Jul. 3, 2009 - 2005 pricing at The Printing House, 421 Hudson Street

one-third of the way from February 2005 to June 2006 = about July 2005
The Manhattan loft #709 at 421 Hudson Street cleared at $1.64mm on May 29, 2009. They wanted more, of course, having started at $1.995mm in October 2008. But they ended up at a price from about the middle of 2005.

If the value of #709 could be plotted on a graph as a straight line, the May 2009 price of $1.64mm would be about July 2005, based on these data points (clearing prices):

February 2005 $1.6mm
June 2006 $1.715mm

This "1,500 sq ft" duplex loft features a "tastefully renovated" chef's kitchen (Carrara + stainless), a double height living room, and "breathtaking" views. The sellers thought it was worth more than they had paid for it in June 2006, so they brought it to market in October 2008 at $1.995mm. Two quick (small) price drops (to $1.895mm) were followed by 3 months of public stubbornness (no change in asking price), but secret flexibility: when they struck a deal in February they negotiated to $1.64mm, a decent 13% off the asking price. Props to them (and their agent, Richard Orenstein of Halstead) for recognizing that they should take what The Market was offering.

quiet competition, envy
The #709 sellers may or may not have known that their neighbors in #706 were also interested in selling. There is no listing associated with the April 1 sale of #706, but it sold to the owners of #505 for $1.73mm. These buyers seem to have held on to #505 as well, which is kind of interesting. They obviously can't combine #505 and #706, so one wonders how that private deal was struck. City records show #706 as "1,279 sq ft", so that is a significant per-foot premium over #709 ($1,352/ft vs. $1,093/ft). Without a listing to refer to, I have no way of knowing the condition of #706, or whether it was finished to that much higher a level than #709.

Interesting also that #709 was sold to someone in the building. The people who bought #709 on May 29 sold the smaller #604 ("912 sq ft") on May 28 for $1.025mm. If I am reading the respective histories on StreetEasy correctly, the #604 sellers signed a contract to buy #709 before they signed to sell #604. That's brassy.

The #614 trading price of $1,123/ft suggests that the private sale of #706 is the outlier price of 2009 in this building, rather than the #709 price. The #706 buyers (who were and remain #505 owners) must have really wanted that loft.

another battle of 2005 vs. 2009, with 2005 winning BIG (if a fair fight)
All this detail got me looking at other clearing prices at the Printing House, so I found one more loft that has changed hands twice since 2005. Assuming that both sides were arm's length transactions (I will explain in a moment), #603 traded in September 2005 at $1.625mm and again on July 17, 2008 at $1.45mm. There are no listings in StreetEasy associated with either of these sales, and the sale last year was to an LLC, so it may not have been arm's length; if it was, that unit dropped in value by about 11% in 3 years, pre-Lehman. (No idea of size or condition.)
 

Jul. 2, 2009 - when charm is not enough, cut and cut again

There's a lovely (truly charming) Manhattan loft for sale that has had rather a lot of trouble finding it's correct positioning in The Market. I'd say not for lack of trying, as it has been on the market (on, and off, and on, and ...) for the better part of three years, except that it seems to have been so far from market price time and time again. One suspects that the sellers are more in love with the lovely (truly charming) loft than any buyers. That can be a problem.

Jun. 30, 2009 - The Memo was delayed? / flipper now under year-old price

Jun. 25, 2009 - why would you do that? flipping (trying) at 25% over February 2009

head-scratching ensues
There's a Manhattan loft new to market in a building that has had a fair amount of activity in the past couple of years. One bit of that activity was this very same loft, selling in February for $1.73mm. When that happened, the loft was a poster child for the changing market -- coming to market at $2.275mm at the peak, then hanging on (dripping down; 3 price drops) through the dog days of Lehman, into 2009.

So it is back on the market at ... Old Price #2. The exact price it did not sell at from May to September 2008. $200k higher than the price it did not sell at from September into November. $300k more than the price that generated a sale at $1.73mm. I am scratching so much my head hurts.

Why would you do that???


 

Jun. 20, 2009 - developer haircuts at 15 East 26 Street, 333 West 14 Street, 50 West 15 Street + 246 West 17 Street

taking the money and running
In looking at recent loft sales, I came across these five cases (in four buildings) in which a Manhattan loft developer took a pretty good discount from the last asking price to close a deal. In one case*, it is the first closing in the building; in the others, these are close to the last. Just for fun, I have also included the original asking prices for these lofts.

