Most Post-2006 Condo Buyers Are Underwater?
In an article describing how co-ops are much better positioned for the downturn because, unlike condos, their position in foreclosure proceedings is senior to the bank, comes this doozy of a quote from the president of a property management company in Manhattan: I think it’s safe to say that the value of any apartment purchased…
In an article describing how co-ops are much better positioned for the downturn because, unlike condos, their position in foreclosure proceedings is senior to the bank, comes this doozy of a quote from the president of a property management company in Manhattan:
I think it’s safe to say that the value of any apartment purchased in the last two years is less than its purchase price. The simple calculation is that if you bought an apartment a year ago and financed 90 percent of the purchase price, as many did, and now it’s worth 20 percent less, you’re upside-down as an owner.
That’s another reason why co-ops are in better shape: Most owners had to put down a minimum of 20 percent when they bought.
The Downside for Condos in a Downturn [NY Times]
Re Amsterdam:
It would appear, however that a 2 bedroom/1 bath apartment in Amsterdam listed here for 599,000 Euro (or $778,000 USD) is similar in pricing to that of Park Slope, today’s co-op of the day, as an example. It certainly isn’t inexpensive.
http://www.viviun.com/AD-120854/
maplewood guy – the recent bubble was not linked to income, that’s how it became a bubble. It was linked to availability of loans regardless of income. Incomes didn’t rise 300% between 2000 and 2005.
The population numbers are irrelevant. Your millions maybe unemployed or experience loss of income. Or, worse go into debt, as the prices continue to lower.
You see, what matters is not how many people live here but how much they make. Real estate is linked to income not population. For example, Amsterdam prices have historically stayed the same.
That why we call this a bubble. That’s why there will be a correction. Housing prices should return to their income limitations.
Something being dangerous doesn’t make something else safe–economic pain is not a zero sum phenomenon.
The bad mortgages in the southwest were written, securitized, bought, and sold by giant investment banks and hedge funds, most of whom call NYC home. The financial collapse of these entities will be felt nowhere more so than here.
Housing in Phoenix looks like a classic bubble that deals pain by reverting to the mean. I think the real concern is that the underlying business practices that have made New York so wealthy for the last 20 years are being swept away–there is no mean left to revert to.
History of prices in NYC:
Explosive growth, high prices, speculation, greed, slums since the beginning.
Manhattan’s population peaked around 1900-1920 at 2 million. You will recall that subways joined the outer boroughs to Manhattan at this time, and the explosive growth continued in the other boroughs.
A housing shortage in the early 1940s led to rent control.
The only time this state of affairs reversed itself was during the years of White Flight. Now the older parts of the city are fashionable again and people want to live here.
I believe prices were undervalued in the 1980s and 1990s because of lingering effects from disinvestment, particularly crime. Previously “edgy” areas are now full of cheese boutiques, good schools, and rich people.
Consequently, prices are high.
I can’t believe you are still talking about this, Squatter.
What exactly do you care? You’ve got some issues, dude.
All he said was that Buenos Aires had a “buzz.” Drop it Squatter.
Who’s the annoying one????
Actually what the data I posted was to show that since New York City’s history began, we lost population in only 2 decades.
One a loss of 10%.
Another of 1.4%.
The general trend is for a growing city. Some years may show a loss, but overall, we are growing.
Adding 3.5 million people (the number of people in the next largest city in the U.S.) to an already almost 5 million people since 1909.
Long term trends are up. The Southeast/Southwest are unsustainable as they are. Not only do they need to somehow pull through this housing bubble (70% declines in Salinas and Merced, Ca.?!) then they need to figure out where they are going to get enough water to provide for the people that live there 20 years from now.
Some of the once fastest growing cities in the U.S. (Las Vegas and Phoenix) have got a lot more problems ahead than NYC does, in my opinion.
11271–no I saying your are naive to think you know something based on 6 WEEKS in a country with as many cultural quirks and nuances as Argentina. In fact, it’s downright annoyingly presumptious to think you have a good handle on how things work there.