8,320 Active Listings in Manhattan - First Time Over 8,000!

JuiceMan: about 7 weeks ago

evilgenius, I'm familiar with the miller-samuels data but was confused why streeteasy showed a much higher rate of sales.

joedavis: about 7 weeks ago

how many sales does streeteasy show for 2007, 2006 -- years for which it has data -- if you can figure this out then you can calibrate the streeteasy listing data to the overall miller-samuels data

tenemental: about 7 weeks ago

Don't forget FSBOs, brokerages not included on StreetEasy and new development units that exist but haven't yet been released to the market. Could that be the remaining 1650? Don't know, but it's a significant number.

iMom: about 7 weeks ago

So if the inventory widget on urbandigs.com is correct and there are currently 7,699 units available in Manhattan and 2008 is currently on pace for sales of 9,352, that means that there is currently 9.8 months of supply on the market. Not quite a full-year but by no means a tight market.

iMom: about 7 weeks ago

Evilgenius is right. All the data is right there on http://www.millersamuel.com
Here are the numbers for total Co-ops & Condos sold in Manhattan, according to Miller Samuel, which by the way has a great website.

2008: 2,282 (Q1 only)
2007: 13,430 (Q1:3,474 Q2:3,939 Q3:3,499 Q4:2,518)
2006: 8,493 (Q1:2,005 Q2:1,934 Q3:2,113 Q4:2,441)
2005: 7,780 (Q1:2,028 Q2:2,181 Q3:1,997 Q4:1,574)
2004: 8,653 (Q1:1,916 Q2:2,147 Q3:2,429 Q4:2,161)
2003: 8,802 (Q1:1,937 Q2:2,144 Q3:2,406 Q4:2,315)
2002: 9,509 (Q1:2,182 Q2:2,842 Q3:2,366 Q4:2,118)
2001: 8,198 (Q1:2,133 Q2:1,918 Q3:1,990 Q4:2,157)
2000: 9,184 (Q1:2,410 Q2:2,370 Q3:2,170 Q4:2,234)

Looks like 2007 was a monster year for the brokerage community. I'm not sure why the 2002 annual number is 1 unit larger than the sum of the 2002 quarterly numbers (9,509 annual vs 9,508 sum of the quarterlies). I've double checked the data and the annual and quarterly numbers are off by 1.

I was surprised that there isn't as much seasonality in the numbers as I originally thought. Turns out that from 2000-2007, the quarterly breakdown is:
Q1: 24.4%
Q2: 26.3%
Q3: 25.6%
Q4: 23.7%

So given the historical quarterly percentages and the fact that Q1 2008 had sales of 2,282, we can estimate that 2008 is on track for about 9,352 sales, which still looks like a good year but nowhere near the monster that 2007 was (down over 30% from 2007).

evilgenius: about 7 weeks ago

In 2007 there were a record 13,430 sales in Manhattan. The average for the last ten years is 8500.

JuiceMan: about 7 weeks ago

"There are 8500 sales in a year, so right now it would take a year to sell all the apartments that are currently on the market. More than a 6-month supply is usually an indicator of a buyer's market. More apartments are coming online. There is no place for prices to go but down, since it indicates that no one is buying."

I just ran all recorded sales for Manhattan for the last year (almost 10 months into the housing crisis). The number is 17863, so 8000 is actually less than six months of inventory, according to streeteasy.

stevejhx: about 8 weeks ago

Last time I asked the income question about a month ago I was told it didn't matter because money was pouring in from overseas, and Ralph Lauren's daughter had just opened up a candy store so she'd be bringing all the A-Listers in.

LOL.

First year associates make that much money at the blue-chip firms. The average income for lawyers in New York City is $90k, which if you've ever been called in for jury duty you can confirm for yourself: those ambulance chasers take those (mostly baseless) cases for a reason: to try to get a pretrial settlement.