 

That is a lot of clipping.

Jun. 3, 2009 - at 65 West 13 Street, 3 years = off $20,000, but last year ...?

how they could they not regret?
If you drew a line between the fair market value of the Manhattan loft #8D at 65 West 13 Street (The Greenwich Condominium) from the sale in May 2006 at $2.22mm and the sale in April 2009 at $2.2mm, the line would be essentially straight. But that straight line would hardly accurately reflect the change in values over those three years, as the substantially similar #10D sold for $2.71mm as recently as September 2008 (that unit's line would look very different, as #10D sold in January 2005 at $2.075mm).

The Greenwich Condominium conversion of a former department store in 2000 - 2001 brought a level of luxury and amenities that this micro-nabe had not seen in a loft building before. Concierge services, beautiful roof deck (gas grill!), and real volume in these high-ceilinged spaces. The "D" line overlooks 6th Avenue (high enough on the 8th floor that, with thermopane windows, should reduce most of the ambient noise there to a hum), with very good light and those "city views". This "1,898 sq ft" unit was said to have been newly renovated when it came to market in July 2008 at $3.2mm, almost immediately after their upstairs neighbors in #10D went to contract quickly (4 weeks) off an asking price of $2.95mm (without a new renovation of 7 year old space).

I suspect that the #8D sellers did not view themselves as stretching the market on July 23, 2008.

market trajectory = rapid decline
The #8D sellers assessed the change in market after Lehman's Labor Day fall, and dropped to $2.995mm by late September, and again to $2.85mm in November. Our inter-firm data-base shows this was technically 'off the market' after December and that a contract was signed in March 2009, so maybe they were already negotiating with the eventual buyer in December, or maybe they did a very soft form of marketing in early 2009. Whatever, the March contract resulted in an April 21 closing at $2.2mm -- a rather large discount from the last asking price (23%), a very large discount from their original July 2008 asking price (31%), and what must have been a disappointing essentially flat (gross) 'loss' of $20,000 from their purchase in May 2006 at $2.22mm -- especially in view of #10D's clearing price of $2.71mm in September.

sometimes you just have to sympathize
Even assuming that the newly-renovated #8D and the (probably) 7-year-old-original-condition #10D were truly similar, the change in value between #10D's September 2008 and #8D's April 2009 of 19% is dramatic (more so, if the #8D renovation was significant upgrade). How could they not be thinking 'if only we had gotten our act together 3 months earlier ...' ?

With two units so close together, I can't think of a better (in this case, poignant) illustration of the turn-of-market that occurred with the AIG + Lehman + Associated Fall-out in the Manhattan loft market.
 

May. 14, 2009 - Manhattan overall inventory down March-to-April (slightly)

just a nugget, not a trend (yet?)
The Wall Street Journal's on-line article Tuesday about a national trend in a decline in the number of homes for sale in 29 cities was based on a source that has no Manhattan data, but they seem to have checked in with The Miller: "Miller Samuel Inc., an appraisal firm there, reports there were 10,369 cooperative apartments and condominiums on the market in Manhattan at the end of April. That was down 0.7% from March but up 20% from April 2008."

h/t The Real Deal

a trend?
The Miller himself posted on Curbed last Friday about trends in weekly inventory levels by size of apartment, where the hint is in the title: Listings, They Are A-Stabilizing . Money quote comes with bolding in the original:
 

I don't see how a "seasonal increase in demand" (i.e., more buyers in Spring) translates into stabilizing inventory as early as May, because any March contracts (early Spring buyers) have not closed yet (i.e., are still in inventory). But he's been following this much more closely than I have, for a much longer time.

Note that my weekly count of Manhattan lofts available for sale does not reflect what The Miller sees in the overall Manhattan coop and condo market:

Loft inventory has been in a very narrow range the last seven weeks: from 989 to 1,024. That may be "stabilizing", but it is stabilizing at a record level. Time, as they say, will tell.

May. 6, 2009 - pretty efficient (depressed) market at 505 Greenwich Street as both 6F and 7F sell, off 25%

compare and contrast, upstairs and down, now and then
Here's another take on the theme of my neighborly competition thread (more links below): two all-but-identical Manhattan lofts at 505 Greenwich Street had overlapping marketing histories, prices and success, suggesting that even in this thin market The Market can be relatively efficient (if cruel).

