« Toll Brothers' Gowanus Rezoning Certified by DCP Retail Doings on the Slope-P. Heights Border »

September 11, 2008

Multifamily Commercial Real Estate Sale for $35.3 Million

multifamilysale_08_08.jpg
Four six-story elevator apartment buildings changed hands to the tune of $35.3 million last week, brokered by Rosewood Realty Group. That's 324 units and four commercial spaces sold for "10.4 times the current rent roll," reports the New York Real Estate Journal. The buildings are 715 St. Marks Avenue, 649 Empire Boulevard and 621 Lefferts Avenue, in Crown Heights, and 114 Albemarle Road in Kensington, which the paper called "emerging neighborhoods." "The seller is a family that owned the buildings for over 50 years," Jungreis said, adding they were sold to another "very active" Brooklyn family, one that "will benefit from the fact that the former owners have left some delicious low hanging fruit for the new owners who will further enjoy appreciation of those assets." We talked to Jungreis, who assured us that this won't be a Stuyvesant Town situation, where longtime rent stabilized tenants worry they'll lose their spots. "These are regular, normal, longterm holders. They're two young guys in the family business, they just want to hold."
Rosewood Realty Completes $35.3m Multifamily Portfolio Sale [NYREJ]
Photos from Property Shark.




Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/6082

Comments

Great!
Sounds like they have bought a thousand and one rent-regulated heart aches. The rent control and rent regulation laws in NY have made it impossible for anyone but the most ruthless and notorious parties to own residential rental real estate. you have to go in like Attila the Hun and manage like Genghis Kahn. It's a shame.
New Yorkers deserve more, but then again it would mean they would need to pay market rate rents, which is unthinkable to many who consider paying below-market rent not just a privilige but a right. And then there are those who believe that paying any rent is optional.

Posted by: sam at September 11, 2008 11:09 AM

Sam - right on!

Posted by: troll at September 11, 2008 11:23 AM

Not really true Sam - all you need is alot of capital and good management.

If you seriously renovate every vacancy (and thereby get much more rent); and put in significant buildingwide Major Capital Improvements (which raises existing tenants rent)

You don't have to be cruel or ruthless, all you really need to do is evict those tenants who do not pay and demand timely payment of rent from everyone else and you can quickly (3-5 yrs) turn a RS building into a very profitable investment.

Although I do acknowledge at 10.4x RR purchase price - such a senario is very very difficult

Posted by: fsrg at September 11, 2008 11:43 AM

I have never bought the argument made by sam (and numerous others). I compare this to bonds, the prices of which vary depending on return, liquidity, riskiness and other factors. If rent regulations reduce the rent roll for a building, the sales price should reflect that. Anybody who over-pays has no one to blame but themselves. There is no honor in being the greater fool.

Posted by: altervoce at September 11, 2008 12:02 PM

I stick by what I wrote, the unintended consequences of rent control laws is a poisoning of the business relationship between renter and landlord. The Landlord gains nothing by making his tenants happy, and the tenants gain nothing by paying their rent on time, or even at all. Meanwhile the market rate renters that occupy the decontrolled units, who want to live in a decent building, have to deal with the renters who want no improvements if it means any adjustment to their below-market rents. I know it is politically incorrect to criticize the peculiarities of the NYC rent laws, and I am well aware that after sixty years, many have become hopelessly dependent on them. But it is nonetheless true that the standard American business model does not work when dealing with rent regulated tenants. In the absence of business, it becomes war, and who will outlive who.

Posted by: sam at September 11, 2008 12:18 PM

Sam you are criticizing a number of things at once - NYC housing court determines the consequences (or lack there of) for failing to pay rent - and you are right - it is a joke. That being said - this has nothing to do with Rent Stabilization Laws.

And while I agree that the 'reward' for making tenants happy (i.e. providing good services and a nice building) is mitigated by the inability to raise rent, there is most definitely a benefit in keeping tenants happy - happy tenants pay quicker, treat your building better, and attract better (and higher paying) tenants for vacancies.

As for tenants not wanting improvements - so what - as long as you follow the law (albeit often time arbitrary and silly one) you can collect all the Capital Improvements from the existing tenancy whether they want it or not. You do not need tenants approval for buildingwide MCIs.

Look I am no fan of RC/RS - but it also provides certain opportunities - it aint easy - but there is plenty of money to be made in (some) RS/RC housing, while providing tenants a great place to live.

Posted by: fsrg at September 11, 2008 12:27 PM

How are you guys--sam and fsrq--defining "good services?" If the front door locks, the mailboxes are secure, the halls kept clean and the plumbing works, I'm pretty well set. None of that is all that expensive. I'll even do my own painting if the landlord pays, cause I'll do a better job than whoever he or she was going to hire. And I'm all in favor of major capital improvements that are actually needed; less so for the ones done just to jack up the rent.

