national = 2003. What is NY?

SE's condo-resale index puts us at mid-2005: http://streeteasy.com/nyc/market/condo_index

There is a bit difference between NYC prices between 2003 and 2005. That's one of the things that worries me about current price levels.

Quality listings: late 2008

In my coop its VERY skewed. We just had one unit go for only 1.8% off peak, it had a very nice kitchen reno plus no brokers were involved. OTOH, there were a couple other units that weren't so great (one had virtually no light; the other was on the ground floor) those sold about 14% off peak. I have no idea where "average" units would hypothetically end up since none have been gone on the market in years now.

Are you asking about New York City or Manhattan?

It has been said, NYC has "fared" best.

amazing ppl still wonder where nyc re is going? r ppl this blind or stoopid?, or just believe they deserve to earn $100K/yr to housesit?

It's over. Crap bonuses this yr, crap fall / spring nyc re selling season... the 2nd dip confirmed.... tis written so it will be... can't help it you can't read.

Let me help..."A", "B".."C" ..."D".... wake me up when you get to Z

Of course, we seem to be talking nominal prices.

Try that in real terms...

It's not surprising that NY takes longer to hit bottom than the rest of the country. Same thing happened in the '90s. In many ways NY is different, but not so different that it gets to defy gravity forever.

We have a long way down to go. It may be a matter of prices staying flat for a decade while inflation eats away at gains, but in real terms prices are still way too high.

In our co-op sales were ~$500/sf in 2003, ~$775/sf at peak, and ~$750/sf recently.

Go to the Miller Samuel data: Manhattan coops (avg):

2005 for studios
2005 for 1 bedrooms
2006 for 2 bedrooms

QTR Studio 1 BR 2 BR
2011 2 345,122 593,253 1,330,163
2011 1 335,193 567,003 1,294,898
2010 4 335,830 589,327 1,342,835
2010 3 363,308 577,655 1,324,502
2010 2 387,930 617,516 1,223,320
2010 1 333,787 619,909 1,208,255
2009 4 355,906 637,201 1,244,534
2009 3 356,742 600,453 1,164,780
2009 2 373,572 596,736 1,224,939
2009 1 387,313 626,332 1,414,559
2008 4 378,412 702,872 1,680,558
2008 3 398,260 661,131 1,568,177
2008 2 436,035 759,154 1,641,764
2008 1 514,129 735,660 1,663,847
2007 4 413,699 716,480 1,622,386
2007 3 354,057 637,232 1,429,212
2007 2 373,732 625,343 1,389,037
2007 1 365,204 573,609 1,305,483
2006 4 398,947 609,706 1,243,166
2006 3 383,129 608,317 1,296,229
2006 2 375,882 600,046 1,491,128
2006 1 391,059 642,423 1,327,986
2005 4 354,558 604,472 1,349,817
2005 3 376,035 601,890 1,240,353
2005 2 343,566 551,626 1,210,441
2005 1 310,473 538,786 1,152,180
2004 4 302,848 482,685 1,064,907
2004 3 282,060 466,999 1,038,286
2004 2 273,967 434,746 1,004,337
2004 1 240,624 418,667 955,352
2003 4 263,442 439,778 912,991
2003 3 239,118 405,337 876,909
2003 2 232,519 383,337 871,856
2003 1 242,661 413,717 798,608
2002 4 230,919 392,542 853,658
2002 3 224,966 365,925 748,995
2002 2 215,545 365,633 735,189
2002 1 200,591 354,880 735,525
2001 4 273,275 383,636 761,720
2001 3 207,463 319,915 802,268
2001 2 246,285 330,163 699,893
2001 1 167,988 328,881 761,216
2000 4 161,842 311,362 750,356
2000 3 150,061 311,648 847,138
2000 2 153,385 291,561 786,275
2000 1 141,228 277,425 708,259

And don't forget, due to skewing of the overall average by high volatility 3+ bedroom units you MUST track the degree of "off peak" by submarket (studio, 1 br, 2 br)

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/27961-help-me-interpret-miller-samuel-data

Re: It's not surprising that NY takes longer to hit bottom than the rest of the country.

Especially when the Fed tosses a trillion beans to our favorite local industry so they're able to maintain full employment.

challenge on definition of "peak", for those who claim to be near "peak"

high trade in a given building psf, may not properly reflect peak

If you go by medians (I did condo+coop)...

you get 2005 for studio, 1 bed, 2 bed.