This 2004 newly constructed condo is that oxymoron that loft-snobs like Manhattan Loft Guy just have to get over: yes, with no history of a non-residential usage (or any history at all), it is more accurate to say that the units are "loft-style", but no one else cares. It features open kitchens, big windows, (largely) open floor plans, and it is in a formerly non-residential micro-neighborhood, so The Market thinks it is a loft.

The "812 sq ft" "F" line is as big as some new condo 2 BR "apartments", but the layout is otherwise pretty conventional. The fixtures, finishes and amenities are consistent with the arm's race among new developments, circa 2004 (pet spa!). It is on the 'wrong' side of Canal Street to be in Tribeca, but it is hard to call this block Soho with a straight face.

the 3% difference
Neither #6F nor #7F seems to have been significantly upgraded in the brief history of the building. They have parallel recent listing histories:
 

I find that small difference in price to be remarkable in a noticeably thinner market than a year ago. I wonder if the #6F buyer had been in the market during the ten weeks #7F was being actively marketed....

Please don't worry that the #6Fsellers did not do as well as their upstairs neighbors. To the contrary: the #6F sellers were December 2004 buyers at $645k, while the #7Fsellers were January 2005 buyers at (ouch ahead!) $915k. (No consolation, of course, but the #7F sellers had no capital gains tax liability.)  Indeed, the "F" line original sales suggest a bizarrely inefficient market, presumably because the contract dates varied widely:

off 25% since Summer

Continuing the sale history of this line presents an interesting market perspective:

One little thing and one big thing jump out of this history: (1) The Market was both robust and efficient right around The Fall of Lehman, and (2) the recent sales of #6F and #7F are off almost 25% from the Summer sale of #5F.

other neighborly ruminations

April 17, break away to win the neighborly competition / so many lofts, so many dollars ... but no sales (yet)

January 7, are they fooling only each other? / 3 neighbors push, 1 smiles

December 12, more unintended consequences in petri dish of Tribeca neighbors

December 7, selling the neighbor's loft / unintended consequences in a Tribeca petri dish?

November 30, neighborly competition leads to neighborly mistakes? the laboratory at 24 East 22 Street

May. 3, 2009 - day late and a dollar short (recidivist edition)

Apr. 24, 2009 - how to be happy selling for $1mm+ off at 43 West 64 Street

don't cry for me Argentina
You'd be tempted to assume that a Manhattan loft seller with this listing history would not be happy:

to market April 28, 2008 at $3.85mm
price drop June 23 to $3.595mm
price drop October 17 to $2.95mm
price drop November 14 to $2.8mm
contract December 19
closed March 13 at $2.55mm

Don't go there! Of course, I have no idea what this seller's actual emotions are, but the fact that the March 2009 seller at $2.55mm was a buyer in the original conversion in February 2004 for $1,970,314 suggests that this seller may be a little chagrined at not getting anywhere near $4mm but should be happy with a 25% gain in five years.

Apr. 23, 2009 - flipping over a kitchen?

© Sandy Mattingly 2009

Apr. 22, 2009 - March nugget / PruDE's signed contracts up for month

© Sandy Mattingly 2009  

Apr. 21, 2009 - Then vs. Now / Then wins, I think, even if this one is better

headwinds are strong
I worked with someone last year who was sufficiently interested in a particular loft in a prime Manhattan loft area that we saw it three times. That one was an interesting mix (to be charitable) of primitive elements and modern touches, with good light, interesting views and an excellent location.

The eight months it took to sell that Manhattan loft straddled the Lehman + AIG + miscellaneous crap = chaos turn of The Market, but it did sell -- around 67% of the original asking price. Now an upstairs neighbor is pushing the envelope a bit, in newly offering for sale a loft with better finishes and more rooms in the exact same foot print (speaking of foot prints, there are also more steps involved), asking 25% more than the neighbor got in late 2008.

That is a tall order.

very recent, very nearby comp needs adjustment
Applying last year's loft sale of a neighbor's unit is more art than science when the conditions of the two lofts are as different as they appear to be with this pair. Give the new one a plus for a more efficient layout, much better kitchen and bath finishes, and greater utility, but strike as a negative a less convenient floor. (That's art.)

Applying last year's loft sale of a neighbor's unit is more science than art when considering that The Market has eroded in the year since the other one was first launched and the months since the other one sold, but strays into art when considering how much erosion in this building in this prime Manhattan loft location. I'd tend to be conservative and think 10% off a late-2008 close, then make the more art-y adjustments based on a rough metric of the cost of upgrading the sold loft's condition to compete evenly with the newly offered loft.

