How Could My Big, Beautiful Loan Go So Bad, So Quickly?
Surprising, that is, unless the mortgage payment is more than double the monthly net income. Impossible you say? Not really, this was the beginning of 2007, and almost anything was possible. "Our job is to create loans for securitization," said an official from Wachovia Corp. a few years earlier. "We’re trying to manufacture the product that the investor base wants." And so they did.
On the surface, this deal looked pretty good. The pro-forma loan to value was 66.18%, and pro-forma debt coverage was a very safe looking 1.73%. It was a "value-add" deal, and the borrowers, Stellar Management and Rockpoint Partners, planned to pump almost $30 million into improvements and then raise the rents. Pretty simple.
That led to the $225 million first mortgage, topped off with a $25 million mezzanine loan from Deutsche Bank. The first mortgage also became one of the top 15 loans by value (about 3.4% of the initial mortgage pool balance) in a nearly $6 billion CMBS deal issued in March of 2007.
Consequently, one would think that this loan would have received a lot of attention from the underwriters, bond traders and CMBS portfolio managers looking at the securitization. Presumably, these sophisticates could evaluate the loan economics more closely, particulary the rather precarious day-one debt coverage ratio of .39x, which meant that the loan had absolutely no hope of being paid through existing cash flow ('let's see now, the guy's income is less than half the amount of his monthly nut....')
But this was 2007 and the property, known as Riverton Apartments, is no ordinary piece of real estate. It is a massive 12 building, 1,232 unit complex sitting on 7.6 acres of prime East River (Manhattan) waterfront property. I wouldn't know, but I guess that this beach-front location and the "air rights" were what justified the $250 million in debt, even though the property was purchased just 12 months earlier for about half that amount ($135 million) just sayin'. The new loan allowed the borrowers to walk away with over $40 million in cash thanks, the keys are in the mail!
At closing, over 90% of the units (1,143 to be exact) were regulated, rent-controlled apartments. The premise of the loan was that these units would be converted to fair market, such that by 2011, more than half of them would be deregulated and rented at full market.
Unfortunately, this is also New York City, and the only thing more coveted than a long weekend in the Hamptons (or perhaps a phat Congressional seat) is a rent-controlled apartment. Consequently, the conversion did not go as planned, and that .39% day-one debt coverage ate up whatever was left in just eighteen months.

Labels: CMBS



6 Comments:
East River. Yea East River and 135th street. Thats East Harlem off 1st Ave. This is little more than a 1970's housing project with river view terraces. Bad hood, bad transportation, bad design, a high rise version of British council flats. I cannot imagine who was going to move in at "market rents" to boost their NOI. At minimum you would need armored shuttle busses to get residents to/fro the subway. A stroll out the front door on that part of first ave would not be pleasant. This was fantasy undderwiting from day one. It will take 2 more decades at leat for this area to not be radioactive.
Yes, I left that little part out for those who prefer to believe in the Harlem renaissance. Clearly these lenders did, or at least they held their nose and tried to! What a mess.
I have been a resident of Riverton Apartments for more than 20 years. I have a couple of points to correct your erroneous and misleading comments about the Riverton Apartments.
First off -- Riverton is not "off 1st Ave" There is no 1st Ave, or for that matter -- 2nd Ave, 3rd Ave, Lexington Ave or Park Ave at 135th St. Madison Ave. separates the two parts of the Riverton. There are no other streets or buildings between Riverton and the river except the Harlem River Drive.
Oh, yes the "river" -- There is no "East River and 135th St." If you had ever actually been in the "Bad Hood" you refer to, or if you ever looked at a map, you would know that the body of water the Riverton overlooks is the Harlem River.
The Riverton is not a "1970's housing project". It was built in the 1940's by Metropolitan Life, along with Peter Stuyvesant Village and Stuyvesant Oval, as a middle class residential development.
Unfornately, you are also wrong about our "river view terraces" -- the Riverton has no terraces -- with or without river views.
I am not sure exactly what you mean by "bad hood" -- but I can assure you that the neighborhood around the Riverton is as safe as any other in Manhattan.
Bad transportation? The 2,3,4,5,6,A,B,C, and D subways and the M1, Bx33, M102, M7 and M60 Airport buses are all within easy walking distance of the Riverton. There is even a Metro North station with trains to Connecticut, Westchester and Upstate New York. It is the only place in Manhattan, except for Grand Central Terminal, where you can get those trains.
Your analysis of the problems of attracting people to move in to boost the owner's NOI is faulty. What the new owners misjudged was not the problem of getting new tenants to move in at "market rents". Renovated apartments have been rented at "market rents" as soon as they become available. The problem is that the existing rent controlled and rent stabalized tenants are not leaving.
Management has offered existing tenants $10,000 in cash to move into the newly renovated apartments as they become available, but have gotten very few takers.
Two more decades for the area to "not be radioactive"? I think you might want to take a walk along Madison Ave, Fifth Ave, Lenox Ave. or most of the streets along those avenues from Central Park up and you will see new and renovated residential constructon in almost every block. I think you can even leave your anti-radiation gear home.
I suggest you take your head out of your ass and look around before you make anymore studpid, uninformed comments.
Wow, it's Aug 21 and Reit Wrecks has not issued a reply...or a correction... in response to anonymous' comment. It sure sounds like one or the other is needed...at the very least with regards to the geography of streets, bus access and the name of the river.
Laughs! Why did nobody mention the Boulevard of Broken Dreams, was it too close to home?
ugg bootsugg boots
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home