Jun. 19, 2009 - power of a coop board to reject a deal as "too low"??
protecting shareholders from market value???
The Real Deal on-line June 16 flagged an interesting little item in a relatively obscure periodical that is mostly read (if at all) by Manhattan coop and condo boards, Habitat Magazine. With a tip of the hat toTRD and apologies to Carol Ott, the article is online here. It touches on the (undeniable) power of coop boards to approve or reject purchase applications, but in the specific context of whether the coop board can or should decide based on the contract price. This is one of those back-in-the-day topics, where Manhattan real estate veterans might regale (bore) newbies in (say) 2006 with stories about the Bad Old Days (early 1990s) when coop and condo prices in Manhattan were at best stinky and stagnant. Things go 'round and 'round....
Habitat found an actual Manhattan coop board president faced with an actual dilemma and a 7-member board split 3-3 (pending the president's vote) on whether to approve or disapprove a purchase. In broad terms, there was a shareholder with a contract to sell, who had been trying for quite a while to sell, and who presented a contract for approval at a price that some board members felt was "too low". The board clearly has a fiduciary obligation to act to protect "shareholders", but that duty -- simple to state -- is not so easily applied.
the law is a ass
Apparently there is court precedent in the Bronx and Manhattan that is different from the court precedent in Queens and Brooklyn. A lawyer described the decision pertaining to Queens and Brooklyn as "to turn somebody down because his price is too low is an unreasonable interference with a shareholder's ability to sell his apartment", while the one covering Manhattan and The Bronx "said that it's not unreasonable because a board was within its rights in making decisions in the best interests of the building". As one sighing lawyer said, in turning on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand to the other hand: "you do have an obligation to protect the property value for the rest of the people." Neither decision is controlling (they must have been by low level courts), but I am less interested in the legality per se than in the stupidity.
coop boards protect value like Canute protected beaches
Having been a coop board president in a small Manhattan loft building for ten years, I can't think of any other 'reason' for the board to reject a deal because of price than that articulated by the sighing lawyer: the board absolutely has "an obligation to protect the property value for the rest of the people." My considered judgment is that the solution (rejecting a shareholder's application to sell and get out because remaining shareholders will be struck with a bad comp) has nothing to do with the purported problem (fear that units will be worth less after the sale than before it); even putting aside for the moment the harm the board would do to one specific shareholder and the risk that other shareholders will be left dealing with a fellow shareholder who may be financially strapped (after all, is selling at a 'distress' price) and will be emotionally pissed.
In the case of the president about to cast a deciding vote, the shareholder had been in the marketplace for quite a while and found exactly one buyer, at the best price the seller could negotiate. Whether the board wanted to keep it secret or not, that contract price was the value for that coop at that time (if it was really worth more, someone else would have paid more, no?). A board who decides that this is a bad comp and wants to protect other shareholders would reject the deal not to protect value, but to protect a secret: the secret that one unit was worth 'only' $X. In a world in which information was available (e.g., if an appraiser -- such as the one probably involved -- knew the deal had been rejected), the lending community (at least) would use that deal in assessing value (in this case, probably as a ceiling).
For a board to insist that market value contracts will not be approved actually says this about units in the building: they have no value because they are unsaleable; any price that is low enough for The Market to accept is too low for us to approve.
So I think that the best argument in favor a board rejecting a deal on the basis of price is that they think that other shareholders benefit from keeping this arm's-length transaction a secret. So I think that this (best) argument is stupid.
As noted, a board rejection will likely render units in this coop illiquid until The Market shifts. But at that point the utility of a 'bad comp' is limited by the then-current (improved) market conditions. But what else will happen if the board rejects that deal?
One shareholder is very definitely screwed -- nothing conjectural about that. And -- if that shareholder is less financially responsible than the rejected buyer -- the coop may be screwed as well, if that shareholder can't afford the maintenance, or can't contribute to an assessment for needed building improvements. Not to mention that the social fabric of the building may be at risk from a severely screwed shareholder's interaction with the board and other shareholders.
If the board approves the sale, they trade one shareholder for another and they acknowledge (not set, acknowledge) that The Market value of their coops has declined. People may not be happy with the facts, but they at least know that if they need to sell, the board will not interfere with The Market. Isn't that likely to be a happier building than one in which people feel locked in, perhaps desperate?
