The Reel

Follow us:

A blog for breaking sales and neighborhood real estate news.

Without a doubt, the most important economic indicator for the commercial real estate market is employment. No other metric more profoundly impacts the fundamentals of our market than the number of people who are productively working. Unfortunately, news on the jobs front, thus far in 2010, has been lackluster and well below most economists' forecasts. This is the main reason why momentum has been lost in what little traction the economic recovery had displayed.

The reason that the real estate industry relies so heavily on job creation is that if people have lost a job, or fear they may lose a job, they do not move out of Mom and Dad's house; they do not move from a one-bedroom apartment to a two-bedroom; they do not move from a rental unit into a purchased single-family home, a condo or a co-op; and companies that are downsizing do not need more office space, they need less.

Click here for full article.

In the first half of 2010 (1H10), the activity in New York City's multifamily market mirrored the overall investment sales market in many respects. This week we will take an in-depth look at the activity we are seeing in the multifamily market.

In the investment sales market, during 1H10, there were approximately $6.5 billion in transaction activity. This figure already surpasses the $6.2 billion of sales experienced in all of 2009. The activity in 1H10 represents a 131 percent increase in the dollar volume of sales on an annualized basis.

Click here for full article.

Bob Knakal will be speaking to Brian Sullivan on Fox Business Network TODAY from 1:00 -1:30pm. Check it out!

This week, we conclude our discussion of the divergent perspectives of the optimists and the pessimists.

11) Cap Rates: Going into this down-cycle, it was expected that cap rates would rise significantly as significant levels of distress were evident in the marketplace. Cap rates had risen anywhere from a low on some product types of 50 to 75 basis points, up to as much as 250 to 300 basis points on others. It appears that, given the constrained supply of available assets and the significant demand chasing those assets, there is presently downward pressure on cap rates as they have not risen nearly as much as had been expected. Is this a temporary phenomenon or does this mark the beginning of a recovery? As usual, it depends upon your perspective.

Click here for full article.

Click here for:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

The title of this piece makes you wonder what is meant by “they should sell for”. What, after all, is value? Many people (particularly appraisers) feel that value is a very different thing than the price someone is willing to pay for a property. There are all types of qualifiers such as “an arms length transaction” between a “willing buyer and willing seller”, etc. As a broker who only represents sellers, I see value as the highest price that the most aggressive buyer will pay for a property. Whether the property is “worth it” or not is completely dependent upon the perspective of the buyer.

Arguments about value versus price versus worth can go on for quite a while. This column will not attempt to define the differences between these terms, but will merely look at the relative price levels investment properties are selling for today and try to figure out why.

Click here for full article.

Q & A with Bob Knakal

12/17/2009 10:58:35 AM/ Massey Knakal/ Chairman Commentary

By Noah Rosenblatt of

A: I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Bob Knakal a few weeks ago for an after-work chat to discuss everything markets. It was time very well spent. Mr. Knakal is chairman and founding partner of Massey Knakal Realty Services and publisher of the relatively new StreetWise blog where he discusses thoughts on the macro economy & New York City Investment Markets. I find his content to be unbiased, real time, educational and easy to read. I asked him to delve into some questions that UrbanDigs readers might be interested in, and he quickly agreed. Enjoy!

Click here for the Q & A

So often I hear people in our industry say that the weak dollar is encouraging foreign investment in U.S. real estate. This is something that only makes sense in two ways: the first is if the foreign investor is purchasing a residential property for his or her own use and it is simply “cheap” to them because of the exchange rate. Think of the opportunity to buy a mansion on the water in the south of France for $10,000US. If this location is of interest to you, you might just buy that property because it is so cheap that you figure, why not?

Click here for full article.

The title of this post says it all. Real estate is rarely in a state of crisis unless an earthquake or other natural disaster disturbs the structual integrity of the building. Real estate becomes distressed when too much leverage is used and the net income from the property is insufficient to meet debt service payments.

Click here for full article.

One year ago, one of the most intriguing questions on the minds of commercial real estate investors was what was going to happen to large, performing CMBS loan that matured and the owner was not able to refinance. Since then, 528 CMBS loans valued at nearly $5 billion matured and were unable to be refinance even though 75% of these loans were throwing off more than enough cash to service their debt. The evaporation of the CMBS market and the entire shadow banking industry has created an extremely challenging financing market for all large loans, even for properties which have the cash flow to cover debt service payments. This lack of liquidity has continued to be a tangible concern for the industry.

Click here for full article.

We sat down for our quarterly conversation with Massey Knakal Chairman, Robert Knakal to discuss his views on the New York City property sales market, economics and political initiatives that have effected the first half of 2009. We hope you find this interview informative and timely.

The most common question I am asked these days is, “When will the good times return to the commercial real estate market?” That question is impossible to answer with accuracy as we are in unprecedented times with unprecedented government intervention and an unprecedented global recession. Below is a scenario that I think could be possible and may even be probable based upon what we are presently seeing in the market.

Click here for full article

There was a point in time when I was applauding the Governor for his position on the state budget. Very early on, he was beating the drum of favoring reductions in government spending as the way to solve the state budget deficit. He gave speeches and lobbied for spending cuts. At the end of the day, this positon was abandoned and 80% of the pending budget deficit of approximately $17.7 billion will be bridged by 137 new taxes, fees and charges that New Yorkers did not have to pay before.

Click here for full article.

Yes, I know that I am a commerical investment property sales broker, so why do I track the national housing market so closely? The answer is that this market has the most profound impact on our financial system, which effects our capital availability, which in turn effects our commercial real estate markets. Let’s look into this dynamic.

The most recent housing bubble that we experienced has upended our financial system. History helps us to understand where we are today. Since 1070, there have been two other major housing bubbles, with peaks in 1979 and 1989.

Click here for full article.

We recently sat down for our quarterly conversation with Massey Knakal Chairman, Robert Knakal to discuss his views on the economy and the implications for our local NYC building sales market. We hope you find this interview informative and timely:

Q: What has happened to the building sales volume in the first quarter of the year?

