Stuy-Town capitulates

By Felix Salmon
December 14, 2009
being converted back:

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

Call it the final death knell for arguably the frothiest deal that the US residential real-estate market has ever seen — the sale of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper village in Manhattan for $5.4 billion in 2006. The driving force behind the deal was the expectation that the new owners could and would be much more aggressive than the old owners (Met Life) in converting rent-stabilized apartments to market rate. Now, however, all the apartments they did manage to convert to market rate are being converted back:

Lawyers for the Stuy Town tenants as well as for landlord Tishman Speyer have just announced an interim agreement while the bigger issues (like refunds on years of rent overcharges) get sorted out. Apartments will return to rent-stabilized levels in January, and each affected tenant will be granted benefits—lease renewals under stabilized rates, succession rights—under the Rent Stabilization Law.

To put this news in context, rental income from the complex was $112 million in 2006, when the deal was done; the new owners expected that number to rise to $336 million by 2011. Instead, far from rising, rental income actually fell, despite the new owners’ best efforts to convert as many apartments as possible to market rate. That income is now sure to fall further.

With hindsight, the biggest conceptual mistake the buyers (and the lenders to the buyers) made — and we’re talking some very smart people at Tishman Speyer and BlackRock here — is that they forgot about the whole living-in-a-democracy thing. Landlords, in general, are good at asserting their legal rights. But when you’re trying to make life significantly more expensive for 11,000 families all living in the same place, you have to expect that those people will organize and fight back — and that they’ll have local lawmakers on their side.

Political and legal risks are hard to price or to hedge, of course, but it really seems in this case as if none of the investors in the deal even tried. If you’re betting billions of dollars on your ability to navigate the legal system, you have a fiduciary obligation to at least think about the possibilities that (a) you’ll lose, despite your best efforts; or that (b) the law itself might change. But that’s the problem with the whole credit bubble, in a nutshell: people just stopped thinking.

More From Felix Salmon
Post Felix
The Piketty pessimist
The most expensive lottery ticket in the world
The problems of HFT, Joe Stiglitz edition
Private equity math, Nuveen edition
Five explanations for Greece’s bond yield
Comments
2 comments so far

OPM baby!

Posted by Anonymous | Report as abusive

We have been relying on experts, who in turn rely on their (very sophisticated) spreadsheets, mathematical models, computer programs based on complicated models, when making real life decisions. While these modern tools are great and can be very useful, let’s not forget they are just tools, they are not real life, and they aren’t full representations of real life.

These experts are usually frighteningly bright people … in their narrow specialty, outside of which they may turn out to be fish out of water. This begs questioning into the way we have been churning out college graduates. Have we been focusing too much on specialization, while ignoring the importance of a more balanced education? Are we doing that to the detriment of our own future?

Posted by jian1312 | Report as abusive
Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/