Bottom ... Is Seen in the New York Area

And there are plenty more dating from as early as 1989 that I've already posted.

Juicy and LICC think it ain't over - but it ain't over till it's over.

... and the fat lady sings. I'm not naming names.

oh no, not the penthouse lady.

if you bought a condo in 1991 you made 4X your LEVERAGED money by today.

and the inventory in 1991 was at 25,000 units compared to todays what 7000 units

And there's CC again - the crazy old coot

and murders were at 2500 now what are they 400?

"if you bought a condo in 1991 you made 4X your LEVERAGED money by today"

And by not owning, my cash on hand is actually 25X what it was in 1991. Though that's not inflation adjusted.

truthskr, is it 25x because of your income, equities investing, or something else?

I call BS on the inventory # of 25,000 units in 1991. I don't see how anyone can possibly know or estimate the inventory #'s from back then.

Certainly,a varied combination of many things BJW.
SteveF just inspires the worst in me....But I can tell you though the last 12 years renting has allowed me to make investments with my capital that blow away anything I would have made on an apartment purchase. Even if I would have been fortunate to sell in 2007.
And it has not been exclusive of real estate,just not manhattan RE.

Of course with a crystal ball playing the waves perfectly, manhattan is great. But there is just so much less pressure when buying in the outer counties or other states at 12 times rent roll.

I did try in 96. I remember quite vividly looking at 16/20 apt units that were asking 600/700 per sq ft and 18 times rent roll. I opted for for long island and 10 times rent roll. Now manhattan tripled but so did long island, however cash flow was positive from day 1, instead of waiting 4/5 years in manahattan to go positive.

The one big difference is you don't have all the foreclosures today like you did then.Did have a friend that used to buy up alphabet city buildings but that was the early 90s and in foreclosure. A suitcase with 400K got you a 20 unit building.
And if you had the stomach to be a slum lord, and bleed the building dry,depreciating it down to a nub. Which of course makes the tax now owed when you sell very unattractive. But hey, 4/5 times your principal purchase, not bad.

But the spirit of this thread and one that I subscribe to is 2009 is 1991 and there is a ways to go (2014/15).

so truth how did you blow away anyhting when the s&p has gone nowhere since 1997? Now is the time to be a stock picker not then. Earnings have caught up.

if you invested in slow steady real estate with a 20k down payment in 1991 you made 20X your investment and all this while paying down your loan and not pulling your hair out over the ups/downs of that dotcom/new economy stock market.

oh and not having to answer to a landlord for changes to your home for God's sake. Talk about not having any freedom. You have to answer to someone even where you live and some landlords are not as wonderful as me ya know :)

AVuws, the link below will help you understand about the 1991 inventory levels...

http://www.millersamuel.com/charts/gallery-view.php?ViewNode=1132752161iuzhS&Record=6

That chart shows inventory at about 7K in 1991.

I knew I could call BS.

Do you know what the volume of units entering manhattan real estate means from back then? It meant conversions.

I challenge you to show me that more units were constructed in the late 80's than in the last 5 years. You can't because it didn't happen. You know how all the buildings along WEA are now co-ops? Well they were built 70-100 years ago and "entered" the co-op and condo market in the '80s. But they were NEVER inventory. They were never sold except by the building owner to the current tenants and at insider prices that were often substantially below market rates.

I should know, and expect by now that people can hold two different sets of data in their heads at the same time and not put them together. I know SteveF knows there are lots of Co-ops in Manhattan and that in fact most of NYC real estate is Co-op. I know this because he always states it when he wants to use that fact to support his cause. And he knows that lots of Co-op units entered the market in the last R/E boom. But never the two details shall meet.

So again, please show where there was inventory of 25,000.

(Other points: This chart is several years old. The inventory added in the last 5 years is understated compared to what we actually experienced.)

truthskr, good post. I would even go so far as to say that if your goal is to make the most amount of money, real estate is really not a great vehicle. Unless you're particularly gifted at market timing. Based on one of the other threads that's kicking around here today, it's clear that some of the bickering on SE is a result of people not even talking about the same things - real estate as consumption or real estate as investment. steveF is, I'm pretty sure, an investor, and way too much of a cheerleader for my tastes, though at least he seems like a genuinely nice guy. But I understand the frustrations. I wouldn't quite be ready to say 2009 is 1991, because I don't know what 2014 will bring, but there certainly are good reasons to believe that.

> if you bought a condo in 1991 you made 4X your LEVERAGED money by today.

And if you bought Google at IPO you made even more than that.

Does that mean buying one stock leveraged is a good investment strategy?

Steve, again, you're making fundamentally horrible investment decisions. You really need to learn Finance 101, things like diversification, risk-adjusted returns, and past performance being just about the worst indicator of future performance.

Hell, you even need to learn about CAGR.
1991, you're talking decades. a bank account would have more than doubled your money!

Not to mention, looking at the chart, thats less than the Dow. And, hell, you would have had that appreciation in just 9 years!

But, again, leveraging that wouldn't have been prudent either. You can't cherrypick and expect to repeat, Steve.

Just fundamentally bad advice from you.

> AVuws, the link below will help you understand about the 1991 inventory levels...

Oh, poor, poor steve... still pointing out the chart that was WRONG.
It was a PREDICTION and it was WRONG.

Steve, you know all about bad predictions, don't you?

The building congress stats showed 30-40k new units per year! Thats several times what these guys predicted.... and HIGHER than the period you're trying to note was higher!

(and, of course, most of the previous "new units" weren't really new... they were just renters changing status). So either you don't count them, or you count them and add 30k new buyers into the market at once.

Again, just bad, bad (REALLY bad) analysis from you Steve.

You need to be more careful.

"(Other points: This chart is several years old. The inventory added in the last 5 years is understated compared to what we actually experienced.)"

Bingo.

This is like Steve "proving" there was no real estate crash by quoting Juice saying "there will be no crash" 2 years ago.

Buyers looking to buy don't listen to these unfortunate individuals from above. An investment in a home is one of the smartest financial moves you can ever make. Plus it will provide you enjoyment for years to come. Don't try to time the market BUY WHEN YOUR LIFE SAYS IT'S TIME, the younger you are the better

it was meant for this thread ya enjoy! :)

steveF -- if RE doesn't work out I think you have a future writing copy for infomercials and self-help seminars.

thx malthus but it has worked out very well chief, maybe in the next life.

Buyers, listen to SteveF at your own peril. He bought condos in the bubble and has been desperately trying to sell them, and shilling so someone takes his hot potato from him. He denied the crash, which is now fact. He doesn't have even a rudimentary knowledge of markets. He says "don't try and time the market" but he's been attempting to do that for quite some time, and just been really, really bad at it.

"An investment in a home is one of the smartest financial moves you can ever make"

No, its not. It is, by definition, NOT AN INVESTMENT.

See, this is what happens when someone who doesn't understand finance or economics tries to teach people about those things.

If you're doing it for personal reasons, great. Admit it, and decide what that is worth to you, and pay for it ONLY if the cost is less than what its worth to you.

"steveF -- if RE doesn't work out I think you have a future writing copy for infomercials and self-help seminars."

Well, the guys that do the late night re pitches are the ones who don't make any money at RE, so makes perfect sense!