If the lower court decision taking the contrary view were readily available I would be curious enough to read it, but I cannot imagine that there is any better 'analysis' than is presented here. The only conceivable reason for a board to reject a deal because the price is 'too low' is to protect other shareholders from the facts in the marketplace, notwithstanding the actual (potentially huge) harm done to one shareholder and the potential harm to the coop from losing the opportunity to trade a weak shareholder for a stronger shareholder.
I don't mean to pick on coop boards, just on stupid coop boards. I have talked before about coop board authority, and public commentary or analysis of that authority, so this post joins a list. (By the way, that actual Manhattan coop board president in the Habitat article faced with an actual dilemma and a 7-member board split 3-3 [pending the president's vote] on whether to approve or disapprove the purchase did the right thing: that board voted 4-3 to approve the deal.) See my other posts about coop boards:
Nov 21, 2008: picking on coop boards but in need of editing (NY Post) (about a crappy NY Post article and coop boards tightening standards in a changed market)
March 16, 2008: coop boards behaving badly / 32 Gramercy Park South edition (about a coop board lawsuit over a shareholder's holiday decorations)
May 29, 2007: advantages to the much-maligned coop ownership, vs. condos (about one advantage of coops compered to condos -- the ability of aboard to deal with misbehaving owners)
Feb 9, 2007: coop boards behaving badly / can you imagine? (about ways in which some coop boards do bad things, sometimes)
then, vs. now
Back in the day, this low-price-dilemma was last an interesting topic but in a very different world. (In my loft coop, shareholders who bought in the late 1980s were under water for 5 to 7 years; in which time there were few transactions, but there were some.) That was a world in which coop prices were still (largely) secrets -- known only to those in the know and not publicly available anywhere. The power of a negative comp probably had more of a bogeyman aspect, and boards could more legitimately think about keeping secrets. But those days are long gone....
The Market is The Market, is The Market. Coop boards have no positive effect on market value, but they can make units unsaleable (or, to reduce the actual value of unit) by rejecting deals for reasons having nothing to do with the financial qualifications of the buyer. If they want to increase shareholder value, they should run a tight building and not do things that have little benefit but make it more difficult to sell (such as making open houses difficult or impossible, or preventing shareholders in dire financial circumstances from sub-letting, or discriminating against buyers who are ... different). End of rant. Resume normal Manhattan Loft Guy reading....
© Sandy Mattingly 2009
Comments (5) :: Post A Comment! :: Permanent Link|
View more entries tagged with: Coop Boards, Applications, Fiduciary, Market Price, Value, 1980s, 1992
Jun. 19, 2009 - RE: power of a coop board to reject a deal as "too low"??
|Posted by hst |
excellent analysis and opinion. Sharp and to the point. A story full of larger political allegory, for those who wish to draw it.
|Permanent Link |
Dec. 7, 2010 - RE: power of a coop board to reject a deal as "too low"??
|Posted by Paul Turner |
I think you're basically right but it's not all down to the market, a shareholder can want to force through a fast sale at a discount price and this would not be in the interests of the remaining shareholders.
|Permanent Link |
Sep. 19, 2011 - RE: power of a coop board to reject a deal as "too low"??
|Posted by Patricia Levy |
If an apartment is on the market for 6 months or even longer and has been exposed through numerous showings, open houses and aggressive marketing I hardly think that qualifies as a fast sale for a discount.
Also, pricing to market is the best strategy as most times will get very close to your asking price vs something that has been sitting for a while with reduction upon reduction because the price was too high. Savvy buyers love to see that happen as this is usually the license to bid low. Further, the seller usually gets frustrated and tired at this point and just wants to sell.
|Permanent Link |
May. 16, 2012 - RE: power of a coop board to reject a deal as "too low"??
|Posted by Anonymous |
Every deal is different. I am on the board of an UWS coop. We have three deals in front of us where there is 40% difference in the purchase price...all apartments on same line, albeit with different amounts of light and condition. The lowest price is more than 10% below the price for the one right above it. I don't think in rejecting the low-ball offer that we are affecting the liquidity of the market. We are indeed 'keeping a secret'...the secret that one deal was simply a bad one.
|Permanent Link |
May. 16, 2012 - RE: power of a coop board to reject a deal as "too low"??
|Posted by Sandy Mattingly |
THX for sharing your direct experience, Anon. Couple of things I don't get...
1. why do you think that you are "rejecting the low-ball offer"? That's not an "offer"; that's a contract.
