6 ms·

The apartment building wouldn't let him buy a second unit, even though he's worth $10's of millions. Something fishy for sure.

loverobots 14y ago
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/s-e-c-and-pension-systems-to-examine-fletcher-fund/ http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/s-e-c-and-pension-sys... A few searches reveal that the apt complex may have been right. Something fishy, but in his hedge fund: "The public pension systems were allowed to earn a return in the range of 12 percent to 18 percent, they said in a statement. If the fund earned less than 12 percent, other investors, not the three pension systems, would absorb the losses. As a tradeoff, the pension systems’ agreed to forgo any return above 18 percent." Then there was the case of having pledged $50 million to charity but not actually given them or something.
larrys 14y ago
Dakota is a coop. In NYC coops have an absolute right to reject anyone for any reason and often do. Even celebrities and people with tons of money. http://cooperator.com/articles/1450/1/Top-Dozen-Reasons-for-Co-op-Board-Rejections/Page1.html http://cooperator.com/articles/1450/1/Top-Dozen-Reasons-for-... Edit: (Comment below). Where I said "have an absolute right to reject anyone" I meant as long as it doesn't violate a law. This is similar to how a company can refuse to hire anyone for any reason as long as they don't state a reason which is prohibited by law and as long as no evidence to that surfaces.
- sureshv 14y ago
  > NYC coops have an absolute right to reject anyone > for any reason No they don't: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/45/I/3604 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/45/I/3604
tomkarlo 14y ago
A co-op like the Dakota (which is one of the oldest and most historic large apartments buildings in New York) may be less than thrilled with having someone own two units, especially if the intent is to do a bunch of renovation and knocking down walls to join two adjacent units. Given that the co-op board doesn't actually own the unit being sold, their only option to stop that is to block the sale to him, and there's relatively little cost to them. Even for the seller, it won't be that hard to find another buyer so it's not a huge deal.
- larrys 14y ago
  Actually in a coop the unit is owned by the association and you get the rights to use it and I believe that is either defacto or dejure what gives them the right to decide who gets to occupy it. http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/real-estate/condos1.asp http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/real-estate/condos1.asp ------------------------------------------------ <code> "In a cooperative says St. John, an attorney whose firm represents more than 600 condominium, cooperative, and homeowner associations, the building containing the residential units or apartments is owned by a 'cooperative housing corporation.'"</code> ------------------------------------------------ <code> "In a condominium, each unit owner owns an individual apartment in fee simple. In addition, the buyer owns an undivided interest in the common elements such as the exterior walls, roof, pool and other recreational areas." </code> ------------------------------------------------ Edit: Any idea why my code tags don't work?
  - tomkarlo 14y ago
    The co-op association legally owns the units, but the board and board-members don't directly own the unit being sold. I was trying to point out that the board members don't have much economic incentive to approve a particular buyer - if the unit eventually sells for less, it doesn't directly harm the occupants on the board unless one of them is the seller.
- rprasad 14y ago
  In some states, and especially in NY, a co-op can require approval of sales, or right of first refusal.
nikcub 14y ago
you guys should read the entire story, it is interesting: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/2012/02/is-harvard-graduate-buddy-fletcher-financial-genius-or-fake/ http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/2012/02/is-harvard-gr... they stopped him from buying his fourth apartment, because a financial background check worked out that the guy couldn't afford it - despite being listed in Forbes magazine as being worth $150M the article and others then go on to question how his investment funds have been making double-digit returns for the past two decades (sound familiar?)

loverobots 14y ago

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/s-e-c-and-pension-systems-to-examine-fletcher-fund/ http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/s-e-c-and-pension-sys... A few searches reveal that the apt complex may have been right. Something fishy, but in his hedge fund: "The public pension systems were allowed to earn a return in the range of 12 percent to 18 percent, they said in a statement. If the fund earned less than 12 percent, other investors, not the three pension systems, would absorb the losses. As a tradeoff, the pension systems’ agreed to forgo any return above 18 percent." Then there was the case of having pledged $50 million to charity but not actually given them or something.

larrys 14y ago

Dakota is a coop. In NYC coops have an absolute right to reject anyone for any reason and often do. Even celebrities and people with tons of money. http://cooperator.com/articles/1450/1/Top-Dozen-Reasons-for-Co-op-Board-Rejections/Page1.html http://cooperator.com/articles/1450/1/Top-Dozen-Reasons-for-... Edit: (Comment below). Where I said "have an absolute right to reject anyone" I meant as long as it doesn't violate a law. This is similar to how a company can refuse to hire anyone for any reason as long as they don't state a reason which is prohibited by law and as long as no evidence to that surfaces.

sureshv 14y ago
> NYC coops have an absolute right to reject anyone > for any reason No they don't: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/45/I/3604 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/45/I/3604

tomkarlo 14y ago

A co-op like the Dakota (which is one of the oldest and most historic large apartments buildings in New York) may be less than thrilled with having someone own two units, especially if the intent is to do a bunch of renovation and knocking down walls to join two adjacent units. Given that the co-op board doesn't actually own the unit being sold, their only option to stop that is to block the sale to him, and there's relatively little cost to them. Even for the seller, it won't be that hard to find another buyer so it's not a huge deal.

larrys 14y ago
Actually in a coop the unit is owned by the association and you get the rights to use it and I believe that is either defacto or dejure what gives them the right to decide who gets to occupy it. http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/real-estate/condos1.asp http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/real-estate/condos1.asp ------------------------------------------------ <code> "In a cooperative says St. John, an attorney whose firm represents more than 600 condominium, cooperative, and homeowner associations, the building containing the residential units or apartments is owned by a 'cooperative housing corporation.'"</code> ------------------------------------------------ <code> "In a condominium, each unit owner owns an individual apartment in fee simple. In addition, the buyer owns an undivided interest in the common elements such as the exterior walls, roof, pool and other recreational areas." </code> ------------------------------------------------ Edit: Any idea why my code tags don't work?
- tomkarlo 14y ago
  The co-op association legally owns the units, but the board and board-members don't directly own the unit being sold. I was trying to point out that the board members don't have much economic incentive to approve a particular buyer - if the unit eventually sells for less, it doesn't directly harm the occupants on the board unless one of them is the seller.
rprasad 14y ago
In some states, and especially in NY, a co-op can require approval of sales, or right of first refusal.

nikcub 14y ago

you guys should read the entire story, it is interesting: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/2012/02/is-harvard-graduate-buddy-fletcher-financial-genius-or-fake/ http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/2012/02/is-harvard-gr... they stopped him from buying his fourth apartment, because a financial background check worked out that the guy couldn't afford it - despite being listed in Forbes magazine as being worth $150M the article and others then go on to question how his investment funds have been making double-digit returns for the past two decades (sound familiar?)