Adios. I'm out

So you were indeed a bear in bull's clothing. So now that you are fully divested, where do you think the NYC real estate market is headed?

The ultimate in arrogance is your own discussion dedicated to you. Oh so you are leaving. This is the internet. We should care?

Where will you invest the proceeds? More RE? Bonds?

Interested in a 1031?

1031s can be hard to do. Before you sell, ya gotta have something to buy.

Of course with a 1031 you are never really out of the market...

Right: tax basis from old property becomes tax basis for new one. Prob is timing.
Wonder where petrfitz put the post-tax proceeds. In Eze RE? that ain't bad.

Why, Adios, I'm out?

Is foreclosure as emotionally painful as some say, petrzitz?

I have to ask - did your Pitt St properties double in value?

Eze, now that's the life! Gotta wear comfy shoes and watch your footing.

I feel so betrayed. I've been hanging on to my coop solely because of Perfidiotz's advice, and it turns out all along that he wanted desperately to sell if he possibly could. What an egregious, dramatic example of ... of ... of perfidy!!!

i had plastic surgery last week to remove an angioma on my ear. i will miss it more than petrfitzy

alanhart and moxieland:

I have nothing against petrfitz. Your comments are funny. Funny is on it's way outta the SE door. They are closing in on alanhart and yours truthfully. We are on the Principal's list.

Alan, please save all of those cracked tomatoes. I've got a few ideas for them.

Do you sell in Eze :)
I have been there, one of the most beautiful place..

You're not a nice person but you obviously know how to make money, enjoy Eze..I also was there once and it was wonderful.

I've been perfidied! I demand honor be restored to my family name!

Question: w67thstreet, etc. Couldn't someone more astute at these things than myself quickly find out if there actually were in transactions pertaining to a RE holding company with properties in LES last week? If so, we would finally know who petrfitz is. You know, the man with multiples properties, the children's video game learning empire, the super hot heiress wife, the sprawling back yard in Manhattan, the home in Nevada, the yacht, etc. And now a place in Eze! Anywho, I'm sure someone with more RE cred could find it out in under an hr. Just a thought.

Parkside...did he really have all that...i think, not always, that people make up a lot of their success on se...

Congrats on putting lipstick on that pig and shoving it out the door. You could've sold it for more 2-3 years ago, but you were smart to get out while you could. Best of luck.

BTW, you're still living down in the LES, right?

"You're not a nice person but you obviously know how to make money, enjoy Eze"
Julia, you are priceless!!!!

Where da hell is my invite to Eze??? Now, I'm pissed.

dwell: Beautiful views there in Eze. But, lots of wear and tear, if you aren't in your proper walkin' shoes:

"Gotta put on my travelin' shoes..."

Must confess, I'ma headin' out datta way soon.

I swear, if I don't get an invite for dejeuner (even petit dejeuner, I don't eat much), I WILL toilet paper his house.

I'm not in the RE industry but I do work with plenty of small businesses and entrepreneurs. There is a lot of selling activity this year of small businesses baed on a few things:

2010 is better than 2009, marketwise

There is a lot of money in corporations and a lot of money held by professional investors who get paid to invest and are loathe to have to return their money to their investors. This isn't supporting the largest deals, but rather small and mid-size deals

A combination of the two above, 2009's risk of the world ending and people needing to hoard cash to survive has given way to 2010's recognition that the path ahead is to out-compete. Also as I said, this isn't supporting the largest deals, but rather small and mid-size deals.

Pending tax law changes encourage transactions this year.

number5 - Don't forget that Cap Gains and income taxes will be going up after 2010, so if you were going to make a move sooner is better than later.

Pinging petrfitz's liquidation to the top for Wbottom's benefit.

Hey petrfitz, everyone is curious to know why you finally decided to bail out of the market after being a long-term bull for so long. Your view on the outlook of things changed, or something else? Care to shed some light?

inonada, you don't actually believe his stories, do you? The track record is not good...