2. why substitute your judgment that the "deal was simply a bad one" for the seller's judgment that the deal was the best one available? It is tautology, but still: if there were a detter deal avilable to the seller, the seller would have presented that one, not the "bad" one.
3. do you think the seller with the rejected deal agrees that you are not "affecting the liquidity of the market" by rejecting the best deal the seller could get?
Not knowing the details, I can't assess market values in the 3 units that differ in (as you say) light and condition. A 10% spread between the middle value and the lowest value might well be a rational spread based on light + condition, and if the top one is 40% higher than the bottom, maybe that is the outlier value. ("Too high", though that is not a reason to reject, either.)
I am sympathetic to the Board's concerns, just unpersuaded that they are legit. (I was a coop board president for 10 years.) *Especially* in a situation with 3 sales in the same line, the 'danger' that the low one poses to other shareholders (that it will impact their values) is rather diluted; after all, 2/3 of sales were at higher $$$.
Every shareholder *wants* values to be higher. But the only shareholders that are actually asking The Market to determine what the values are are the 3 who presented deals to be approved. You are kidding yourself if you think the board can (or should) say "one deal was simply a bad one" and so will be rejected. The only hard money is coming out of that seller's pocket; you are taking away the only deal they have found.
|Permanent Link |
Sandy Mattingly is Manhattan Loft Guy; now with The Corcoran Group (http://corcoran.com/ ; but see the disclaimer at the bottom of the page), he can be reached most easily at Sandy@ManhattanLoftGuy.com or 917.902.2491, and followed on Twitter @ManhattnLoftGuy (note "mis-spelling").
After 7+ years, the blog has moved. Links here on RealTown will work for the foreseeable future, but new posts (and all the old content) has migrated to ManhattanLoftGuy.com.
• ch ch ch changes September 30, 2013
• diversion is more of a (small) rant about Manhattan real estate "penthouses"
• 50 West 29 Street build-out loft sale not as simple as it looks
• 28 Laight Street 1-day loft sale looks like a whisper listing
• room or light? Tribeca or Chelsea? 2 lofts sold above ask at $2.645 million have different charms
RSS Blog Feed
caution: no real estate content
change is a constant
general weird stuff
In the news (me)
loft features / amenities
loft features / kitchens
loft features / outdoor space
loft features / "space"
loft features / views
lofts in 'other' neighborhoods
Loft neighborhoods / Chelsea
Loft neighborhoods/ East Village
Loft neighborhoods / Flatiron
loft neighborhoods / NoHo
Loft neighborhoods / SoHo
Loft neighborhoods / Tribeca
loft neighborhoods / West 30s
lofts outside New York??
Manhattan real estate business
Market Data - aggregators
Market Data - reports
Marketing Manhattan apartments
New York, New York, New York
On The Market
The Process - buying an apartment
Psychology of the market
public art in Manhattan
truth IS stranger...
what makes a loft a "loft"
internet and blogosphere
renovation opportunities + rewards
One Bed Wonders
new this week
Manhattan Users Guide (be sure to search the archives)
The Gotham Center for NYC History
Matrix the Real Estate Economy
Hopstop (door-to-door subway instructions)
MTA subway site, including maps + schedules
NYC Dept of Education site
NY State Assn of Independent Schools (find private schools)
the local TriBeCa newspaper
"the weekly newspaper of lower Manhattan"
Brooklyn, but a great blog
Patell & Waterman's History of New York
The Soho Memory Project by a long-time resident
Tribeca Commons, an economist considers history, development + more
NYC Past photo tumblr
Manhattan Loft Guy Facebook page (use dropdown menu for Timeline)
the MLG Master List of loft sales, to Nov 2008
Brick Underground, "vertical living demystified"
Daytonian In Manhattan a tourist's wonder with a local's eye
Urban Digs (numbers, graphs & charts, oh my)
True Gotham (very) occasional front-line dispatches
DNA Info, local news via the inter-tubes
The Real Deal, our industry rag
Coop and Condo (a lawyer writes with a funny pen)
Crain's New York real estate
Tom Fletcher’s NYC Architecture
Jeremiah’s Vanishing New York
Architakes, one guy's take
Scouting New York (location guy with camera)
Chelsea Now (area news)
the essential. if ephemeral, New York
The Broadsheet Daily (especially for BPC, FiDi and Tribeca residents)
The Atlantic Cities
• View my profile
• Email Me
• Blog Manager