer (contract dates between 4/06 and 8/08). I assume that these deals have either closed or fallen through and in either case not been picked up in SE. Down to 23
- 4 more have contract dates in 2008, between 11/22 and 12/25, and the 2009 contracts break down as 2 in Jan, 10 in Feb and 7 in March. The paucity of in-contract but not closed January deals makes me wonder if much of the Jan activity already closed, and that in turn makes the viability of the lingering Nov-Dec deals more suspect, but let's be generous for the moment and not exclude Nov-Dec
- Of the 23, 4 deals (including 2 early Dec ones) were last listed below $4.5mm and seem like likely candidates to have ended up in contract below $4mm
- Another 5 (including a Nov deal) were last listed between $4.5mm and $5mm, and are also plausible candidates for a 3 handle contract price. One of those was in contract last June, ended back on the market and went to contract again in Feb, which gives a sense of how hard it is to get some of these things to the finish line
- this leaves 1 deal from late Dec and 13 from Jan-Mar that are in the pipeline for closing and not obviously at risk

From here I have to guess. Here is a straw man case for discussion:
- of the 14 late Dec to present deals, 11 or 12 close. Guess.
- all of the deals last listed below $4.5mm close below $4mm, assuming they close at all. This assumption kills the two early Dec deals
- all deals last priced above $5mm close at or above $4mm, assuming they close at all
- 2 or 3 of the 5 deals priced from $4.5-$5mm go to contract above $4mm. Maybe one doesn't end up closing (e.g., the Nov contract date), so let's round it off to 2

The average of 11 or 12 plus 2 is 13.5, so waverly looks like a very wise man to have proposed his over/under line. The wild card is deals that go to contract in the next few weeks and still close within Q2. This will likley be few, but even one or two moves the needle on the bet. Contrary to my instinct, I'll take the over (barely) on 13.5.

sidelinesitter - I like the logic and thought process!

Betting has taught some very valuable lessons, one of which is that the extra .5 will always come back to kill you and if I am betting it will get me no matter which way I bet. I have also learned that the worst 3 words uttered after losing a bet (or several) are "Time to rally!"

Okay, we've got you down for the over. I will join you on this theoretical bet, barely. But that just mean I am dooming us to lose, but all in good fun!

sidelinesitter,

yes, i am aware of the difference between current and historical. and unless i am very much mistaken, 2007 is historical, not current. if you meant to say that we would know more if the numbers went back further, then you would be right. what you actually said regarding the data was:

I don't think much can be inferred from it.

i guess it all hinges on the definition of much. when i see a market that is highly consistent and predictable for 2.5 years followed by a sudden, massive dislocation, i can infer a lot.

It doesn't hinge on 'much'. It hinges on 'it'. We knew from the NYT article the numbers 10 (per SE, 9) for current quarter trades and -80% (per SE, -85%) for the year earlier comp, so the massive dislocation is apparent and agreed. The new data ('it') are the Q4 2006 and later numbers posted by w81. Much as I would like to learn something from these data that we didn't already know, I don't think we do because they don't go back far enough.

what we learn, sidelinesitter, is that the market has been massively dislocated after a period of stable and predictable results for 2.5 years. anyway, no use arguing.

I see that we have West81st on the board this morning. I don't seem to have the facility with SE to confirm the result of the over-under discussion on the number of $4mm+ coop closings in the second quarter. It seems to be over the betting line of 13.5, but I'm not confident that I've got the correct number. Could good West81st be so kind as to update his quarterly table (from about 15 posts up the thread) to show the Q2 09 result?

July to date: 3
Prior 91 days (Q2 09): 31
Prior 90 days (Q1 09): 12

By the way, even if you adjust the threshold to $3MM - reflecting a 25% decline at the high end of the coop market - the transaction count is only 40. To scrape together 80 or so "high-end" transactions to approximate the volumes of Q2 '08 and Q2 '07, you have to drop the threshold all the way to $2MM. That's pretty extreme, because the high end isn't down 50%. Just looking at the properties that sold, I think the 40 transaction story line is about right: half the 2007-2008 volume of luxe transactions, at about a 25% discount from peak.