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]
Thanks 11217 — you totally popped my brownstoner cherry. my first personal attack. Actually I had the same data as you — did you notice that the # in 1990 is lower than the # in 1950? My point is that it CAN go down over an extended period of time. Add the fact that the bulk of our population is nearing retirement, and I think you have a pretty good case that it could shrink. at least not “so dumb”.
This is somewhat interesting:
NYC Population
1940: 7,454,995
1990: 7,322,564
U.S. Population
1940: 132,164,569
1990: 248,709,873
While the US population nearly doubled from 1940 to 1990, New York actually had fewer people in 1990 than 1940.
What’s truly naive is saying that someone who has been there for only 6 weeks must love it less than you do because you lived there for 4 years.
You have the same ignorant mentality as these Native New Yorkers who think if you weren’t born in NYC, you don’t know anything.
Even though 90% of the ones I have met are horribly racist.
All of your comments so far have been ignorant.
and i smell a bit of Jean Nate in the air.. i bet it’s brg
*r*
DIBS: No sir, I love Buenos Aires but I smell a bit of naiveté in the air, that’s all.
> “we are more like dogs than peacocks you know.”
Speak for yourself. My plumage is magnificent.
“new york ran out of land a century ago — so that’s not it”
These comments are getting SO stupid!!!
in 1909, NYC had 4,766,883 people.
Today it has 8.3 million!
Are you people really this dumb??
Please show me where the population TREND of NYC is downward.
1698 4,937 —
1712 5,840 18.3%
1723 7,248 24.1%
1737 10,664 47.1%
1746 11,717 9.9%
1756 13,046 11.3%
1771 21,863 67.6%
1790 33,131 51.5%
1800 60,515 82.7%
1810 96,373 59.3%
1820 123,706 28.4%
1830 202,589 63.8%
1840 312,710 54.4%
1850 515,547 64.9%
1860 813,669 57.8%
1870 942,292 15.8%
1880 1,206,299 28.0%
1890 1,515,301 25.6%
1900 3,437,202 126.8%
1910 4,766,883 38.7%
1920 5,620,048 17.9%
1930 6,930,446 23.3%
1940 7,454,995 7.6%
1950 7,891,957 5.9%
1960 7,781,984 −1.4%
1970 7,894,862 1.5%
1980 7,071,639 −10.4%
1990 7,322,564 3.5%
2000 8,008,288 9.4%
Squatter…what’s your problem??? All 11217 said was that Buenos Aires has a buzz.
Did you get burned down there????
maplewood – totally agree. check out “irrational exhuberance” by robert schiller. people don’t realize how many long periods of flat returns there have been historically. everyone expects the recovery to look likke a V — where do they get this? how can the assumption of even long-term price appreciation be so widely accepted? new york ran out of land a century ago — so that’s not it — population in the city can actually decrease (it did over the 50 years up to the 90s) — just look at the demographic trend as all of the baby boomers get ready to sell assets to finance their retirements. I haven’t seen one bull argument that doesn’t work perfectly in reverse.