Let's get real people. Look at the census data, look at the median price of Manhattan property, figure that with the Wall Street triage salaries are falling dramatically. Property prices are 100% correlated to income * leverage. No income + no leverage = CRASH.

wishhouse: about 8 weeks ago

"I'm curious to know what people think your salary should be in order to buy a $700,000 unit."
I think this is a really interesting discussion topic, and if you all don't mind, I'm going to hijack it into a new thread, since it's not really relevant to this one. Hope to see you there.

dco: about 8 weeks ago

ccdevi- You really don't think $165,000 is a lot of money. Or stated different- You think that most people in NYC make that kind of money. We could argue all day on what professions make. But that's not the point.

ccdevi: about 8 weeks ago

165k in nyc is not a lot of money, first year associates at law firms make more than that. that said i dont disagree that income will be an issue for real estate in the near future.

dco: about 8 weeks ago

joepa- I agree there is a lot of money in NYC. We will see how much by the end of the year. I truly hope it's not that bad but my analysis shows no other alternative.

jordyn: about 8 weeks ago

I only spent a few minutes, but had a hard time getting great data on income distribution in Manhattan. The two points I was able to discover were:

- In 2003, 110,000 households in Manhattan had incomes over $200,000 (http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/demographics/20030611/5/421)

- In 2007, the average (mean) income for the top 20% of households in Manhattan was $341,544 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/02censuswe.html). Unfortunately, I can't figure out the income thresholds to cross into the top 20%, which should be ~150,000 households.

- Even in 2000, when the last census was taken, the median price of a Manhattan apartment was over $1M and median monthly housing payments were $3,615
(http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP4&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_lang=en&-_sse=on&-geo_id=05000US36061)

joepa: about 8 weeks ago

$165,000 was the absolute minimum and there were no guarantees that the person wouldn't be eating a bit of Ramen until a cushion was developed.

I agree $165K is a great amount of money and it shocks me as to the vast amount of properties in Manhattan that require at least that income if not substantially more to afford. It has shocked me for years now, though - it's nothing new. The wealth in Manhattan is staggering and the divide between haves and have nots is only getting bigger by the day. That is why I say that you can't just look at income when trying to predict market movement in NYC. The continued increase in wealth of the "haves" is still probably far outpacing real estate increases in Manhattan and it will only continue to do so. The super rich are getting richer and the rich are getting super rich and both are slowly pushing everyone else who can't keep up out of Manhattan.

Now I'm not saying that prices will continue to increase at staggering rates because of this (I have no idea what the market is going to do) - just that certain trends in real estate that are taking place in Detroit or Cleveland should not be correlated to Manhattan's market.

JuiceMan: about 8 weeks ago

dco, one thing about NY is that no matter how much you make, you are much poorer than everyone else around you. There is a redonkulas amount of money in this city.

dco: about 8 weeks ago

Thank you for your answer. I would put it at about $225,000 min. But I respect your number. You are right everybody's comfort zone is different. How many people actually make that kind of money? My guess is not that many. Even in NYC $165,000 per house hold is great money. I think something like only 10% of the population on the US make more than $200,000 or more. Of-course I know the NYC area has a large portion of them. These numbers are not an exact science and perhaps someone knows or can prove/disprove them.

If everyone is making this kind of money it would be a shock. I don't have any friends that make over $200,000 and they are all well educated people. This is what I call a "mainstreet theory". Simply stated sometimes the data on wallstreet doesn't take into account what is actually happening on mainstreet. Most times if you can get a handle of the mood of mainstreet you can predict market movements. I know they track consumer confidence, but I have always been a little skeptical about that number. Well this is just another idea I wanted to share. Perhaps others feel the same. Just curious how much you think your circle of friend earn.

joepa: about 8 weeks ago

Everyone's comfort level is different. You're also still missing lots of factors (maintenance, mortgage rate, type of job) - but, since you don't want to battle, I'll amuse you and say a minimum of $165K.

dco: about 8 weeks ago

Why must everything be a battle. You know exactly what I mean. I guess I have to spell it out. A buyer with 20% down. NO OTHER MONEY... NO MOMMY OR DADDY>>> JUST A JOB. Now can you answer the question. I already acknowledged the MASS WEALTH in NYC. MY point is that not this many people in the last 3 years became wealth over night.