Posted by: altervoce at September 11, 2008 12:48 PM

FSRQ;

I have to agree 100% with Sam on this one.

Aren't you ignoring the higher transaction costs in a RC/RS building, be it in actual hard cash or wasted time?

You talk about the ability of an owner to implement MCI's. As you may be aware, an owner has to pass this by the RS bureacracy for approval, and they have a rigid formula for the increases allowed. To continue where Sam left off: does this jibe with the America business model, especially in real estate, where there is a cycle, and timing is important? Honestly speaking, do you think those bureaucrats favor the tenant or the owner? If some crank tenant makes a complaint to the R/S bureauacracy, do you think it will slow down the approval of the MCI proposal, possibly causing the owner to miss an upmarket cycle?

When you boil it all down, rent control is nothing more than government price control, and virtually no economist these days argues for the efficacy of this approach. Price controls always creates shortages, distortions in the marketplace and unscrupulous operators - in other words - exactly what the NYC rental market is today.

Fortunately for all of us, rent control is on the wane, as fewer owners want to play this fool's game, and are wisely converting their units to Co-ops or condos.

Posted by: benson at September 11, 2008 12:50 PM

Benson - I am not ignoring any costs (including time) - nor am I advocating FOR RS/RC (I do favor a vacancy decontrol however).

All I am saying is that you can make alot of money in RS/RC buildings if you buy right (i.e. low rents) and have the capital to take advantage of the law to get MCI increases.

Yes, problem tenants can make your life miserable, delay things, and cost real $ - but with persistence and good records (and $) you will eventually defeat these obstructions.

And yes the bureaucracy favors the tenant, so it makes everything that much harder.

And yes RC/RS is price controls and results in most of the problems of such (shortages etc...)

But as to the strict point of whether you can make $ owning such property without being a cruel slumlord - sorry but the answer is YES.

You buy the building as a multiple of the RR - so if the rents are low (compared to market) and you have the capital to invest, you can use the laws provisions to make tons of buildingwide (and vacancy) improvements and you will (eventually) collect the investment back in terms of higher rents. And that includes higher rents on "improvements" that you could never collect for from non-R/S tenants - like a new roof, boiler, pointing, etc.....

The other advantage of RS/RC buildings (one which is foolishly being threatened by our assinie politicians) is that unlike market-rate tenants - every year (or 2) the "Government" mandates a rent increase (usually between 2-5%) - while it isnt a mandatory increase, tenants view it as such - which makes cash flow increases much more 'bankable' then in a market-rate building.

Look - I am no fan of RS/RC - it is stupid in so many ways - but you can make money at it (without being an a$$hole) and if you don't believe me - good - just makes for more opportunity out there.


Posted by: fsrg at September 11, 2008 1:05 PM

Good Services to me = reliable heat and hot water; clean (and attractive) environment, quick and efficient repairs and maintenance and a general consideration for safety (ie. decent security, snow removal lighting, etc...)

Posted by: fsrg at September 11, 2008 1:09 PM

I have seen so many well-intentioned investors and developers get burned by rc/rr. They usually think: I can handle this, I'm sophisticated, I have good lawyers, and I will deal with people in good faith. HA! This is Brooklyn, there is a whole professional class of renters. for all I know they have yearly conventions where they outdo each other with stories of how they drove their owners crazy.
You have to be a ruthless s.o.b. and a hardened inside operator to have any chance of making it. The rules are Old School: intimidation, threats, rudeness, broken promises, and knowing who to bribe in the agencies, courts, and political campaigns. You are Goldie Locks if you don't think this is way it works.

Posted by: sam at September 11, 2008 1:22 PM

Sam - glad you feel that way - Alot of money has been made betting against that exact sentiment over the years. (without bribery, physical threats or intimidation or otherwise acting like a criminal).

But then again I dont generally know about the hardened tenancy of Brooklyn - I generally deal with the soft, push-overs that live in the Bronx.


Posted by: fsrg at September 11, 2008 1:38 PM

FSRQ;

OK, I get your point. I can't really argue against your point, as I've never owned a RC building, and it sounds like you do. I've only owned small rental (2 family) buildings.

I am thinking of buying multi-family investment properties. So, given your experience, what would your recommend as a prudent rental multiplier, for rent-controlled and non rent-controlled buildings?

By the way, for the 2 family I owned I basically followed your philosophy. I continually improved my building. When one tenant moved out, I gut-rehabbed the place, and made a nice profit when I sold it.

Posted by: benson at September 11, 2008 1:46 PM

It is nearly impossible to make any $ for a long time if the multiple is over 10x (historically 7x or lower is what you really wanted) - but frankly that isnt the most important factor - the most important factor is current rents. If you find a decent building with room rents of less than $265 a room (assuming an ultimate market rate of around $350 a room), you can generally make money pretty quick (3-5yrs). Stay away from buildings with more than 15% Sec-8 or other welfare programs (they never move, dont work and will destroy your building fast).