My adjustments net out to 85% to 90% of the current asking price. (Note to self: report back on how this turns out.) So that puts it in the too pushy ...? side of that thread.

The interesting question is whether (if the Manhattan Loft Guy approach to pricing this loft is correct) asking 110% of the likely-market-value will generate enough offers to negotiate to the actual-market-value within a reasonable time frame. (A reasonable time frame here is one that does not eat more equity than is prudent, as the calendar pages fall off.)

The experienced and professional agent representing the new loft for sale is undoubtedly aware of all that I have laid out here, and has applied the best mix of art and science to apply last year's sale of a lesser loft to this year's campaign for a better loft. This situation is very similar to the three lofts newly for sale that I was very familiar with, which I addressed from the perspective of seller's risk vs. agent's risk on March 25 (asking, am I a coward? ... ). So I assume the seller and agent are in agreement on the risks. I'd expect a price adjustment within 3 to 4 weeks if they read the risks the way I do.

to be continued... as usual ...
 

Apr. 18, 2009 - another seller who gets it / pricing 7% off 2007

nice try, but enough?
There's a loft newly offered for sale in a Manhattan Loft Guy fave building (value!) that -- I think -- is taking the right approach to The Market. The 2009 seller was a 2007 buyer, and is starting in The (new) Market at 7% off the market price of The (old) Market.

I know what you are thinking
But you may be thinking that 7% off a close-to-the-top of The (old) Market is not enough, even as a starting point for soliciting interest. But what I have not told you is that the loft appears (from a comparison of the two listing descriptions, then and now) to have been given one of those no-detail-overlooked renovations in the interim. If so, I believe that the 2009-seller-from-2007-buyer has probably added enough value to make the 7% 'discount' from 2007 a healthy place to start.

Only The Market knows, however. I will watch it, so you will now when The Market decides.


 

© Sandy Mattingly 2009  

Apr. 9, 2009 - some sellers are not adapting

2009 does not equal 2007 + renovation + $$$, does it?
I was refreshed yesterday to find a Manhattan loft offered at 80% of its 2007 price (some sellers are adapting). Let's swing the emotional dial the other way for today's candidate for the other end of the (newly re-christened) too pushy ... or not pushy at all? thread.

This candidate from the other Manhattan Loft Guy pushy pole is -- like yesterday's -- a bit off the beaten (prime) loft track geographically and was sold in 2007. But the pricing comparison is not as simple as yesterday, as this loft was upgraded since 2007. It is being marketed as having a much reduced price, as well as being a high-class design. (Having compared the listing descriptions and looked at the building history, this loft was far from a gut renovation, but there was a significant change in the layout.)

Simple arithmetic confirms the drops have been rather dramatic (now off one-third[!], in two steps), while a scan of the pix and floor plan show that the space has been improved from its (former) lovely-but-basic condition. But ... I have to ask ...

... what were they thinking?
I understand that these people are very proud of the improvements they made to their (essentially) new-in-2007 space and I am willing to assume that they spent a fair amount of money upgrading this pretty darn big loft. But not as much as  a gut renovation would have cost. And they are -- no doubt -- frustrated by whatever change in circumstances have turned them from 2007-buyers+upgraders into 2008-now-2009-sellers.

But they started out trying to sell in a post-Lehman world with very pre-Lehman notions about value. In fact, the original asking price -- as improved -- was ... (wait for it) ... twice what they paid. TWICE what they paid.

how tall is that order?
It is a very tall order to persuade The (cruel, cold) Market that you have doubled the value of a Manhattan loft in a full gut renovation, let alone in a more modest upgrade. Of course, it did not work, as The Market is unpersuaded. So they took a million dollar hit (how frustrating must that be for a seller??), but that did not work either. The new price is a full one-third less than where they started, yet still one-third more than they paid in 2007 (before upgrading).

I get it that the loft is special -- perhaps even unique. I suspect that they did not spend a million bucks on their upgrade. I suspect that The Market in 2009 is not going to pay more than the 2007 price + the 2007 upgrade cost, and probably will pay less. I suspect that this will sit for a while, without additional dramatic drops.

not one of the 8 million stories?
Perhaps they are not really one of the 8 million stories, and do not really have to sell. (Odd they they would 'market' in that case, but whatever ....) If they have to sell, The Market is unimpressed, so far. I have run it up the Manhattan Loft Guy pushy pole, where it sits on the too pushy ...? top, waiting to be updated when something changes.

 

© Sandy Mattingly 2009

Apr. 8, 2009 - some sellers are adapting

2009 as 80% of 2007?
It was somewhat refreshing to come across a Manhattan loft recently new to market that is priced with The (new) Market in mind. The seller knows exactly what life near the top of The (old) Market was like, as s/he bought it two years ago. The seller is testing the proposition that The Market is off 20% in two years by asking 80% of what s/he paid in 2007.

Even in a thin market, you'd like to think that that kind of behavior will be rewarded with a serious bid followed by negotiation and a contract.

The loft is in a brand-name loft nabe, though in an out-of-the-way corner. It was marketed two years ago with an emphasis on the quality of its renovation, so it should probably still qualify for three mints after just two years. It is interesting that the 2007-buyer-turned-2009-seller bought way back then only after some months and a series of price drops (about 12% off the original ask, in total).

bad thread title, amended
While this loft logically falls within the thread I have been calling too pushy ... or not pushy enough?, it shows the gap in my thread title. My mistake was using 'not pushy enough' as one pole in a market in which there are no below-market offerings. This loft is probably not pushy at all, which is about as conservative a pricing scenario as we are likely to see from all but the most motivated (desperate) sellers.

This one will be very interesting to follow.

 

© Sandy Mattingly 2009  

Mar. 27, 2009 - more angst at $1,000/ft / feels like 2005 in Tribeca as contract (finally) signed

plop plop, fizz fizz
I am going to mention this Manhattan loft contract signing while my eyes are still bulging; I will update with a clearing price when (if??) it closes and the price is available. My eyes widened -- but did not bulge  -- when I saw that this awfully large loft in an awfully classic Tribeca condominium conversion from late in the last century (the cast iron went up late in the century before that) went into contract off an asking price of essentially $1,000/ft after an awfully long time on the market. What caused my eyes to bulge was the detail of the listing history: offered first at nearly $1,500/ft, it languished for 8 months; then it had 6 other (lower ;-) prices in the 5 months it took to get into contract, among them two different 10% drops (yes, it takes a few big steps to go from $1,500/ft to asking $1,000/ft).

oh what a relief it is
This loft was professionally marketed, though unsuccessfully for such a long time. It took two firms and two very accomplished agents. The quarterly market reports for the market in which this loft came to market had nothing but good news for a seller: continued record pricing, continued strong buyer activity. Tick, tick, tick ....

For reasons obviously unknown to me, the seller was slow in adapting, and did not drop the price even once until weeks after the fall of the house of Lehman. At that point, not even a 10% drop would help, as the seller -- once adaptive -- struggled mightily to find The Market (witness the 6 drops).

is that 2005 I see in the mirror?
Retrospect is, as they say, priceless. A big price drop early might have been enough to catch some of that 2007-like market. Instead, the asking price that finally generated a contract in 2009 is within 7% of the price this seller paid four years ago -- and the clearing price (when we see it) could well be lower than that 2005 price. Even in Tribeca. Even in a (nice) condo.

Note that this is not one of those 'typical Tribeca coops' that I wrote about in my March 10 post, the end of a $1,000/ft baseline for Tribeca coop lofts? This loft is not only a condo, it is in a conversion that is less than 15 years old, and its Long-and-Narrow footprint has a relatively wide 'Narrow' (25 feet) and some windows on both Long sides (affording a layout with real bedrooms in the middle of the unit). While the original price was certainly aggressive (at plus $2mm over the 2005 purchase price), there were condo lofts not very far from this one that were closing around $1,500/ft back then.

I don't think that Alka Seltzer would have been a strong enough tonic for this owner, slow as s/he was in adapting to The Market.

 

© Sandy Mattingly 2009  

Mar. 26, 2009 - flipping on your head (ouch) in Chelsea / from 2002 to 2007, returning to 2009 ... then 2006 or earlier??

off 10-15%, at least
It feels as though it has been a while since I posted in the too pushy ...? thread but here's one that reminds me that the thread always had that "?" in it. There's a Manhattan loft newly (returned) to market in Greater Chelsea that is priced way below where it was offered last year, and more than 10% below where it last traded for, in 2007. I would think they would get some interest at this pricing level, but (The Shadow being off the radio for decades by now) only The Market knows ....

gain to froth to pain: The Market timeline
(I am going to set this out in words first, as I am a word [and wordy] guy, but I realize this is hard enough to follow that I will put in a table at the end, using proportions though not actual prices in order to shield this loft form being identified. As always, I beg your indulgence to bear with me.)