Real or not, he spins a good yarn that makes for an interesting viewpoint. Who are we to question his veracity? After all, I distinctly remembering him saying that no twenty-somethings in NYC were/are being paid 7-figure bonuses and that no one should believe such a far-fetched tale.

i will miss petrfitz--grew to enjoy his posts

his politics are spot on--love his disses of all you tool repugnantcans

wow, so perfitz finally realizes that keeping his money in RE wasn't such a good idea.

He sells after a 20% drop.... so he thinks its going to get even worse?

wow, end of an era... when even perfitz is selling!

man, have times changed.

I'd be interested in an update on this.

lake las vegas is still dry and bankrupt

I work as an associate for a firm that represents a mid sized management company. In the same week that petrtitz said he sold, my client purchased a holding company - 4 buildings and an undeveloped lot all downtown.

I worked on the initial paperwork but did not see the final terms. The original deal was in the neighborhood of $12.5 million. I think that there may be something in Real Deal.

I can't imagine that's the same holding company. Given perfidiotz's level of excitement and braggadocio, I think we have to be talking about a substantially larger sum than $12.5 million.

Thank you User. Ain't gonna be hard to figure him out now. Such a tool. Wow $2mm in equity, iz that what made you such a shilling bull all these yrs????!!!! Flmaoz $2mm, really? Really? What a Celine Deion loving tool.

Alanhart, an investor usually puts down 20% or less in these deals. In the last several yrs, just like residential the skin in the game got closer to foreskin sized.

is it chicken or tuna?

hey, he's in Eze with $12.5 or $2 million? $2 million ain't gonna last that long, right? we will have him around us sooner than we might expect. Same goes to AR, enough already! freaking show up!

$2 million goes to AR?

AR and peter are both taking a SE sabbatical, that's all.

AR would certainly never earn $2 million. There has to be a lawsuit involved, or driving her husband with slave labor while she goes on vacation. Yes, she'll be back here. I bet three weeks from the morning she left on her vacation and posted in a huff, to the time she comes back here. Thats what, a week and a half remaining or so?

w67th - we did the diligence on the original purchases, debt maintenance, outstanding debt, easements, etc. I think the owner of the purchased holding company walked away with close to $10 million net. The buildings are all positive rent role as well, so the holding company made money each year as well.

User, I am assuming that these units are making more than 1% NOI based on 0 debt. Why oh why would someone who is so clearly a RE Bull suddenly offload a ton of CF positive assetw w/ zero debt? Could he have possibly invested in tons of more re in nevada, miami, europe with 95% debt and some personal guarantees, pledges of assets in nyc? The last 7 yrs of the RE bubble saw bankers forget 101 of perfecting liens, filing UCCs, and verifying incomes/assets.... the timing of his sale does not surprise me, and dovetails nicely with a shill talking his book while secretly selling into the rally.

Fellow SEers, have no fear, I have commercial assets bought in 1993-7, w zero debt and, absolutely astounding ROI, I fully expect tons of Pertrifitz to be unloading in the next few years and I will add debt and assets when interest rates are sky high, the outlook bleakest and the lemming juice turned sour. I physically cannot be a hypocrite.... nyc re is toast, said it 2 yrs ago, Bernie's moves just confirms my worst fears of this credit cycle yet to play out...

Hey w67thstreet, have you narrowed down just how many thousands of people have "touched your wife"?

"Thousands of people have touched [me]"

This is the thread where User_Usertofferson first appeared.

Another lottery winner retires early. Owners have tons of gravy, including a multi-million dollar payout when they retire or 30 more years of rent free living.
The deduction is almost a moot point, and most owners earn too much anyway. Take the million dollar lottery payout at retirement and be happy.

Renters, they can't afford to buy. They will need to be broke renters until they can amass 6-figures liquid. Most idiots can not manage to do this. Hence, they do not get the jackpot at retirement and 30 years of rent-free living, to boot. Lifelong paycheck to paycheck renters?

Buyer buys $80k townhouse in 1980. Sells it for $6mm when he retires. And no, saying he could have taken that $8k downpayment to the racetrack and put it all on some horse (or investing into a company on the verge of bankruptcy) is not a valid opportunity cost comparison, you blithering imbecile.

What if stupid renter eventually buys in old age? Owners would be living rent-free at that age. Instead, she subjects herself to $60,000 a year in rent. LOL, nice "retirement" sucker. Correct, she is a ginormous fool. This is a case of "too little, too late" She should have bought something back in the 1970s or 1980s, like other people her age. She'd be sitting on millions and be living rent free. A true idiot renter who had made things even worse. At the least, should have moved to a $1500 studio.

Maybe not NYC, but owners have literally recouped 100% of the cost of their apartment in the 10 years of paying below market cost to own than to rent (owning is much cheaper than renting). Even if the apartment was today valued at $0, owners am still ahead. Wrap your mind around that.

2 years ago, I recall seeing $200k studios being posted here. Of course, some of SE crazies told buyers they were CRAZY. Now, there seem to be none of these $200k studios. If the cheapest studios are now listing for $300k, can we infer that the smart investors who bought 2 years ago are now sitting on a 6-figure profit cushion? Pretty damn incredible. Live for $1000/mo, and get paid $100k to do so. A renter doesn't see that sort of money in a lifetime!

Renters LOSE: Bought in 1983 for $1m. Sold in 2012 for $8mil. Owner walks away with a $7m profit. Renter's profit? $0. Yes, those brilliant renters can avoid the increasing cost of electricity and point out the 6 people who bought in 2009 who are underwater. They are so frickin' smart! Just think owners live for free for decades after paying off the mortgage. And get $7 million bucks as a parting gift.

Renters get ZERO percent return. And, renters pay MORE every single month, both during the mortgage and after it's retired.

Average renter net worth $5k
Average owner net worth $250k

Renting is for short-term thinkers. People used to say Manhattan was overpriced in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. Guess what? Anyone who paid off their mortgage over 30 years was looking at a jackpot of wealthy when they retired. Renters? Nothing. Just sniveling ants trying to keep their rent control. If you take a long term perspective, buying is ALWAYS a no-brainer jackpot lottery system for your retirement. And, no, being down on your purchase from 2010 does not negate this.

Wow, anyone who bought a studio or 1BR in the 1990s is sitting on about $300,000 of cold hard cash for apartment sitting. Real estate is truly a money tree, if there ever was one. Oh, and you'be be living mortgage free by now as well. For the rest of your life.

NOT BUYING NOW VS. NOT BUYING EVER? BIG difference. Sure, this is a stupid time to buy at inflated prices after prices have gone up x00% in the last x years. Anyone who already bought from 1850 to 2008 has made out like a robber baron. That boat has sailed. Anyone who bought in 2009 or 2010 lost lost money. BUT, anyone who never EVER buys in their entire lifetime is a stupid f*cking renter idiot funding someone else's retirement. It's an important clarification that some here are too dumb to understand.

I am 100% agreement that prices are headed down. If you're not already sitting on a mountain of pre-2008 profit, then don't bother. That ship has sailed. Owners should now just concentrate on paying off the mortgage, and living rent free for the rest of their lives. Renters, well, I guess can just keep paying off their master's mortgage.

dealboy,
What about an individual buying a moderate place now for living purposes (not investment), and sell in 7 or 10 years or so?

dumbboy, in a moment of frenzied genius, produces his manifesto!

Sonya, Over any longer time horizon, buying always beats renting. For only 7 years, it is too short term to know. If the market goes up, buying will have been a brilliant decision. If it goes down, it will have been a bad decision.

Dealboy, I couldn't have said it better myself.

"Even if the apartment was today valued at $0, owners am still ahead. Wrap your mind around that."

This is the exact thought that went through my head when I bought. People like to talk about real estate values going up and how that makes owners rich, but the real benefit is rent-free living. Eventually you will have extracted the entire value of the apartment, and all the remaining years that you own it are gravy.

if not kidding t-zero, would you pls apply some numbers to the rent-free situation you find so compelling?

>This is the exact thought that went through my head when I bought. People like to talk about real estate values going up and how that makes owners rich, but the real benefit is rent-free living. Eventually you will have extracted the entire value of the apartment, and all the remaining years that you own it are gravy.

Well basically have a landlord whose tenant isn't making any payments and a tenant whose landlord is not motivated for proper upkeep because of the lack of payments. This is like rent control magnified - not ideal for either side, right?

No problem, Yikes. Let's say you have the opportunity to buy a apartment for $150,000, which equals all the cash you have in the world, and rent on this apartment is about $1300 per month, which is what you're currently paying. Let's say that maintenance is $300 per month. (All of these numbers would be unthinkable in Manhattan, but possible in the outer boroughs or in New Jersey.)

You buy it and instantly begin saving $1000 per month. After 150 months, or just over 12 years, your entire purchase price has been returned to you in the form of free rent even if the apartment has ZERO value. (Since rent typically tracks inflation, we can ignore Bernankian theft in all parts of this calculation except maintenance. It might be more accurate to calculate the price-to-rent ratio and the consider maintenance to be "rent", which you will always have to work hard enough to pay every month.)

You can look at the "PER" of a building just like you look at it for a stock. Your fees when buying and selling the "stock" are a lot higher, but the dividends you receive while owning it are pleasantly high. And land value drops to zero a lot less often than the value of a stock does.

Triple - I would need a concrete example of that apartment. Numbers like that haven't existed since the late 90s in Manhattan s. of 96th (barring income-controlled/HUD type co-ops).

Does it matter? Triple_Zero's argument is that the value of money put into an apt is zero. Never mind that the lenders charge you 4% after you buffer any losses with your 20% downpayment, your credit, and a deficiency judgment.

NYC10023 - That's why I said, "All of these numbers would be unthinkable in Manhattan." Will $1300 even get you a maid's closet in central Manhattan these days? ^_^;

Nada, are you talking about the potential return you forgo by putting your money into your apartment and not into other investments? For me, that value *is* zero; I'm not allowed to buy stock (I work at an overseas brokerage which doesn't allow Americans to trade, and doesn't allow employees to open accounts with other brokers), so real estate makes a lot more sense than letting my money sit in the bank earning 0.01% per year. For people in general, they can evaluate the return on an apartment just like they evaluate a stock's return. The PER works the same way; the "load" (maintenance) is much higher; transaction costs are higher too. But when your investment options are limited, you make the best of what you've got.

why cant you buy mutual funds then

You can buy mutual funds, no? Stock funds, bond funds, indexed or not, even mortgage mutual funds yielding you that same 4% buffered by the down payments and the credit of others.

Or does your brokerage house disallow employees from making any investment whatsoever in assets they encourage their clients to invest in?

Ino, your latter supposition is harsher than what we actually have to deal with; everyone else has to get company approval before any purchase, wait at least six months before selling, and get approval to sell. I'm the only American here, and thus the only person who's completely banned. Not too many people are bothered by the policy, because a lot of them bought houses and apartments and are aggressively paying that down rather than buy stock. (There's also the issue of not wanting to stare at financial data when managing one's own investments, after doing it all day at work. And the distraction of paying extra attention, while at work, to the stocks you own.)

I actually did put $10k into a T. Rowe Price fund as an emergency stash just before buying my apartment, sort of on the sly, using my family's US address. That's technically an account, though, and I probably shouldn't have done it.

It wasn't a problem when I was in my 20s and just happy to have a job. And it wasn't a problem when I was paying down debt that I incurred when buying an apartment and renovating it.

But to return to the buying/renting debate: everybody has to have a roof over their head. If you want to invest in stocks, that return has to be high enough that it's worth it to pay rent every month. Even if I could buy and sell stock all I wanted, I think I'd still own my home and avoid paying rent. Having only maintenance as your main monthly expense is very liberating. I could quit my job and live off savings! (And then, not being tied to my job, invest in stocks...)

So no mutual funds allowed for you, no retirement accounts, nothing?

In your example, you were paying $150K to save $1000 in rent vs. maintenance. What if you had to pay $1M to save the $1000, would you do it? Is there any point at which you'd say "Hmm, maybe I can pay my entire rent, maybe my entire life, with the investment income with the money?" Or is the answer never, because overnight interest rates are currently 0%?

The problem I always have with the general rent vs. buy debate, particularly as it pertains to primary residence, is assigning an opportunity cost to the capital put into the the property (whether 20% downpayment or 100% purchase price). I know that for the financially sophisticated on this board, it appears to be blasphemy to assign the risk-free rate as the opportunity cost of down payment, but for those of us who are passive or conservative in our investment decisions, isn't that really the best rate for us to use? I recently looked at how our broadly diversified portfolio did in 2011, and it looks like overall gain was 1% (is this possible or is my Quicken totally out of whack?). So even with mutual funds, one might not do better than risk free rate. If you are looking for a place to call "home," and you are more confident in your wage income stream than you are in your investment income stream for whatever reason, then I think the answer to Ino's question above may in fact be "never." I am throwing this out there to provide a perspective that I think is not well represented on the board - that of a high wager earner who really does not have the time/inclination/skill to focus on investing. I have particular skills for which I am highly compensated and I have had enough affirmation in the marketplace and in academics to know that I am above average intelligence. However, that does not mean that I have a clue as to what to do with savings other than put them in diversified Vanguard mutual funds. I know I can't be alone. Triple_Zero's thinking resonates with me.

It really isn't appropriate to use a cost of capital for one asset class (ie the so called opportunity cost) when analyzing the value of another asset class.

@greensdale - so what number do you use for cost of capital for cash used to purchase real property?

wow--you werent joking--and you work in finance--go figure

whatever the case, in your example, you cite a 10:1 rent/buy, which exists nowhere, let alone in NY

but if you dont consider opportunity cost of capital committed to realestate purchases, none of this matters anyway--no point in the discussion

@yikes - what number do you use for opportunity cost of capital committed to real estate purchase? Do you use past performance of your personal investment portfolio?

i use roughly 5%

and given the variation in leverage, performance, tax treatment etc for the full range of investments i have (including real estate--a property, as well as a couple of big rental-property LP's), i dont attempt to calc a "past performance" which would combine all.

i do know that i would want at least 5% on money i put into any investment with 2-4:1 leverage, huge transaction costs and illiquidity, prior risk history with potential losses of up to 40%, big exposure to government regulation and tax changes, etc etc

to ignore all this, based on some scheme whereby one will live "rent free" ultimately is simply harebrained by me

maybe nada can explain all this to you--ive gotta work

NYCNovice, the risk-free overnight rate is 0%. The 30-year rate is 3.2%. Which one do you thinks makes sense for an asset purchased with cash so that one "never" has to pay rent again in their lifetime?

What it the right cost of capital to use? Up for debate, sure. But not without bounds. It probably should be higher than the overnight risk-free rate of 0% because it is not an overnight asset. It probably should be higher than the 30-year risk-free rate of 3.2% because it involves risk. It should probably be higher than the 4% Wells Fargo charges you (or you can invest in) for a 75% loan that is protected by your 25% downpayment, credit rating, and deficiency judgment.

How much higher than 4%? One can debate a premium for risk and a premium for liquidity. But starting the debate at 0% is flawed.

Your 2011 returns are consistent with an all-stock portfolio. E.g., SPY returned 1.9% in 2011. If you any amount of bonds, it would have been a poor showing. E.g., TLT returned 34.0% in 2011.

@Ino - "What if you had to pay $1M to save the $1000, would you do it? Is there any point at which you'd say "Hmm, maybe I can pay my entire rent, maybe my entire life, with the investment income with the money?"

This is a really good question. You're proposing making an investment in RE that "returns" 1.2% per year ($12k on $1M), and which will never recoup all of its value in my lifetime -- though it will presumably protect me from inflation. For that return I'd probably choose to stay liquid, not least because a price that high on a rent that low presumably means an unsustainably high price that will probably collapse in a few years. RE price/rent ratios are like this right now in Beijing and Shanghai. It's not going to last.

The million-dollar figure is distracting but if you lopped a zero off both numbers ($100k to save $100) the decision to stay liquid seems better.

And yes, no mutual funds or retirement. In this country, "retirement" means taking the national pension (which will be gone when my generation retires), and saving on expenses by moving in with your kids. No 401k; no 529 for kids' college (though college is cheaper here) etc., etc.

@Yikes - "whatever the case, in your example, you cite a 10:1 rent/buy, which exists nowhere, let alone in NY"

If you expand "anywhere" to include the world, I can assure you that the apartment I bought in post-bubble Tokyo has performed in exactly this way. JPY 14,000,000 was the purchase price, market rent is around 120,000 yen, and maintenance is 27,000/month. That's not rent *free*, but it's pretty close.

(And if you want to compare this investment to stocks, I invite you to look at Japan's TOPIX index in 1989 and what it is now:

http://www.tokaitokyo.co.jp/main/products/inv_j/img/20120427_prom1/box03-p02.jpg

...the red line is small cap stocks, which have fared even worse.)

Right now there's a discussion going about a small apartment where the seller is asking for $160k for 285 square feet right on the border of a good neighborhood. Maintenance is about $500. What do you think it'll rent for? I doubt its owner will get that 10:1 ratio, but I bet a cash buyer will get the 5% that you demand.

@NYCNovice - "However, that does not mean that I have a clue as to what to do with savings other than put them in diversified Vanguard mutual funds. I know I can't be alone."

I know just how you feel; even if I *could* trade stocks, who knows if I'd get good returns or not? I suspect I'd just buy mutual funds like you do. One of the things I do at work is file claims, on behalf of our customers, in class-action lawsuits against companies who've engaged in various forms of chicanery and then seen their stock prices plummet. The customers don't even recover a fraction of the money they lost. And it's not like a regular person can predict which of these companies are suddenly going to lose their value like this.

I love the peace of mind that comes with having a paid-off apartment while still in my 30s, and knowing that even if catastrophic inflation destroys my savings, I still have a home that will keep part of my assets sheltered. Even when I move on from this apartment and rent it out, the steady, predictable returns that come from that are preferable to stocks' volatility and possibility for loss.

All makes sense. I was instructed by more financially savvy family member to use 5% but I never understood why. Thanks to both ino and yikes for replies and @000, I am wired like you.

Triple: you are operating with an unusual set of parameters.

Novice: I hear you about investments. I read tons of articles to try to educate myself, but the consequences aren't pretty. I did better with stocks when I knew one or two niche sectors very well from a tech point, and invested based on that knowledge. Most of our $ has not been in real estate, but sadly, not done very well at all. Probably -ve return over the 15 years. Yes, would have done better to just dump dutifully in VFINX or any old U.S. index fund - but hindsight is 20/20. First, we were conservative, cash, Canadian gov't bonds (did well). Then cash all from 2006 to 2009, with a little muni bond and some small stock exposure. Lost money on munis and stocks in '09 (sold at bottom). Shorted financials in '09 (big mistake). Then cash again until '10. Missed the big runup in stocks bcs got into laddered munis in '10. Shorted S&P last summer (again didn't work out well).

nyc10023 - Thanks for understanding! I get pitched investments all the time and get pressure from family members to be more proactive with investments, but at the end of the day, I know that I personally have neither the acumen nor the tolerance for risk to try to beat the market. I am so conservative that I do use risk-free rate for anticipated hold period as cost of capital when looking at real estate purchases. Sadly, even using that ridiculously low number as cost of capital in evaluating purchase of NYC property (we anticipated 5 year hold period), there was not a single property that I examined that made sense. But then again, that is not so different than the rule of thumb I was taught growing up that it makes no sense to buy any property in blue chip area unless you anticipate holding it for more than 5 years, so I can't say that our decision to not buy in NYC has anything to do with NYC per se. In any event, I love reading all of the back and forth between the finance gurus on SE; I have never done anything other than the "is this worth it to me?" analysis on any property purchased, and mercifully, all have worked out so far. Can't say the same for my speculative stock investments - I got clobbered by investing in some CLECs in late 90's; I knew it was gambling and did not invest more than I could "afford" to lose, but it still hurt when I lost . . . all of it.

FWIW, I think using 5% as the cost of capital on a downpayment of (say) 25% is ridiculously low.

You want expected return on your capital to be commensurate with risk. While volatility and risk are not the same thing, looking at volatility can be helpful. Over the last 10 years, NYC RE (according to the SE index) had an annual volatility of 6%. Stocks (SPY) had an annual volatility of 15%. (A 50/50 re-balanced blend including bonds, like TLT + SPY, had an annual volatility of 8.7% but let's put that aside for the moment).

Given that your exposure to the 6% volatility is magnified 4x by the leverage, you're looking at an annual volatility of 24% on the capital. So if you're saying you'd be willing to take on that sort of volatility for a 5% expected return, then you should also be willing to take a 3% expected return for a volatility of 15% in stocks. Does that sound right to you?

FWIW, I find this all fascinating. Long-term investing not that hard, it's just a matter of fundamentals vs. risk. But a lot of otherwise intelligent people seems to be stuck in some sort of viscous reactive cycle that has them bouncing from one fallacy to another. The theme du jour seems to be a predilection for RE because it hides the losses (negative carry w.r.t. a loan and/or cost of capital is 0%) and volatility ("no daily price + hold-to-maturity => no risk").

Triple_Zero, your post-bubble purchase in Japan makes perfect sense. And perhaps a purchase at the low end of the NYC market might make fine sense as well, you'd have my blessings on a $160K apt w/ $500 maintenance if the rent were at least $1000. But getting there based on a cost-of-capital logic of 0% does not make sense.

Your company's policy seems stupid. What is their basis, and why do you put up with the idiocy? From what I've gathered, it doesn't exactly seem like they are paying you handsomely in return.

What is the relevance of market volatility for an individual with a stable life?

Given our piss-poor record in investing, I handed over the reins to a "wealth" management group 4 years ago based on a friend's recommendation (note - don't even know how to pick these people, just hope they're not baby Madoffs). Losing 2% off the top in management fees, they deliver a "balanced" moderate portfolio - laddered munis, blend of large and small cap funds. Just because one is intelligent and can read the same articles that everyone else is reading doesn't guarantee any kind of good investing strategy. It seemed like a good idea to short financials in 2009, just saying. I did have a thought that resource dollars (AUS, CAD) was oversold, but didn't quite catch the bottom there. Also bought some gold, but not enough.

huntersburg:
I saw quite a few beautiful 3 bedroom/3 bath in Maui. Amazing views.
Go a bit up-Island for the best deals.
All under 1 mil, many under 900k. property tax not crazy.

I'm going to purchase there.
That's the life.

While the others on this thread are waiting/missed "the bottom", didn't buy enough oro...
I'll be sitting pretty in Maui in the winter while living in Italy, Barcelona and the Hamptons the rest of the year.

>I'll be sitting pretty in Maui in the winter while living in Italy, Barcelona and the Hamptons the rest of the year.

Sounds like the life. But New York always calls back its children.

oh no, another episode of "the good life" featuring paris hilton, nicole richie, and our very own truth.

Oh good, former Apple CEO John Sculley is going to comment on the new Blackberry 10.

Eze is a great location.....the only problem is when you head either east or west......its pretty average and to far from Paris.

If you want a beach.....plenty of better locations.....sorry but never been able to ever consider rock beaches even close to being comfortable.

deanc: rocky beaches on the Med.
I agree, comfy sand is best.

petrfitz was "Adios. I'm out..." two years ago. Sold all of his RE. So, now he's back in NYC.?
I once posted a comment about Eze: "...up top, with the cacti."
petrfitz didn't know what I was referring to.

I think you have been to Eze.
petrfitz, not.

greensdale:
It's not as if I won't be spending time in NYC. Just not going to purchase there.
That could change in the future. I have time, money and freedom.
I can work anywhere, prefer to work less and enjoy life.
For now, the best deal for me is in Maui.

I learned how to play the ukulele and am working on improving my pedal-steel playing (much more difficult to learn). I'm painting (getting better at oil painting. Kind of impressionist/ pointilist. Just for fun.)
I learned how to drive and I'm getting my license when I get back from Australia.

>greensdale:
It's not as if I won't be spending time in NYC. Just not going to purchase there.
That could change in the future. I have time, money and freedom.
I can work anywhere, prefer to work less and enjoy life.
For now, the best deal for me is in Maui.

Maybe you could move in with stevejhx in Florida?

No thanks, greensdale.
Not interested in living in Florida.
I can pay my taxes.

stevie is happy in Florida.
No comparison to Maui.

However, Floria is better than buying in Williamsburg.
Even in a new building with no amenities.
I've been to Williamsburg. New condo buildings all have amenities. At the very least, a doorman.
Too many pukers in the streets. Not a place for middle-aged buyers with money.

Do you prefer living in greens dale to hunters burg? Or the other way?

...Florida is better...
so is Floria. (My cleaning lady's mother is named Floria. She lives in Florida.)

Better than greens dale?

c0c0!

Who's cOcO?
Isn't she the big tuchis married to Ice-T.?

"truth" you are so stupid. Many new development buildings in bburg are small and have no amenities, no doorman.

Florida? Go for it. I'll take Williamsburg.

I like how you are too cowardly to post on the thread that actually has content relating to your response. Bizarre.

>I like how you are too cowardly to post on the thread that actually has content relating to your response. Bizarre.

You messed up. I'm not sure anyone knew you made your big purchase in Williamsburg until you revealed it tonight. Don't take it out on Truth.

She's calling me stupid. Bizarre. Cowardly.
She's on patrol for content.
I wasn't taking to her, yet here she is.

"Florida. Go for it."?!

Life in Williamsburg is so interesting. Staying home there posting comments on se.
That's the life of nothingness.

greensdale: I've got work to do. Going out to meet with business people. See some friends after.

Looks like she's ready to rumble.
Gonna be a long night for her, waiting for me to post another comment, on patrol for content.
Taking it out.

Truth - just because I didnt respond to your post doesnt mean I dont know about Eze. I would say the cacti are the least of the flora and fauna especially as you near our place at the top near the Chateau. I just like staying on high away from the perfume....douchebag

"The perfume...douchebag"?!
Is it "Summer's Eve"?

My point wasn't that you don't know about Eze, just that I don't think that you live there.

O.K., so you like your "place at the top near the Chateau".
It's a very small town and the locals would know of a New Yorker that just moved there within the last 2 years.
Nobody I know who actually lives there or whom I asked up there ever met you, heard of you nor knew you.

I'll check again next summer.
Especially around the Chateau.
Try to get to know your neighbors.

>wife67thstreet
Comment removed.

What happened?