A: Sales volume was extraordinarily low. In 2008, volume in the under $100 million market was down 40% from 2007 levels. The over $100 million market was affected much more adversely. We do not have the final figures for the first quarter yet but are anticipating that if extrapolated in annual terms, the volume of sales was probably running at about 1.2%. If you recall, our projection for turnover this year was “1.6% or lower,” representing the percentage of the 125,000 multi-family apartment buildings, mixed-use, commercial and retail properties that exist in the five boroughs in our niche. Since 1988, the average turnover has been 2.5% and we have only dropped to 1.6% in two other years, 1992 and 2003, both at the end of recessions. The very low turnover in the first quarter is the result of the uncertainty in the marketplace in the fourth quarter of 2008 after Lehman Brothers failed. People were shell shocked and there were not a lot of contract signings in the fourth quarter. Those that were signed resulted in closings in the first quarter. We anticipate the level of activity to pick up in the second quarter as first quarter contract signings showed a reasonable increase.  


Q: How were prices affected in the first quarter?

A: Well, that depends on the segment of the market that you are referring to. Clearly, the over $100 million market saw very significant reductions in value but there have been so few transactions it is very difficult to quantify what that reduction was. 1540 Broadway is the transaction everyone points to which occurred at about 70% less than it had at the height of the market. I don’t think you can draw a conclusion about the entire market based upon one transaction. With regard to the under $100 million market, we have seen pricing differ based upon product type. The multi-family sector has been holding up the best, where capitalization rates have increased only 50-75 basis points from their peak. Retail properties and office buildings have been much more greatly impacted by the economy as the increase in unemployment has affected demand for office space and rents have been tumbling. Capitalization rates on office buildings are up in the neighborhood of 150-200 basis points from their peak. With regard to the retail property market, consumer spending, although up slightly in March, is still at extraordinarily low levels which is putting tremendous stress on retailers. For these reasons cap rates in this sector are also up by about 150 -200 basis points.


Q: You indicated the multi-family sector was doing best, have you seen any tangible effects of the bills passed by the assembly in January?

A: Everyone in the marketplace is concerned about the status of these bills. If the bills are passed by the Senate in June there are two things that are more.

Download the entire 2nd Quarter 2009 - Conversation with the Chairman.

Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, rolled out some of the details of what insiders are referring to as TALF 2.0.  This program has two componets, the Legacy Loan Program and the Legacy Securities Program. These programs are expected to help the commercial real estate industry based upon the premise that loans and securitiees collateralized by real estate are fundamentally undervalued due to a liquidity discount as opposed to drastically reduced cash flow expectation.

Click here for full article.

As 2008 draws to a close, we sat down for our quarterly conversation with Massey Knakal Chairman, Robert Knakal to discuss his views on the economy the implications for our local NYC building sales market. We hope you find this interview informative and timely.


Question: 2008 was a year full of economic turmoil. What do you believe 2008 will be remembered most for?

Answer: Several things. Leading the way will be the structural dismantling of Wall Street as we knew it, corporate struggles of epic proportions and fraud. Big stories revolved around the names Lehman, Bear Sterns, Merrill, Wachovia, WaMu, AIG, Detroit, Fannie, Freddie, Dreier and Madoff. Additionally, the big story on a macro level was the affect of spillovers from the continual reduction in housing values into the labor market and, specifically, the financial system. Credit markets deteriorated over most of the year, and succumbed to almost total cardiac arrest after Lehman failed on September 15th. That drove an already teetering real economy over the edge, and sentiment transformed quickly from fear of spiraling price increases to fear of spiral decreases as the output gap had widened. It was also a year of unprecedented and dramatic government intervention with initiatives like the $700 billion dollar TARP program.


Q: Wall Street has been such a key component of the fabric of New York, how will its dismantling affect the City?


A: That is yet to be seen. Within a week of Lehman failing, the investment banking model, that had become synonymous with “Wall Street,” known for being loosely  regulated, daringly risky and lavishly rewarded, was dead. For this industry to unravel as spectacularly as it did, required many parties pushing many buttons. The government encouraged homeownership. Mortgage bankers gave loans to people to purchase homes they couldn’t afford. Investment banks packaged these loans into complex MBS and derivative products whose risk was not fully understood. Rating agencies often gave their seal of approval. Investors borrowed heavily to buy these products. Regulators missed the warning signs. What a mess. The bottom line is that the investment banking industry created significant wealth for New Yorkers who spent much of that wealth in New York and that adrenaline for our local economy will be missed. The question is, “Can it be replaced and, if so, by what?”


Q: You can’t pick up a newspaper today without reading bout the Bernard Madoff scandal. What are your thoughts about this?


A: My heart goes out to those people that lost money in the Madoff case. I have several friends and clients who were profoundly affected by what appears to be just an outrageous fraud. It will be interesting to see how those losses will affect the New York real estate market as I think they could have a significant impact.


Q: How so?


A: Well, in a couple of ways. Firstly, the losses could potentially put investors in the position where they are reluctant to deploy capital that is left on their balance sheets towards new real estate investments. A traumatic change in someone’s net worth could leave them with zero risk tolerance. Secondly, to the extent that Madoff-held assets were pledged for loans, it will be interesting to see how lenders will react to the change in collateral and what actions they might take. Additional equity may be required or the borrower could be held in technical default even on a performing loan. That being said, I believe that in some ways the Madoff fiasco could help our local real estate market but I would like to discuss that when we talk about my perspective on 2009.


Q: In one of your recent commentary pieces you said “We got into this crisis through housing and it is through housing that we will get out of it.” What is happening in the housing market?


A: The housing stock in the U.S. had never experienced a reduction in average home prices and based on this steadily positive track record, it was assumed that housing prices would never fall. This assumption was the underpinning of all MBS and derivative products that have now turned toxic based up on a sharp decline in average home prices. When the government originally announced the TARP program, Secretary Paulson indicated that the funds would be used to purchase these toxic assets to clean up banks’ balance sheets. That was not done for several reasons but one was that valuing these assets was extremely difficult because the housing market had not bottomed out. Without stability in the housing market there is no way to determine the value of those assets. The reverse auction process that they had contemplated would have been inefficient in determining value. Presently, sales of existing homes continue to tumble in terms of velocity. Additionally, prices of homes are below their peak by about 18% and continue to drop. Most experts believe they will fall another 10%-15% before a bottom is reached.


Q: What is causing the drop in pricing?