Also you want buildings with lots of 3rm apartments (i.e. 1BR) - believe it or not, they will be the easiest to rent and command the highest room rents.

And as I said before you need tons of capital (it will cost $15-20G to renovate an apartment properly, plus you'll need hundreds of thousands more for things like pointing, new elevators, new intercoms etc... - all things you can collect MCIs for and J-51s)

Personally I wouldn't buy anything now (unless it is a real deal) because one thing Sam said is true - lots and lots of people have entered the market (including hedge funds in recent years) - who have no idea what they are doing (these things are labor intensive investments) and with the price of oil so high this winter (plus water and taxes also up) I predict there will be alot of selling coming over the next few years - which will bring cap rates and GRM to a more legitimate (non-speculative) place.

Posted by: fsrg at September 11, 2008 2:02 PM

FSRQ;

Thanks! Good advice. Your statements confirm my gut feeling that there is no need to rush in. In fact, my plan is to take some courses at NYU's real estate institute, while keeping an eye on the market.

Posted by: benson at September 11, 2008 2:36 PM

Actually everything I said is true. I would change the word "bribe" to "greasing the right palms" that has a more business-as-usual sound to it, which is exactly what it is.
Renovating old rent regulated apartments is fine, but first you have to empty them out. That can be a looong waiting game.
All the cards will be stacked agaisnt you and tenants with free legal counsel such as retired teachers, civil servants, and ornery seniors with lawyers in the family will with hold their rent for every plaster bubble and sink chip. Pushovers are few and far between unless you are in an undesirable location in which case it hardly matters whether you have rent regulation or not.


Posted by: sam at September 11, 2008 3:25 PM

I have seen turnover of 20% in the 1st 18mo of ownership in more than 1 building, simply through normal moves and demanding that people pay the rent (quick dispose notices, etc...). After that tends to be about 5-10% a year based on normal moves, deaths, evictions, etc...

Yes Sam you are right, there are professional deadbeats (again why I say stay away from programs like Sec-8) who will go to court every time, make stuff up and continue living rent-free; but far more will give up much sooner when they realize you will pursue the case, not sign dumb stips and make them come to court over and over.

But yes - it requires patience, a digital camera (to prove repairs are not needed or completed) and meticulous paperwork.

But you are wrong that the majority of tenants in RS/RC buildings are slimeballs out to get over on the LL - most are hard working people who want a decent place to live and are rightly happy to take advantage of a law that makes it difficult to raise rents - however if you follow the law and pick the right opportunities there is plenty of upside in RS/RC housing - and you can be a human being at the same time.

Posted by: fsrg at September 11, 2008 3:51 PM

benson, other people will also look at the age of the people living in RS apts ( so they know when they'll die) and you'll also want to know how flexible the previous LL was. Because an RS unit is supposed to be the primary residence yet many people who moved in young bought elsewhere but never gave up the great Manhattan apt. If the LL had the building for fifty years, like this one did, he's probably making enuf money so he didn't sweat it. If you just bought it, you have to be different. See what Tishman is doing in Cooper Village to get these kinds of renters out.

Posted by: denton at September 11, 2008 4:18 PM

fsrq: you and I have different experiences with rental tenants. My experience is in expensive neighborhoods in Manhattan and in Brookilyn Heights/Cobble Hill where tenants really are pretty difficult and would be entombed in their apartments after death if the courts let them.
In less well-off areas I suppose it isn't such a problem because the market rate and the r.c. rate are not that far off. But try prying someone out who pays $400 to $700 a month for a two or three-bedroom apartment in Brooklyn Heights or on the Upper West Side. Impossible. And there are lots and lots of those folks around. Some rent spare rooms in their apartments for more than they are paying in rent. technically illegal but they do it informally and get away with it.

Posted by: sam at September 11, 2008 4:33 PM

Denton;

Also a good point, which Sam reinforces in his subsequent post. I think if you're buying a r/c building in an area of modest incomes, relations with the tenants can be somewhat normal. I can envision the scenario that Sam is talking about, and in this case, "brass knuckle tactics" might be necessary, which is not my scene. I'd prefer to look in markets that are moderate-income, but have a long-term upside propect.

Posted by: benson at September 11, 2008 4:41 PM


I bought several neglected 100% rent regulated multifamily apartment buildings in Manhattan about ten years ago. It's been a battle and it hasn't been fun, but it's payed off enormously since I've been able to buyout many of the longtime low rent regulated folks.

Unfortunately, many of the problems Sam talks about exist. I wish I could have a cordial relationship with all me tenants, but sadly several low rent nut jobs I can't get rid of, make owning and operating the buildings rather unpleasant.

The rent laws allow the squatters to live cheap and drastically reduce the supply of decent, affordable housing in NYC.

Posted by: IronBalls at September 12, 2008 12:27 AM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions