Concessions are better at the movies than at the co-op

It’s April Fools’ . The below is true . But, there are some fools .

Between 2014 and 2015, I lived in San Francisco . I had a great time for much of that time .

The weather was pleasant . Things felt more relaxed . I was more relaxed. Maybe too relaxed . But halfway through 2015, I started to feel the pull of the East Coast . Was I missing Ess-a-Bagel? Perhaps. I realized quickly that it wasn’t about the food I couldn’t get.

It was San Francisco itself: I just didn’t get it .

I hadn’t — and wasn’t — breaking into a community or feeling a connection to a neighborhood or its people . I recall passing by Twitter’s headquarters on Market Street — it was still a quirky, social networky thing — on my way to the office, and I found that I was learning more from what I read in the newspaper about Twitter than from the conversations, interactions, and people around me.

And it wasn’t just Twitter. It was Facebook, LinkedIn, Airbnb: You name it.

Today, I’m deeply entrenched in the Lower East Side and feel quite rooted . A big piece of that comes from being involved, having conversations in the elevator , and even overhearing bits of gossip on the street and in the laundry room . These “channels” — taken together — create meaning, connection, and understanding . I can feel the community’s pulse , and I can tap into it.

Of course, that’s not all good .

Being able to “tap in” means knowing about some of the less savory plots and storylines, too . You may recall our earlier article, Was this co-op blocking a sale or setting a secret price floor? . In that piece, we discussed a Lower East Side co-op board repeatedly rejecting a shareholder’s apartment sale — despite market-aligned pricing . This led to a legal dispute over whether the board was exercising legitimate discretion or enforcing an arbitrary price floor. The court allowed key claims to proceed, reinforcing that while co-op boards have broad authority, their decisions must still be grounded in good faith and real market conditions .

That case is ongoing .

A neighbor recently turned my attention back toward it with some notable developments, including testimony from an established real estate broker . That testimony, which appears credible and reflects standard professional practices, references concessions and pricing adjustments associated with board-level review and approval processes .

And there’s data, too .

Before diving in, a note : what follows reflects More For LES’ interpretation of a dataset provided as part of that testimony. While we made a good-faith effort to structure and review the data carefully, we did not independently verify each transaction, and the dataset may contain inconsistencies inherent in aggregated records. The findings are based on that review and assume the data submitted to the court is accurate.

As the case is ongoing, identifying details — including the specific co-op — are intentionally omitted .

With that, let’s take a look .

Our dataset consisted of 136 closed transactions , broken down by building, unit type, condition, and pricing, along with the presence (or absence) of concessions. Of the 136 transactions, 76 included a recorded concession, representing 56% of all deals . The remaining 60 transactions did not include a concession.

When segmented by unit type, concessions were most prevalent in smaller units : 63% of studios, 61% of one-bedrooms, 51% of two-bedrooms, and 50% of three-bedrooms included concessions.

As a percentage of sale price , transactions that included concessions generally fell within a mid-to-high single-digit range. Studios averaged approximately 8%, one-bedrooms 9%, two-bedrooms 6%, and three-bedrooms 9%.

Said another way , if a buyer and seller agreed on a $1,000,000 price for a three-bedroom, a 9% concession corresponds to a contract price of approximately $1.10M, with roughly $100K returned to the buyer in some form . The result: the recorded price is approximately $1.10M, while the underlying economic transaction occurs at $1.00M.

At the unit level , concessions appeared more frequently in certain conditions and configurations, though not exclusively tied to distress. Units in original condition saw concessions in 71% of cases versus 54% for updated units. Similarly, concessions were present in 69% of units with open kitchens versus 53% without, 63% of units with new kitchens versus 54% without, and 61% of units with new bathrooms versus 54% without.

Taken together, the data suggests that concessions are being used across a meaningful portion of transactions , resulting in a consistent gap between recorded prices and underlying economic outcomes.

So, what’s the rub?

While co-op boards have considerable latitude in approving or rejecting transactions, the implication here is that a pattern may exist in which outcomes are influenced by approval dynamics rather than purely by market forces . The result, at least on its face, is a two-tier pricing effect in which recorded values and economic values diverge .

While the intent may be to support higher visible pricing and protect perceived value , the effect can be counterproductive. It may slow transaction velocity , delay revenue collection from flip taxes , and create friction for both existing shareholders seeking to sell and prospective buyers attempting to purchase . More broadly, it introduces reputational risk , raising questions not only about optics, but about transparency and governance.

Boards are empowered to act in the best interests of shareholders — not individual interests .

If proven, this would be deeply concerning and potentially harmful to both the co-op and its shareholders.