Just stick to the fact pattern and give me a answer.

joepa: about 8 weeks ago

"I'm curious to know what people think your salary should be in order to buy a $700,000 unit."

This is exactly what I am talking about. Your analysis assumes that income is the sole determining factor in calculating how much house one can afford. The answer to your question, is it depends. It depends on how much one is putting down, how much one will have in liquid after closing, what mortgage rate you are able to obtain, etc. Just because housing has been outpacing salaries does not, in itself, mean that the housing market cannot sustain its current pricing or further increases. There's a lot of wealth in New York.

dco: about 8 weeks ago

jordyn- It does sound like we are on the same page. The only difference I see is how much this will actually hurt the market. My feeling is that is it caused the artificial rise in prices' it will bring them right back to prices of 2003-2004. Which I have said is about 20-30% decline in the next 9-12 months.

jordyn: about 8 weeks ago

dco (and to a lesser extent Steve)--I think we're talking past each other. dco is absolutely right that in the current market, lots of people won't be able to buy things that they would have been able to at least nominally qualify for a year ago. This will cause problems, and is unlikely to change for a while.

My point is simply that this is the result of tightening which has already occurred. Standards for jumbo (and to a lesser extent, conventional) mortgages have already changed a lot. This will have an ongoing effect, but it's not the result of more credit tightening, it's the result of a change in standards that have already occurred. In other words, if you can qualify for a loan right now you'll probably be able to qualify for a similar loan in six months or a year. There are LOTS of people who could have qualified for loans six or twelve months ago that won't be able to get them in the foreseeable future; this will hurt housing prices; but it's a different point than the one that I'm making.

stevejhx: about 8 weeks ago

"You were so nervous about being wrong you changed the subject after the first input."

Well that's a spin! I told you I'd agree to use the formula in the Fed Paper for imputed rent, provided that "price of housing" was the price of housing, not the nonsense formula you put out, with which you could never obtain a result since it was circular.

It will give you an answer greater than my 12x - about 15x I think - but that will assume that rents don't fall, which they are falling, and that the expectation is for further increases in property prices, which is something no-one - not even the Juice - expects.

I will accept the results of that paper, however, because instead of 50% decline I forecast, it will result in a 35%-40% decline, which I can live with over time.

So go back to that paper and let's duel, Aaron Burr - Alexander Hamilton like.

jordyn, your points backwards: "As they get a better understanding, they'll be able to lend more (although, as I said before, with risk priced in better than previously so exotic mortgage products would be prohibitively expensive)"

I fully agree, but they won't do that until they think the fall in housing prices is over. I don't think they think that.

"I think most of the tightening has already occurred and in some cases banks have overreacted due to a sheer lack of understanding of the risk in their portfolios."

Not even close. Write to Barney Frank. BSC changed EVERYTHING: once the taxpayers' money is on the line, Uncle Sam will move in to protect it.

dco: about 8 weeks ago

jordyn- I hear your point but respectfully disagree. It's my belief that over the last 3 years there were thousands of people in the NYC market that got all types of loans that never should have gotten them to begin with. I'm not just talking about "sub prime". Just look at some of your friends. Have you ever asked the question. How the hell can they afford "all" that? The answer probably is they can't. Most people would have qualified for a mortgage but that's not my point. The problem is that they got way to much. People who really could afford say $300,000 mortgage were getting $500,000. And if that wasn't enough they open HELOC's and ran those into the ground by paying the mortgage they couldn't afford.

Just look at the example again and you can clearly see why the market was artificially inflated. Everyone had access to credit and in most cases tons of it. Now imagine a market where all those people can no longer get those mortgages let alone much more than they can afford. The price of these units over the last 3 years were driven higher by access to credit that never should of been given out in the first place. You had people making $90-110,000 buying units for $800,000 with very little down. Every New Development in this city is going to get hit hard exactly because of this example. I know NYC has wealth people and great jobs but people use logic. Are you telling me that everybody in Manhattan, LIC, Dumbo, Cobble Hill...... have these amazing paying jobs. I'm curious to know what people think your salary should be in order to buy a $700,000 unit. Its that number that I say no way all these people are making. It's out of whack.