Year Quarter Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4+ Bedroom All
2011 2 389,000 627,500 1,310,000 3,108,000 5,500,000 850,000
2011 1 375,000 582,500 1,210,000 2,375,000 4,950,000 782,071
2010 4 375,180 615,000 1,225,000 2,600,000 5,400,000 845,000
2010 3 375,000 610,000 1,250,000 2,700,000 6,000,000 914,000
2010 2 410,000 639,000 1,248,000 2,600,000 4,650,000 899,000
2010 1 375,000 627,500 1,206,584 2,400,000 5,650,000 868,000
2009 4 375,000 661,000 1,242,265 2,350,000 5,400,000 810,000
2009 3 399,000 645,000 1,175,000 2,250,000 5,181,110 850,000
2009 2 405,000 650,000 1,267,000 2,346,050 3,920,000 835,700
2009 1 437,500 710,000 1,605,000 3,750,000 7,889,000 975,000
2008 4 420,000 715,000 1,620,000 4,050,000 8,750,000 900,000
2008 3 425,000 727,000 1,520,000 3,792,940 10,225,000 928,263
2008 2 480,000 778,961 1,650,000 3,700,000 7,350,000 1,025,000
2008 1 499,000 795,000 1,614,000 3,850,000 12,000,000 945,276
2007 4 459,000 749,000 1,485,000 4,325,000 5,400,000 850,000
2007 3 390,000 689,000 1,375,000 3,650,000 6,567,712 864,397
2007 2 429,936 700,000 1,400,000 3,600,000 6,600,000 895,000
2007 1 390,000 635,000 1,312,550 3,138,451 6,450,000 835,000
2006 4 410,000 649,000 1,305,000 2,987,500 6,250,000 799,000
2006 3 400,250 655,000 1,395,000 3,200,000 4,900,000 845,147
2006 2 420,000 660,000 1,395,000 3,300,000 5,750,000 880,000
2006 1 399,000 650,000 1,350,000 3,175,000 5,800,000 825,000
2005 4 380,000 650,000 1,330,000 2,700,000 4,700,000 760,000
2005 3 400,000 649,000 1,295,000 3,000,000 5,995,000 750,000
2005 2 369,000 595,000 1,280,000 3,055,000 7,800,000 775,000
2005 1 316,000 557,500 1,200,000 3,200,000 5,050,000 705,000
2004 4 310,000 525,000 980,000 2,450,000 5,725,000 605,000
2004 3 305,000 500,000 1,010,000 2,500,000 6,000,000 600,000
2004 2 285,000 470,000 970,000 2,250,000 4,300,000 625,000
2004 1 250,000 433,000 975,000 2,150,000 4,650,000 595,000
2003 4 250,000 425,000 900,000 1,900,000 3,650,000 500,000
2003 3 246,000 420,000 840,000 2,000,000 3,600,000 530,000
2003 2 236,500 405,000 860,000 2,500,000 5,075,000 475,000
2003 1 245,000 405,000 815,000 2,365,000 5,200,000 443,000
2002 4 245,000 400,000 839,000 2,140,000 4,400,000 450,000
2002 3 239,000 387,000 825,000 2,100,000 3,800,000 470,000
2002 2 220,000 375,000 770,000 1,925,000 3,550,000 450,000
2002 1 210,000 365,000 750,000 1,935,000 3,400,000 425,000
2001 4 218,000 359,000 745,000 1,950,000 3,450,000 420,000
2001 3 212,000 352,500 740,000 2,100,000 3,850,000 423,000
2001 2 210,000 365,000 737,500 2,000,000 4,175,000 430,000
2001 1 201,000 356,000 775,000 1,950,000 4,000,000 450,000
2000 4 195,000 340,000 750,000 2,138,500 3,768,000 445,000
2000 3 185,000 330,000 750,000 2,195,000 5,150,000 400,000
2000 2 160,000 312,000 720,000 1,850,000 3,950,000 399,000
2000 1 147,000 285,000 630,000 1,900,000 3,325,000 350,000
1999 4 140,000 270,000 615,000 1,500,000 3,400,000 320,000
1999 3 137,500 260,000 590,000 1,595,000 3,350,000 310,000
1999 2 130,000 250,000 580,000 1,400,000 3,100,000 325,000
1999 1 125,000 225,000 535,000 1,400,000 3,375,000 267,000
1998 4 122,000 230,000 525,000 1,265,000 2,249,500 265,000
1998 3 120,000 225,000 539,000 1,250,000 3,100,000 275,000
1998 2 120,000 221,000 525,000 1,207,000 2,495,000 275,000
1998 1 110,000 200,000 475,000 1,175,000 2,800,000 245,000
1997 4 105,000 190,000 437,500 1,200,000 2,900,000 225,000
1997 3 95,000 180,000 418,000 1,200,000 1,800,000 230,000
1997 2 93,000 179,500 418,500 1,250,000 2,250,000 255,000
1997 1 92,000 179,000 408,000 1,040,000 2,250,000 245,000
1996 4 83,000 157,500 365,000 960,000 2,200,000 200,000
1996 3 80,000 160,000 373,000 874,000 1,900,000 220,000
1996 2 80,000 154,000 365,000 910,000 1,900,000 220,000
1996 1 79,000 155,000 330,000 987,500 2,100,000 218,000
1995 4 81,000 154,000 335,000 975,000 1,750,000 200,000
1995 3 76,750 152,500 335,000 820,000 1,950,000 201,000
1995 2 75,000 154,000 340,000 815,000 1,725,000 217,500
1995 1 75,000 150,000 330,000 920,000 1,800,000 208,000
1994 4 75,000 157,500 350,000 910,000 1,780,000 227,500
1994 3 80,000 160,000 385,000 900,000 1,900,000 252,500
1994 2 76,000 160,000 357,000 857,000 1,925,000 250,000
1994 1 77,500 155,000 340,000 845,000 2,100,000 230,000
1993 4 82,000 155,000 340,000 835,000 2,100,000 220,000
1993 3 85,000 157,000 340,000 750,000 1,675,000 244,500
1993 2 80,000 154,000 335,000 817,500 1,761,125 245,000
1993 1 80,000 150,000 320,000 800,000 1,670,000 215,000
1992 4 75,000 150,000 325,000 783,000 1,400,000 225,000
1992 3 79,500 155,000 332,500 839,200 1,450,000 240,000
1992 2 76,000 155,000 350,000 800,000 1,525,000 240,000
1992 1 85,000 165,000 325,000 945,000 1,450,000 215,000
1991 4 81,500 165,000 335,000 830,000 1,900,000 235,000
1991 3 95,000 166,000 335,000 825,000 1,450,000 240,000
1991 2 95,000 170,000 350,000 832,500 1,400,000 260,000
1991 1 85,000 170,000 345,000 775,000 1,650,000 220,000
1990 4 100,000 167,500 390,000 830,000 1,750,000 220,000
1990 3 101,000 181,000 363,000 882,500 1,700,000 225,000
1990 2 110,000 185,000 405,000 999,000 1,700,000 245,000
1990 1 107,500 190,000 425,000 1,210,000 1,900,000 252,500
1989 4 104,000 192,000 428,000 910,000 2,400,000 232,500
1989 3 108,000 193,000 410,000 1,128,000 1,850,000 228,500
1989 2 118,350 196,000 420,000 1,300,000 2,000,000 255,000
1989 1 119,000 202,140 389,500 980,000 2,800,000 240,000

