nominee for dumbest 'analysis' by the media of a Manhattan real estate sale

I think we have a winner
I hope that regular Manhattan Loft Guy readers realize that I appreciate the coverage of the Manhattan real estate business in The Real Deal; they often cover things other local media do not and seem (to my eyes) not obviously beholden to the money in the industry in ways that other members of the local Real Estate Industrial Complex are (I am looking at you, Sunday New York Times real estate section). As an example, I was very impressed with the reporting they have done on the Rushmore litigation over condo owner rescission rights, a complex topic that they covered well. (See my April 10, 2010, the case of the curious "typo" / 41 Rushmore buyers get to rescind, for the full story behind this: “it is a story that The Real Deal (proving that it is not just an industry rag) covered better than The Old Grey Lady”.)

With a doff of the cap like that opening paragraph, you know we are about to make a sharp turn, right? Buckle up!

This sentence in a TRD piece this morning will be hard to top as the dumbest statement by a reporter about a Manhattan residential real estate sale:

It wasn’t immediately clear why the asking price was so similar to [the] purchase price six years ago as [agent] did not respond to requests for comment.

I sincerely hope that there are no more candidates for the ‘award’.

a personal failing (of mine)
I find it very difficult to respond to this gently, but I begin by trying….

What is there that is not “immediately clear” about the (last!) asking price, other than that (is it possible??) TRD does not use StreetEasy? Here is the full price and recent listing history of the Robin Roberts condo unit at the Heritage at 240 Riverside Boulevard:

(The flip to Roberts at +$700k after 6 weeks is missing from the StreetEasy history of the unit, but is on Property Shark.)

If it is not “immediately clear” why the final asking price is similar to the 2005 flipped (BIG!) price, then you should not be writing about Manhattan residential real estate. I can’t explain this without shouting (see the sub-head, above): the last asking price looks like the prior purchase price BECAUSE HIGHER ASKING PRICES DID NOT WORK over 9 months.

If the author did not know the long history of failure to sell off of $2.995mm and $2.795mm, then I have him in the wrong award category; he might then win the award for most ignorant ‘analysis’ by the media of a Manhattan real estate sale. In which case his editor would be up for an award, as well, for not having asked “gee, if the agent did not return your call, did you take 11 seconds to check StreetEasy?”.

Not knowing is ignorant. Not knowing after looking at the publicly available sales history is dumb. Not knowing and not looking at the publicly available sales history is malpractice. Also malpractice: getting a comment from the buyer’s agent but not asking about the price history.

Which award does the guy qualify for?

what is not immediately clear
I am curious (but not interested enough to do a market analysis) about that Big Flip. It is not immediately clear to me whether Roberts got snookered in September 2005 as badly as other flipped buyers. But that is not a sexy story.

how does The Media find these ‘stories’?
Speaking of the Real Estate Industrial Complex, where did this story idea come from? Not from the seller’s agent, who did not respond to a request for comment. Apart from condo management, only one other firm would know about this celebrity contract, and that firm would not be identified publicly anywhere at least until it closed, so would be invisible to TRD … until that firm reached out to TRD?? I will bet you a quarter that the Blu boy reached out to media, and was conveniently put behind the smokescreen of “would not comment on [buyer’s] identity”. Can’t blame Blu boy for TRD’s failings, as he likely had no idea that TRD would drift into the fog about why the price was dropped when it did not work, and again dropped.

I guess I have lost that sentimental feeling I had yesterday (October 6, everybody is talking about cancer today) ….

© Sandy Mattingly 2011