A: Too much speculative construction and too much speculative buying for starters. The number of foreclosures has skyrocketed and based upon this dynamic, we are experiencing what economists call an “adverse feedback loop.” As foreclosures in coming quarters escalate, it will add to the supply of available inventory and this overhang will keep downward pressure on prices. As prices decrease more foreclosures occur and so on. Reduced prices, in turn, hurt the overall economy by battering financial institutions, reducing the wealth of homeowners and prompting job cuts in the housing sectors. Homeowners who lose their jobs are susceptible to defaults. Projections for increasing unemployment have been pushing forecasts for when the sector will hit bottom into the second half of 2009 or later. Until this housing market turns around, the overall economy is unlikely to grow much.


Q: Are there any positive signs in the housing market today?


A: While inventory is high and prices continue to decline, there is one glimmer of good news not reflected in the latest statistics: a sharp drop in mortgage rates in recent weeks tied to the Federal Government’s efforts to support the housing market. Although tighter credit terms are restricting many potential borrowers, lower rates could motivate potential buyers to get off of the sidelines, which should slow the price declines. Fortunately, home building activity has declined so much (19% and one wonders why 81% is still being built) that the back log of unsold units is starting to be absorbed at a relatively positive rate even in the face of such a slow sales environment. Nearly 50% of existing home sales are linked to foreclosures today. The inventory of unsold existing homes was increased to 4.2 million units in November representing an 11.2 month supply, up from 10.3 months in October.


Q: I have heard the Government is trying to get mortgage rates down to 4.50%. Is that correct?


A: There has been talk of a 4.5% rate but I do not know if they have specifically targeted 4.5%. Clearly, their actions are geared toward bringing mortgage rates down. At the December meeting of the Fed, the funds rate was cut from 1% to a range of 0 to .25% and Fed Chairman Bernanke reinforced the Fed’s commitment to stabilizing the market by indicating an intention to purchase mortgage bonds and possibly Treasury bonds. The result was that mortgage rates fell to their lowest level since the 1960’s which stimulated a dramatic increase in mortgage applications across the country. I believe rates ended last week at an average of 5.17% for a 30 year loan. A year ago the 30 year loan averaged approximately 6.2%.


Q: That would indicate that the velocity of home sales should be increasing?


A: Well, interestingly enough, a very large percentage of the new mortgage applications are for refinancing rather than purchases and current market dynamics are so new that it isn’t clear how many of the borrowers will actually receive loans given lenders’ more stringent criterion. Either way, the low rates are positive for the housing market and the nation’s largest mortgage provider, Bank of America, is extremely optimistic about the future of the housing market having predicted that housing prices will stabilize by the middle of next year.


Q: A 4.5% mortgage rate seems to be very low.


A: I don’t think a 4.5% mortgage rate is too low. This morning the 10 year T-bill opened at 2.13%. Therefore, a 4.5% mortgage rate is about 2.4% above the Treasury yield which is above the 1.6% spread that would prevail in a normally functioning mortgage market. You have to remember that a mortgage can be thought of as a risk free bond plus two possibilities that increase risk to the lender. The first is default and the second is pre-payment. Historically, the risk of default adds about a quarter of a percent to the interest rate. The remaining spread of the mortgage rate over the Treasury yield represents the risk of prepayment and underwriting costs. With falling house prices the risk of default could add 0.75% or more for a newly underwritten and fully documented loan. The 4.5% rate would be the lowest mortgage rate in more than 40 years so that the additional risk to lenders of pre-payment would be nominal.  These low mortgage rates would also substantially reduce the risk of further house price declines as housing demand would increase significantly. There would also be tangible benefits to the economy as a whole if the 4.5% was available to existing homeowners who wish to refinance.


Q: So I guess the next question will be, Will banks lend? 


A: Well that’s an interesting question because Federal regulators are sending mixed messages to the banking industry. They want them to lend more money to boost the economy but at the same time are requiring them to build up more capital reserves to protect against losses. Clearly, the TARP money that was extended to the banks has not had a dramatic effect on credit availability as most banks have held onto the money. The banking industry is having obvious problems as 25 banks failed in 2008 and there are an additional 200 banks on the FDIC watch list which may be at risk of collapsing. More importantly, banks and savings institutions in the U.S. are headed for the first overall quarterly loss since 1990 as loans in default pile up faster than the Federal Government’s unprecedented efforts to aid the system are kicking in. In the third quarter of 2008, the industry had an aggregate profit of $1.7 billion which was about a 94% reduction from a year earlier. Shaky mortgages, credit cards and now losses spreading to commercial real estate loans have put banks in a precarious position. The U.S. banking industry last reported a combined net loss in the fourth quarter of 1990. That $2.3 billion net loss came at the tail end of the savings and loan crisis and included failures of more than 850 U.S. banks. A potential net loss in the fourth quarter of 2008 is a far cry from the record $38 billion in profits posted by the industry in the third quarter of 2006. Banks have been hit from many sides in 2008. Problematic loans, exposure to asset backed securities which plunged in value, counterparty risk, and a freezing of the lending markets caused a panic, reducing the financial sector’s market capitalization as a percentage of the S&P 500 stock index to about 13% from its peak of 20% in October of 2007.


Q: In one of your commentary pieces you mentioned that banks will continue to lend money because that is what they are in business to do.


A: Yes, that is correct. Banks will continue to lend money because if they don’t, they’re out of business. Fortunately, with the Fed cutting interest rates, it has allowed to industry to begin a recapitalization process and has provided tremendous motivation for banks to lend money, particularly to the real estate industry. Mortgage rates on commercial properties have not declined in concert with cuts in the federal funds rates which mean spreads have widened. This compelling profitability along with lower risk, based on reduced loan to value ratios, is the reason why smaller transactions are still getting done and financing is available. Many community and regional banks are stepping up their lending. New banks are being formed and we expect life companies to get back into lending in a big way in 2009.


Q: How have you seen building sales volume as the year progressed?


A: I think it is very important to distinguish which segment of the market you are referring to and I repeatedly say that you must look at the market for properties with values over $100 million very differently than the market under $100 million and, in fact, I would change that using a $50 million threshold today. Clearly, the market for building sales is better the smaller the price tag of the property. Smaller transactions are easy to finance and the pool of potential buyers is significantly wider.  It is too early to have a sales volume calculated for the entire year but through the first three quarters of 2008 sales volume was running at approximately 2.1% of the total stock of buildings. We consider 1.6% as the level of turnover in a market where sellers have no choice but to sell. That was the turnover in 1990 and 1991 when prices fell so precipitously that no one sold unless they had to. The 2.1% rate means that 24% of the sellers in the first three quarters of the year did so voluntarily. I believe this is due to the fact that prices have not fallen in the under $100 million sector as much as you might think based upon how negative the economy has been. It will be interesting to see how fourth quarter activity will affect overall turnover.


Q: Where is value today relative to the height of the market?


A: We are still determining where values are headed. Clearly, the market has changed significantly after September 30th which was the point in time that the credit markets were the most paralyzed. That was the day the over night LIBOR rate skyrocketed to 6.88%. That rate today is only 0.139%. Wall Street changed when Lehman failed on September 15th and essentially any transactions that closed in September, October, November and a good part of December probably had contracts which were executed prior to mid September. I do not believe those transactions are indicative of today’s market. When trying to determine value we look primarily at the contracts we have signed in the fourth quarter and extrapolate value based on those contract executions. While we have seen some defaults, we expect the default rate on hard contracts to diminish significantly as buyers executing contracts in the fourth quarter were keenly aware of market conditions and have anticipated the significant equity requirements to get a transaction financed and closed. In terms of cap rate volatility, there is clearly upward pressure on cap rates but the extent of that pressure really depends on what market sector and property type you are looking at.


Q: What about the market for properties over 100 million dollars?


A: That market faces very big challenges. We don’t do many of those sales but I believe that market will have a difficult time finding very liquid debt availability until the public markets are prepared to start buying CMBS securities or equivalent products again. In order for that to happen, three things must happen. 1) the rating agencies must get their act together 2) issuers have to keep some risk and that could be in the form of covered bonds which are widely used in the commercial markets in Europe and 3) the mark to market rules have to change. Essentially, it will be difficult to find a single institution willing to go on the hook for 9 figure loans on a single asset. Access to public money, which will provide risk diversification, must be made available in order for that market to function fluidly.


Q: So do you see a lack of transactions in that sector?


A: Clearly, there have not been many larger transactions in 2008 and, particularly, in the fourth quarter, and I don’t see volume picking up in that sector in the foreseeable future. A more important issue facing the commercial real estate market than sales volume is the ability to refinance performing maturing loans. I have seen estimates recently that vary from Foresight Analytic’s estimate of  $160 billion to The Real Estate Roundtable’s estimate of $400 billion of commercial mortgages that will mature by the end of 2009. There is significant uncertainty with regard to the sources of the required refinancing proceeds. Industry representatives have been lobbying Washington to explore the idea of setting up a separate aid program aimed at backstopping lending to the commercial real estate market. Until now, delinquencies on commercial real estate loans have stayed below historical levels thanks, in large part, to the limited amount of speculative construction in recent years. But now delinquencies are rising at a time when an enormous volume of loans are coming due and refinancing options are limited.


Q: If you say that public markets must be accessed to get the institutional market moving again, current conditions must be affecting Real Estate Investment Trusts. How have they been performing?


A: The REIT market will end 2008 with significant losses. The index of equity REITS which own commercial property and constitute the bulk of the market was down about 50% for the year. All REIT sectors have been hard hit as the industrial sector is down over 80% and the retail and hotel sectors are down about 67% each. Interestingly enough, the best performer was the self storage sector which was only down about 15%. REIT stocks are particularly susceptible to volatility because, typically, trading in them tends to be light. You see various reports about how REIT stocks are currently trading at deep discounts to net asset value which you would think would prompt people to buy these stocks. It is difficult to understand how these forecasts are made as, without transaction volume, it is extremely difficult to estimate the net asset values of REIT holdings. Notwithstanding this fact, I believe that REIT stocks are significantly oversold and are a buying opportunity today.


Q: You mentioned the Fed’s cutting of the Federal Funds Rate earlier. What effect will this have on the real estate market?


A: Well, the cut was greater than many economists expected. The statement that came with it indicated that these low rates are likely to stick with us for a long time and that the Fed is prepared to take aggressive actions to revive the economy. A number of official borrowing rates have tumbled. The rate on 3 month T-Bills have been reduced to near zero, a level they haven’t been near since the great depression. For a period in November, the flight to safety was so prominent that the 3 month T-bill rate was negative. We were reverting back to the 19th century when people paid to put their gold in a bank’s vault for safe keeping. In the short term, low interest rates should stimulate demand and help the economy and anything that helps the economy will help our real estate market. I believe that Fed Chair Bernanke’s moves have been strongly influenced by what happened to Japan in the 1990’s. Japan experienced significant deflation when prices began falling in 1998 but they did not implement any significant policy of quantitative easing until 2001. Because of this delayed response, prices did not stop dropping until 2005 which ended what is referred to as the lost decade in Japanese economic history.


Q: You just said that “In the short term” low interest rates would help our market. What are the long term implications?


A: In the short term, low interest rates make the dollar weaker. Global capital seeks investments in markets with high rates as returns are higher. The weak dollar increases our exports as foreigners buy our goods at relatively cheap prices. That stimulates the economy. The weak dollar also helps the New York City hotel market by increasing tourism both domestically, as travelers cannot afford to go overseas, and internationally as it is a bargain for foreign travelers. The hotel sector is hurting as average room rates are down as are occupancy rates. The weak dollar will have a positive effect on this sector, not that I think it will experience a boom, but its performance won’t be as bad as it would have been otherwise. The problem with a prolonged period with a weak currency is that inflation is sure to follow. This effect will be compounded by the fact that we have been in a deflationary period which, history has shown us, is normally followed by an inflationary cycle.


Q: The retail sector has been hit very hard. What have you seen relative to retail properties?


A: There is upward pressure on cap rates. We used to sell retail condominiums and retail properties at cap rates between 5% and 5 ½ %. Today those same properties are selling at caps in the 7% to 8% range mainly because of concerns of the health of retail operators. It is expected that retail bankruptcies will increase in January as many retailers have been hanging on to try to make it through the holiday season. I read one estimate recently predicting approximately 200,000 stores will be closing in 2009 increasing the retail property sector’s vacancy rate to nearly 13% by the third quarter of 2009. This sector has been hit very hard because of a lack of consumer spending.


Q: It seems like people just don’t want to spend money today. Could it get any worse?


A: I do not know the answer to that. Interestingly, consumer confidence increased in December for the second month in a row after an abysmal October. Unfortunately, this slight uptick in consumer confidence has not translated into consumer spending. Spending in the fourth quarter is on pace to be the worst in 28 years. Improvements in confidence aren’t necessarily signs of a sudden thaw in the market similar to what followed the 2001 recession. This time consumers are faced with not only rising unemployment but also heavier debt loads, still falling home prices and still tight credit markets.


Q: Has there been activity in the land sales market?


A: The activity in the land and development market has paralleled the availability of construction financing, which has essentially been non-existent. Any crains that you see in the sky today are on projects that were purchased and already had their construction financing in place quite a while ago. I believe that most of those projects that are actively in construction now will be completed either by the developer, the lender or the developer who buys the property from the lender which foreclosed on the original developer. That being said, I believe that after present projects are completed there will be, essentially, a lack of new construction for a period of years. The construction business is very important to New York as it generates about $30 billion a year in economic activity and is facing significant adversity. Not surprisingly, unemployment in the construction industry is soaring and in October it was up by more than 50% from the same period in 2007. Due to this lack of activity it will be interesting to see how much construction costs will be reduced as a dwindling labor pool continues to fight for ever dwindling work.


Q: Are multi-family apartment buildings still doing well?


A: I am always bullish on the multi-family market and it is, in fact, the healthiest segment of the market today. There is a significant lack of available supply of properties for sale today and the properties that we are currently marketing are receiving a significant amount of interest. Probably 75% of the properties that we have placed under contract in the fourth quarter have been in the multi-family sector. Interestingly, while cap rates are inching up by 25 or 50 basis points, they are not increasing to levels that you would anticipate based on economic conditions and unemployment projections.


Q: I read that rents for apartments in NY are falling; wouldn’t this have an impact on pricing?


A: Falling rents do have a negative impact on the pricing of a property if you look at value on a price per square foot basis. It is very important to understand that an overwhelming majority of the multi-family buildings in New York have rent regulated tenants paying rents which are significantly below market levels and, therefore, even with free market rents falling, cash flows in these properties should still continue to increase. Notwithstanding this fact, you must look at capitalization rates which represent the yield that investors will be receiving. If investors project that rents will decrease they must look at which units will be affected by the market rent decrease and build that factor into their projected yield. One of the biggest impacts on multi-family values this year was the price of oil. On July 17, oil rose to $147 per barrel and today it is down to $37.  At the beginning of 2008 we were projecting fuel costs at $1,000 per unit, then it increased to $1,750 per unit, and today we are back down to $1,000. These deviations significantly affected value in this sector. Even though OPEC had decided to cut daily production by about 3 million barrels per day to exert upward pressure on prices, we think prices will stay relatively low in the short run which helps this sector.


Q: If unemployment is expected to increase, won’t that have an even more negative impact on residential rents?


A: Watching unemployment is the single most important economic metric to follow in that it is the most closely tied metric to the fundamentals of our real estate market. If companies are shedding jobs, the demand for office space is reduced which will affect the value of office buildings. People who lose their jobs are less likely to shop which will affect the rent levels that retail tenants can pay and those who are out of work or fear they may soon be out of work, are not going to move from a one bedroom apartment to a two bedroom apartment or move from a rental unit to purchase a coop or condo unless they absolutely have to. They may even need to move to a smaller apartment or to a lower quality location or building to lower their monthly rent.  Unemployment is presently at 6.7% and it is expected that unemployment will increase to close to 9%.


Q: Those rates are certainly higher than we have experienced recently but when comparing this economy to recessions of the 1970s or the depression, that unemployment rate does not seem so bad.


A: Well, it is very difficult to compare the employment rate today to those prior periods as the calculation of the unemployment rate was modified significantly during the Clinton administration. Today, unemployed workers who have stopped looking for a job or are part-time employees that are seeking full time employment are not included in the calculation. These changes were made to make the statistics look more benign. If the old calculation were used, I have seen estimates projecting the present employment rate at anywhere from 12.5% to 16.5%. These figures are better for comparative purposes to prior periods.


Q: What do you anticipate in 2009?


I believe that 2009 will be another very challenging year for our economy and our real estate market. With regard to the economy, I believe that we will see more policy measures from the government which will focus on 3 areas. 1) Cushioning the decline in private sector consumption and investment through a large fiscal stimulus package of somewhere between $600 and $900 billion. 2) A refocusing on efforts to clear bank balance sheets of illiquid troubled assets and recapitalize those same institutions and 3) Measures to work against an undershooting of home prices through principal write downs and lower mortgage rates. We have seen some positive policy news already which has been delivered during the past few weeks: The Obama administration has assembled an impressive set of intervention-minded nominees for economic posts, new uses of the TARP funds including the auto industry bailout, rising estimates for fiscal stimulus in early 2009, significant mortgage market intervention and the unending announcements of fiscal and monetary stimulus emanating from around the world. Measures of financial distress have been improving gradually, albeit unsteadily. This has occurred despite an economic outlook that remains grim.


Q: What about the real estate market?


A: I strongly believe that real estate will be viewed as very attractive asset class in 2009. If you had money today, where would you invest it? I advocate real estate as one of the most viable options, notwithstanding my self interest. What are the alternatives? So far in 2008, the Dow is down 36%, the S&P is down 39% and the NASDAQ is down 41%. What companies would you invest in? Enron and Worldcom were thought to be blue chip in their heyday. Lehman had a sterling track record for over 150 years. I believe that scandals like Madoff will leave a growing number of people reluctant to leave investments in the hands of other people. The other day a client told me that he could buy bonds of a “stable” entity at a 14% yield and asked why he should buy real estate at a 6% cap. I heard this same sentiment in the early 2000’s when returns on internet stocks exceeded 20%. Most of the people who bought those internet stocks lost everything. So what do you buy, Treasuries at 0%? Real estate is now offering the risk premium it should be providing. Real estate offers transparency in that you can see it, you can touch it and you know exactly where your revenue is coming from, what your expenses are and it is very clear what you own. I also believe that New York City income producing properties are relatively liquid. It can’t be sold in a day but within 90 to 120 days you can receive full value for your property. I have yet to see, in 25 years of selling buildings, a time when I could not get interest and offers for an income producing property in New York City. The fundamentals of our market are softening but remain relatively strong. It is a very difficult as a broker to not sound self serving, but I believe that investment real estate in New York City is an excellent place to park capital. There are four reasons for this: 1) transparency – you know what you are buying, 2) the yield that you are able to obtain is healthy – particularly relative to Treasuries, 3) Appreciation over the long term will be there and 4) You have a significant amount of control over the performance of the asset. Additionally, real estate is a great hedge against the inflationary cycle which is sure to follow the current deflationary/weak dollar predicament we are in.


Q: Who are your buyers today?


A: Almost all 32 of the contracts we have signed within the past couple of months have been with buyers who have significant portfolios of properties and have been real estate investors for decades. They are high net worth individuals and real estate families who invest all of their own equity. They generally live by the words of Warren Buffet who said, “Be fearful when people are greedy and greedy when people are fearful”. There is fear in the market today. The state of the economy is forcing most, if not all, novice investors out of the market due to the perceived danger. Like the stock market, investor psychology impacts the commercial real estate market. Savvy investors transacting in today’s marketplace are picking up properties which they want to own for the long term. Cap rates in the market are at a point where the reward outweighs the risk (in most cases) and investors with cash are taking advantage of the arbitrage in the market. During any recession, the key to investing is managing risk.


Q: How long do you think it will be before the markets fully come back?


A: No one knows the answer to that question. We are in unprecedented times. What happened with the collapse of Lehman on September 15th was a global, synchronized cessation of all but non-discretionary economic activity in the wake of the near collapse of the global credit markets. In good times, based on the instantaneous flow of information on a global basis, credit expanded and activity magnified geometrically. Economic activity came to a halt more quickly than ever before. If you take an optimistic view, that means it can also restart more quickly than ever before. This is not to say that it will, only that the possibility is more than marginal. Low energy prices and zero inflation will boost spending power. Even if unemployment does reach 9% or more, consumer reserves in the U.S. and worldwide are deeper than commentary would suggest. Household net worth in the U.S. is down from its highs but it still around $45 trillion. Clearly, the last months of 2008 will go down as one of the most severe economic reversals to date, and on a global scale. But it is foolish to assume that this provides a viable guide to what lies ahead. The rush to declare the future bleak has obscured the fact that no one knows the outcome of an unprecedented event, no one. The worst course in the face of uncertainty is blind faith in conventional wisdom and past patterns. While many people are predicting that it will be years before things get back on track I would like to believe that as quickly as things turned sour they can be reversed. Hey, if I weren’t an optimist I never would have gotten into this business.



Best wishes from Bob and his team for a happy, healthy and prosperous 2009!

Last Friday, the Commerce Department reported that personal spending fell 0.3% in September marking the biggest decline since June of 2004. These numbers followed flat readings in both July and August which contributed to the worst quarterly performance for consumer spending in 28 years. This spending accounts for approximately 2/3 of total economic activity in the United States and the September numbers were slightly worse than expected. Last Thursday, the Government reported that gross domestic product, which is the broadest measure of economic health, declined at an annual rate of 0.3% in the third quarter. Current reports are demonstrating that the financial crisis has driven consumer confidence to a record low and economists believe that the fourth quarter will be no different. We have been feeling like we have been in a recession for quite some time but given the expected fourth quarter economic performance, the economy will meet the standard definition of a recession by the end of the year.


Much of the consumer spending that has occurred over the last few years has been stimulated by the massive amounts of mortgage equity withdrawal taken by homeowners who have, essentially, used their homes as ATM machines. Additionally, the wealth effect of feeling as if they had massive equity in their homes created spending habits which fueled the economy. As these dynamics no longer exist, it is important for the housing market to bottom out in order for our economy to turn around. This is also vitally important because the value of mortgage backed securities and derivative products based on these securities cannot be accurately valued unless there is a high level of confidence in the value of our housing stock. A big concern about the implementation of the TARP is what the government will pay for these toxic securities. If we know what houses are worth, it will be easier to determine fair market value of the securities.


While there is clearly no easy solution to the foreclosure crisis, recently J.P. Morgan and Bank of America have implemented mortgage modification programs which could cover approximately 800,000 borrowers. These plans come amid intense national focus on the root cause of global financial turmoil, rising home foreclosures, and what the role of the banks and the government should be in helping struggling home owners. Approximately 1.5 million homes were in foreclosure at the end of June and economists expect several million more may default in the coming year as housing prices erode and job losses rise. The political pressure the banking industry is under to address the foreclosure problem is immense.


The TARP has enhanced liquidity in the banking system but now the focus on borrowers, who are in default or delinquent, is coming to the forefront. Recently, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair floated a plan that could help 3,000,000 troubled borrowers which the White House is considering. You will recall that the FDIC is presently in control of IndyMac Federal Bank and is assisting strapped borrowers who had mortgages with that bank. Thus far, the agency has been able to help 40,000 of the 60,000 delinquent IndyMac borrowers.  These moves by major banks and the FDIC are addressing one of the last elements of the global and financial upheaval as yet untouched by major Federal programs.


The economy and financial markets will have trouble beginning a reversal until there is a halt to the decline in housing prices, a phenomenon that is worsened by foreclosures. Banks are willing to recast troubled mortgages because they are realizing that they can improve the value of their loan portfolios through mass modifications rather than foreclosures which tend to produce larger losses. A clear consensus is emerging that broad based and systematic loan modifications are the best way to maximize the value of mortgages while preserving homeownership. This should ultimately help stabilize home prices and the broader economy.


Last week’s announcement by J.P. Morgan increases pressure on other mortgage companies to respond with relief programs for distressed borrowers. The bank will open 24 counseling centers and hire 300 employees to work with borrowers and will suspend foreclosures on loans it owns for 90 days as it puts new policies into place. Nationwide 7.3 million American homeowners are expected to default on mortgages between 2008 and 2010, about triple the usual rate. Approximately 4.3 million of these borrowers are expected to lose their homes. The focus of J.P. Morgan and Bank of America is specifically aimed at option adjustable rate mortgages or option ARMs. These mortgages allow borrowers to make minimum payments that may not even cover the interest due resulting in increasing principal loan balances. While an extremely cumbersome process, mortgages which are owned completely by a bank can be modified. There is a question as to whether mortgages which serve as collateral for mortgage backed securities can be modified. Investors in these mortgage securities may be more willing to foreclose to try to recoup their investment than to allow a servicer to renegotiate underlining mortgages.


The need to slow down the foreclosure rate is important because as more properties are taken by lenders, they are placed on the market which adds to the already bloated available inventory. This additional supply exerts downward pressure on value which serves to exacerbate the downward spiral the market is experiencing. It is positive that these issues are now being addressed by those who can do something about it. Mortgage recasts are difficult, particularly on the scale which is necessary, but this could be a way to help the housing market stabilize and when this happens it will be a sign that we are on our way out of the crisis.

Have a great week,


Yes, I know that things in our real estate market are very challenging and we have a long way to go before any recovery can occur, but there is some encouraging news out there. I am often asked what types of properties are most highly sought after today. After pointing out that income producing properties in under the $50 million market are doing much better than larger institutional quality buildings, we start to look at specific product types. Clearly, retail properties which are well-leased and parking garages are two product types where we have seen high demand. The third product type which is, by far, in the highest demand remains multi-family apartment buildings. This product is, and always has been, highly sought after primarily due to the safety of the investment due to the artificially low rent levels that are created by rent regulation. The buildings which have a high percentage of regulated units have, in most cases, been nearly as safe as T-bills with junk bond type yields over the long term. The higher the percentage of rent regulated units in a building, the more interest is generated from the marketplace. Rent regulation keeps rents at such low levels that there is little risk of a reduction in gross rent rolls, regardless of economic conditions. This was the case in the recession of the early 1990s when gross rent multiples declined from 12 to 13x (for properties sold for co-op conversion) down to 4 to 5x. While these multiples dropped, the rent rolls in the properties continued to increase given the upside in regulated rents. Therefore, the downside in multi-family properties is relatively low provided the appropriate level of financing is placed on the property. Over leverage is the Achilles’ heel of apartment properties. These properties also have a characteristic in which tenancy risk is very diversified. In a typical 40,000 square foot apartment building there may be 50-60 units. In a typical 40,000 square foot office building there will be a substantially lower number of tenants. Therefore, the risk of default by the tenants is relatively low in an apartment building.


A downside to multi-family properties is that they are extremely management intensive and only knowledgeable and hard working operators are able to truly maximize the potential that these buildings have. Rent regulation is a highly complex and continually changing set of rules by which these buildings must be operated. This complexity creates a significant barrier to entry for new buyers and is the main reason why we see such little direct investment from foreign buyers in this market segment. There has only been one major foreign acquisition that I can think of in the past several years and it appears that transaction is headed for bankruptcy. Not surprisingly, much of the foreign capital that is deployed into the multi-family sector is in the form of equity financing for local operators. While this barrier to entry might intuitively indicate that with less buyers, yields should be high, this is not the case. There are many operators in New York City that understand rent regulation and are able to maximize the performance of their properties through active hands-on management.


Notwithstanding the current credit crisis, the value of apartment buildings in the first half of 2008 versus the first half of 2007 (which will be viewed as the top of the bell curve for the last cycle) shows that prices were down, on average, only 5%. Since July 1st of this year, prices may have gotten softer by another 5% but, notwithstanding this additional drop, we are still within 10% of the top of the market. It is easy to conclude that this segment of the market has performed much better than others. The average capitalization rate for multi-family properties has inched up from an average of 5.5% in the first half of 2007 to 5.8% today, still well below the cost of debt. At our regular Monday morning sales meeting, I asked our brokers if they had any multi-family transactions at a capitalization rate of 6% or better. There was only one hand raised and that was due to the fact that the building consisted of nearly 100% free market apartments. This is indicative of the sector’s strength.


Portfolio lenders have also been a main contributor to the health of this sector. Multi-family not only is the most highly sought after product type by investors, but is the most highly sought after asset class for portfolio lenders. Loan to value ratios have certainly slipped from 75-85% in the first half of 2007 to 60-65% today. Clearly, there is substantial equity that is required to purchase multi-family buildings but the rates on 5-year fixed money today fluctuate in the mid-6s which is relatively low by historical standards. We have also seen a shift from the very common utilization of gross rent multiples to more of a focus on capitalization rates. The spike in oil prices earlier this year impacted multi-family properties by almost a full multiple. Increased cost of operations have also led investors to look more closely at cash flow and capitalization rate as opposed to gross rent multiple.


Perhaps the biggest trend change that we have seen in this market segment is the shift away from aggregating multi-family properties into portfolios which, up until about a year and a half ago, was the way to attract institutional capital because the bigger the transaction was, the better. Today the sum of the parts exceeds the value of the whole. Many portfolios that are being offered to the marketplace are now being broken up with properties being sold individually. This is a 180 degree change from the height of this cycle. The individual property sales also require less aggregate dollars making them within reach of a larger pool of investors. We believe that we will see a constant (albeit low) flow of product into the market as the de-leveraging effect of the credit crisis takes hold. We are seeing some larger properties that were over leveraged come to market in the form of note sales or direct sales from lenders who have taken properties back. Due to the reduction in loan to value ratios, it may become difficult for some owners to refinance an existing loan without injecting additional capital into the property. If this additional capital is not available to them and they choose not to bring in a preferred equity partner, a sale of the property may be their only alternative. We believe this de-leveraging process will take place over a period of years as loans mature and interest reserves burn off. 


Perhaps the biggest question on the minds of owners of multi-family buildings today is what will happen legislatively if the majority in the New York Senate shifts from Republican to Democrat? What will be the fate of The Rent Guidelines Board? What will happen to the $2,000 luxury decontrol threshold? These are questions that will only be answered in time and investors who remain the most bullish continue to aggressively seek opportunities in this market segment. A confluence of factors have kept the multi-family building sector in New York City resilient as long time owners continue to grow their portfolios.

Have a great week,


The other day, I was asked why my commentaries are generally slanted towards macroeconomics when I am a guy who sells buildings for a living. The reason is that the availability of credit and the cost of that credit are so vitally important to the functionality of our building sales market. It also appears that the credit market’s performance has never been quite so profoundly impacted by both domestic and foreign macroeconomic issues. These issues directly affect our ability to sell properties; therefore, I am riveted to them and continually try to connect the dots between what happens in our economy and how that might affect selling a property in New York City. Recently, there has been much to pay attention to.

The economic news last week was dismal. The Dow ended the worst week in its 112 years history with its most volatile day ever Friday reflected by a 1,018.77 point swing from high to low. Even the 22% market decline over 8 trading days, a movement which normally would have bargain hunters in buy-mode, left investors shell-shocked and unwilling to take new risks. Paper losses on U.S. stocks now total $8.4 trillion since the market peak one year ago. Was this surprising given the passing of the Troubled Asset Relief Plan (TARP) by Congress? Not really. There was a short rally before the passage and as the old saying on Wall Street goes, “Buy the rumor and sell the fact.” Additionally, the selling seemed to be fueled by tremendous margin calls which are demands for additional collateral from investors who purchased stocks with borrowed money. When market value of securities fall, they no longer provide adequate collateral for the loans, and if the investor does not have additional capital to invest, securities must be sold to pay off the loans. Additionally, in recent weeks, corporate bonds, which are generally considered safer than stocks, have had their largest declines ever. In fact, the corporate bond market is forecasting the worst recession since The Great Depression according to Moody’s Investors Service.

The credit markets have remained essentially frozen even in the aftermath of the passage of the TARP. Many types of debt, including agency mortgage backed securities and corporate rate leveraged loans, tumbled last week as banks, hedge funds and other investors were deleveraging, or unwinding their debt holdings. Banks that provided financing to effectuate hedge funds’ asset purchases are asking them to put up more collateral to back their positions or sell the assets which push prices down further.

Perhaps another reason why the markets have not reacted more positively to the TARP is that it is becoming more and more obvious that purchasing $700 billion of toxic mortgage securities will not be a solution by itself and perhaps should only be a minor component of the plan.  In addition to cleaning up balance sheets in the banking industry, capital must be injected into the system. Bank failures are expected to escalate over the next 6 months as the 117 banks on the FDIC’s troubled bank list have combined assets of over $78 billion. This list is expected to grow as there appear to be massive unrecognized losses ahead of us. This is one of the reasons the short term interbank lending market is also frozen. Nearly one-third of banks’ net operating revenue has been directed toward loan loss reserves. It is widely anticipated that the banking industry will see numerous consolidations, restructurings and additional federal regulation. This regulation is expected to affect the “shadow” banking system also which includes investment banks, hedge funds, private equity funds and the over-the-counter market for trading complex financial instruments. Remarkably, this shadow system accounts for 70% of lending in America.

There are four Cs in the correction of a market. The first two are Capitulation and Chaos. It appears the capitulation has occurred given the $8.5 billion of value evaporation in the equity market and the $5 billion of value evaporation in the housing market. Chaos is now upon us with economic turmoil going global, lead by equity markets in Russia, Brazil, Argentina, Canada, China and India falling by 61%, 41%, 37%, 34%, 30% and 25% respectively. The third C is for Catalyst. The TARP is a catalyst but additional catalysts are needed. Last week the Fed rolled out a $150 billion lending program for banks and created a $330 billion swap line for foreign central banks. The Fed also held a special auction called a term auction facility, or TAF, which made $225 of short term loans available. Two additional TAF sales are scheduled for November totaling $150 billion. Additionally, the Fed is considering injecting equity capital in banks, guaranteeing billions in bank debt and potentially guaranteeing all bank deposits. Around the world, governments are implementing these strategies to varying degrees. It appears the capital injection in struggling banks may be the most important. If done properly, these mechanisms will lead to the fourth C, Confidence.

The government has indicated a willingness to pump taxpayer funds into cash-strapped lenders in exchange for ownership interests in the banks. This would most likely be in the form of preferred shares, essentially nationalizing broad segments of the banking industries, reversing a decade long deregulatory trend. The intention is that this fresh capital will not only improve bank balance sheets but also provide a much needed confidence boost for the financial system. This would not be the first time this has happened in the U.S. Not surprisingly, in 1932 the Reconstruction Finance Corp. was formed which injected capital into 6,000 financial institutions. Not only did this program assist with the slowdown of the deterioration of the banking system, but it did so without a loss. Using the $700 billion of TARP funds solely for purchasing toxic mortgage securities will be politically impossible given the potential for conflicts of interest so capital infusion seems more realistic. If this recapitalization of the banking system was implemented and the system was stabilized, confidence would likely follow and credit markets would loosen. This is an important step in turning things around.

As I have stated several times before, we got into this crisis through the housing market and it is through the housing market that we will emerge from it. The housing market must bottom out in order to know the true value of mortgage backed securities and all of their derivative products. A plan to purchase and restructure troubled mortgages would aid in stabilizing the housing market, as will the loosening of credit. We have been fortunate in the mid-market of building sales in New York because there are many well capitalized banks which continue to pour debt capital into multifamily buildings, retail properties and office buildings. Unfortunately, this debt is available for properties under $50 million in value much more so than for properties with higher values. In order for lending to return to this institutional market, the banking system needs to be cleared out and recapitalized. Let’s hope the taxpayer’s money is used in the correct ways.

Have a great week,

As September 2008 drew to a close, we sat down for our quarterly conversation with Massey Knakal Chairman, Robert Knakal to discuss his views on the economy and how these factors are affecting our local New York City building sales market. This interview replaces Mr. Knakal’s “Commentary” for this week which will resume next Monday night. We hope you find this interview informative and timely.

Question: For the past couple of weeks everyone has been talking about is the 700 billion dollar bail out plan. It passed last Friday. How will this plan affect the real estate market?

Answer: The first thing I would like to say is that I feel the plan should not have been called a “bailout”. Secretary Paulson, Chairman Bernanke and the present administration could have done a much better job of conveying the rationale for this plan, its importance to the American people and the implications for the world’s financial markets. That is why it failed to pass the house last Monday. An explanation of the reprurcusions of the evaporation of credit on all Americans should have been conveyed more clearly right from the beginning. That being said, it is thought that this plan will provide liquidity to the credit markets from which the real estate market would benefit.

Question: Do you think the plan will succeed?

Answer: Well, the question is which objectives the plan will succeed in achieving. Strengthening balance sheets of financial institutions holding toxic assets will be achieved but, will it solve the credit crisis? I am not convinced. That being said, the plan may not be perfect but it was absolutely necessary. The Treasury department will, likely, move quickly to start buying distressed assets from struggling financial institutions although the impact of these acquisitions with respect to enhancing liquidity may not be felt for some time. There are still many details of the plan which are unclear such as who will oversee the program, how it will be administered and, most importantly, what the government will pay for these distressed assets. Some economists have indicated that the taxpayers could actually make a profit on these “investments”. That will all be a function of what is paid for the securities.

Click here to read the full Conversation with the Chairman.

Prev      Next