JuiceMan: about 8 weeks ago

"ignored by JuiceMan in his challenge to me on rents vs. owning"

Actually steve I didn't ignore that point, we never even got to it. You were so nervous about being wrong you changed the subject after the first input, wrote a fifty page response about nothing, and ran away like a scared little mouse. I don't think you can call that much of a challenge.

jordyn: about 8 weeks ago

Steve/dco--I suppose we'll see. I think most of the tightening has already occurred and in some cases banks have overreacted due to a sheer lack of understanding of the risk in their portfolios. As they get a better understanding, they'll be able to lend more (although, as I said before, with risk priced in better than previously so exotic mortgage products would be prohibitively expensive).

My point re: CDOs was that they've already gone away. The "Wild West" lenders already can't use them anymore, so the market today already reflects their disappearance.

Overall, my point is not that there won't be any effect from credit tightening--there will be. However, most of the tightening has already occurred and I don't see it getting much worse (in fact, there's evidence that some aspects like the jumbo spread are already improving). That doesn't mean that the housing market is out of the woods, because there will be a lot of people unable to purchase in the current environment. I just don't forsee access to credit for mortgages getting much worse than it is today.

stevejhx: about 8 weeks ago

"apples and oranges pal."

you're right. Just wait.

joepa, "People have equity/wealth outside of income that plays a huge roll in their ability to purchase real estate."

Absolutely correct, and Manhattanites normally put down a bigger down payment than elsewhere. But one of the key factors - ignored by JuiceMan in his challenge to me on rents vs. owning - is the perception of future price increases.

Who thinks they're going up a lot anytime soon.

Of course co-ops will fall - jumbo conforming loans aren't available for co-ops, just condos. How's that going to work out?

JuiceMan: about 8 weeks ago

"How many more people will keep their jobs for now and worry everyday for the next year if the pink slip is coming. Job security has a direct correlation to the purchase of real estate."

I think this is a very good point dco. If we want to analyze possible downturn scenarios, we should look at other points in time were wall street struggled and where job security was a question. It would be very interesting to see how that impacted real estate in real terms.

JuiceMan: about 8 weeks ago

dco, I'm not arguing, I'm offering another logical way to look at the situation. On, credit tightening, it will have an impact, but not as drastic as the rest of the country. Co-op's have always been strict with % money down, new devs and condos will be impacted by the % of folks that wanted to put down 10%. An impact, but not a catastrophe. As far as the 30% down scenarios, I've seen as many banks with 20-25% down as 30%.

So following your logic, condo's will fall 20-30%? Or condo's will fall 50% impacting the overall market by 20-30%?

joepa: about 8 weeks ago

dco - I'm not saying credit tightening won't have an effect, but to say definitively that it is going to have an enormous effect on the NYC real estate market is a bit presumptuous, I think. Most of Manhattan residential real estate are coops that already require 20% or more down. The fact that banks are now going to require this, shouldn't really impact that segment of the market. Also, any more stringent requirements that the banks may require (better credit, etc.) in order to secure a loan have long been requirements of the coop boards.

As to your statement about prices outpacing income - I'm still waiting for a response to my inquiry above. Yes, perhaps they have outpaced income - but have they outpaced increased wealth/equity?

dco: about 8 weeks ago

Just remember the possibility of losing your job is just as detrimental to the real estate market as losing it. So I ask you. How many more people will keep their jobs for now and worry everyday for the next year if the pink slip is coming. Job security has a direct correlation to the purchase of real estate. No one has that number but I would venture a guess and say if you rely on wall street for employment you probably don't feel that great about looking to buy a home right now.

dco: about 8 weeks ago

JuiceMan- IT's the credit tightening that will drive NYC real estate down 20-30%. And yes this is the result of the rest of the country. Jumbo mortgage are a necessity in NYC and getting one is getting harder by the day. Many Banks want 30% down on Jumbos. This is going to have an enormous effect on NYC real estate. NYC prices far out paced income just like the rest of the country.

