3 Aug 2008 18:48
From “A Glut of One-Bedroom Apartments” in today’s New York Times:
Brokers say that many people who bought their apartments at or near the top of the market and now must sell are often simply trying to avoid losing money on the deal.
In May 2007, John and Wendy Penn bought a one-bedroom on West 72nd Street for $650,000. The couple, whose main residence is on Long Island, wanted an office and a pied-à-terre in Manhattan to expand their insurance business.
They bought the apartment as a long-term investment and quickly completed about $30,000 in renovations, including the restoration of the apartment’s prewar details. But when Mr. Penn became an independent insurance agent, he no longer needed space in Manhattan.
So in February, the couple put the apartment up for sale, pricing it at $769,000. Three price cuts later, the apartment is listed at $725,000 and still has not sold.
It doesn’t sound like the Penns are “simply trying to avoid losing money.” They tried to sell their apartment nine months after they bought it for $119,000 more than they paid. Now they’re only asking $75,000 more, which should cover their renovations, the sales agent’s commission, and the property taxes they paid. Does the Times think a pied-à-terre in Manhattan (or any housing anywhere) is supposed to be free?