The building was first marketed in 2002, a full year before it was completed and sales occurred. This unit's history in the developer marketing days is interesting: it had an accepted offer very early that fell through, then was re-priced 35% higher for a short time (the developer thought they had left a lot of money on the table in the first pricing), then was re-priced lower by 10% (second thoughts on how much was left on the table), then actually cleared in 2003 at about 5% off the last asking price after being on the market at that lower price for 5 months or so. That was a dynamic market, no?

The original buyer decided to move on and cash out about 3 years later. In what was by then a somewhat frothy market, the original-buyer-turned-2007 seller asked nearly 50% more than the original price. (Those were heady days, no?) It took all of 4 weeks to make a deal at 97% of that asking price, resulting in a gross gain of $400k on a loft that is not much more than 1,200 sq ft.

not that heady, after all
Here's where miscalculations about The Market come in, as that 2007 buyer tried to flip almost immediately, asking 40% more than s/he had just paid. Like the developer five years earlier, the new flipper thought too much money was left on the table -- although this time by the original-owner-turned-2007-seller. While there is no question that The Market generally increased through 2007, that 40% premium was way more than The Market would swallow. Taking $100k off the price after 4 months did not impress anyone either, so that marketing effort ended when the listing expired after 6 months.

not that heady, either
Undaunted, though somewhat chastened, the flipper tried to flip again after The Market had definitely (in retrospect) changed, dropping the ask by another $200k, still looking for about 15% in gross profit. The flipper was way behind a declining market, and that effort expired in six months, as well.

to the present, priced at a loss from 2007
A change in agent and price shows the (by now) very chastened flipper asking 10% less than s/he paid in 2007. Ouch, indeed. Any potential buyer will argue with this flipped out flipper that 10% is not enough of a discount, but I think the flipper has finally found an asking price that should attract some interest, unlike the prior two 6-month exercises in pricing futility.

the same story, fewer words (proportionate values)
 

*the original price was not $1mm, but I am using that starting point to keep the active listing anonymous; all subsequent "prices" are closely proportionate to what happened since that beginning (in round numbers)

As I said (in all those words above), this is quite an interesting timeline, encompassing Mahanttan loft markets that showed gain to froth to pain: (1) an up market (developer searching for right price in 2002-03), (2) a frothy market (quick sale in 2007 up 45% in three+ years and an immediate attempt to flip way too high), and (3) a chastened flipper two years later trying to lose only 11%. Wonderful microcosm, I think. [arrgggh ... can't turn that italics monster off; sorry]

© Sandy Mattingly 2009  

Mar. 15, 2009 - chasing a dream or waking up from a bad dream, as they chase The Market down

stepping in a down market, easier said than done, always painful
There's a new-ish listing in an architecturally significant Manhattan loft conversion from this century that hit numerous Manhattan Loft Guy buttons: it is (another) one of those eight million stories; it was definitely too pushy; it is now priced significantly below the prior market (possibly in line with current reality).

Looks as though they did  a lovely job with the conversion, using quality finishes and creatively adapting the so-far-from-cookie-cutter spaces a few years back. Certainly, the loft is lovely. Certainly, it was priced right back in the day: it took ten days to find a contract in the original offering. Certainly, these folks have (at least) one of the eight million stories here in the big city: they started trying to flip seven months after closing, probably as unintentional flippers (in the sense that they'd have marketed immediately after closing if they had always planned to flip; 'waiting' 7 months implies a change in circumstances).

the numbers tell a story

• The developer priced this loft at almost $1,300/ft almost 3 years ago (it closed a year later)
• The new owners started flipping (started trying to flip) 7 months later, asking under $1,500/ft
• Unsuccessful after six months (and one drop of about $100/ft), they took it off the market (without, apparently, having totally abandoning the idea of a flip)
• Back on the market after another 9 months, now asking about $1,100/ft -- about $400k less than their purchase less than two years earlier

what's the story?
I may only be scenario-spinning here, but I read this trail as evidence of people unhappily but finally confronting the reality that they have to sell, come hell, high water or a significant capital loss. They spent some painful months since Summer figuring out if they really had to sell, then decided the numbers didn't work so they had to sell. Re-pricing $600k less than before looks pretty credible to me; we will see if The Market is equally respectful of their new approach.

 

© Sandy Mattingly 2009  

Mar. 11, 2009 - flipping for fun, not profit, in Soho

© Sandy Mattingly 2009