I don't even know why anyone is even arguing anymore. The only question that remains is how low will prices go?

joepa: about 8 weeks ago

steve - you keep talking about income and its relationship to housing, claiming that housing prices cannot outpace income. Income I think is only one part of the equation, though. People have equity/wealth outside of income that plays a huge roll in their ability to purchase real estate. Often, that wealth increases at a much larger rate than the individual's income. Thus, even if income is stagnant or disappears altogther, does not necessarily mean that those people will not have the financial ability to keep up with current housing price increases. Now - I'm not in finance, so I welcome you to correct/educate me if I'm wrong (which I'm sure you will).

JuiceMan: about 8 weeks ago

steve, it is a different set of issues with (potentially) a different set of outcomes. apples and oranges pal.

stevejhx: about 8 weeks ago

jordyn, "There's already tons of oversight over actually issuing mortgages."

What planet are you on? Don't know know that nonbank entities that issue mortgages are not subject to regulation? (Ditech, for instance, part of GM Capital, insurance companies, mortgage banks, etc.) That's one of the major problems that occurred - Wild West lenders whom the banks were forced to follow. Unregulated mortgage brokers who bought bulk mortgages and doled them out as they could?

No CDO's minor? You're kidding, right? Without those and other vehicles, the Wild West lenders wouldn't have been able to lend.

There is another key regulatory provision that you ignore at your peril: a proposal to issue ARM's only to those who can - at the time of issuance, afford the maximum reset.

No more liar's loans, either, and clamping down on less than 20% down.

JM: "NYC is not facing what the rest of the country faced." You don't know what NYC is facing, because we haven't faced it yet. It's just beginning.

"NYC is facing a Wall Street slowdown."

Slowdown? How about triage? And its 33% of NYC's income.

JuiceMan!

JuiceMan: about 8 weeks ago

dco, NYC is not facing what the rest of the country faced. NYC is facing a Wall Street slowdown. It would be more interesting to discuss impacts of past wall street slowdowns on Manhattan real estate than exploring how NYC is on the same path as the rest of the country. We are not on the same path as the rest of the country because those issues did not impact NYC. By focusing on what NYC is actually facing, it may give you a different perspective on how far NYC has to fall.

jordyn: about 8 weeks ago

Steve--I'm talking only about credit availability with regards to mortgages. I suppose it's possible that some of the proposed regulations for e.g., credit cards will result in marginally less credit actually available, I'm skeptical that it will have much of an impact.

There's already tons of oversight over actually issuing mortgages, I think it's unlikely that those rules will change, and the current mortgage marketplace already reflects the unraveling of the CDO market, which is presumably where you're more likely to see regulations having a real effect.

To the extent there's regulation/oversight of the mortgage market, it's going to affect primarily the low end of the market. I strongly suspect (and would be willing to be money) that a year from now the jumbo spread will be smaller than it is today, for example. Right now everyone's gone into panic mode because they don't understand the level of risk that they've already taken on; as they get better assessments of this, they'll be able to start lending again (although probably with the risk properly priced into the loans this time).

dco: about 8 weeks ago

stevejhx- I thoughts exactly. It has only just begun and will get worse with federal oversight. I don't think people understand that the Lawsuits that await. You may actually see some poor guy/gals face criminal charges as the year goes on. I can't believe that people really think that the credit problem is gone or even close to being gone. The new standards will eliminate hundreds of thousands of applicants. It just the beginning.

stevejhx: about 8 weeks ago

"I suspect credit tightening is close to (or has already reached) its peak."

No way. It has only just begun. New regulations for investment banks, new regulations for issuing mortgages, new regulations for credit cards.

That party is over.

jordyn: about 8 weeks ago

I suspect credit tightening is close to (or has already reached) its peak. We probably won't see credit as easy as it was a year ago, but I suspect the overall trend for credit availability will be positive rather than negative.

dco: about 8 weeks ago

Juiceman- Above all credit tightening will be the greatest drag on prices. It will eliminate very large portions of buyers. Higher inventory (reasons stated above) and less buyers is a simple formula. Its called supply and demand.