median just coops...

pretty much same, seems mid-2005 as well for studio, one, two.

3 and 4 more around a lot... but you had near prices in 2005 as well.

Year Quarter Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4+ Bedroom All
2011 2 355,000 550,000 1,160,000 3,025,000 6,350,000 700,000
2011 1 347,500 535,000 995,000 1,745,000 5,700,000 642,500
2010 4 345,000 568,000 1,150,000 2,250,000 5,040,337 685,000
2010 3 350,000 550,000 1,175,000 2,700,000 6,050,000 777,500
2010 2 380,000 599,000 1,100,000 2,200,000 4,400,000 697,501
2010 1 330,000 575,000 1,037,500 2,175,000 5,650,000 685,000
2009 4 350,000 591,000 1,130,000 1,950,000 4,425,000 630,000
2009 3 367,500 575,000 1,045,000 1,950,000 4,200,000 630,000
2009 2 365,000 580,000 1,075,000 1,995,000 4,200,000 649,000
2009 1 365,000 580,000 1,125,000 3,425,000 8,980,000 587,500
2008 4 382,500 645,000 1,450,000 4,650,000 10,500,000 675,000
2008 3 400,000 630,000 1,351,000 3,526,000 10,025,000 688,000
2008 2 440,000 695,000 1,412,250 3,825,000 7,100,000 755,000
2008 1 465,000 690,000 1,417,000 3,003,837 10,000,000 750,000
2007 4 415,000 682,000 1,350,000 3,300,000 5,025,000 675,000
2007 3 352,000 595,000 1,295,000 3,400,000 6,567,712 668,500
2007 2 367,500 600,000 1,185,000 3,020,000 7,495,000 695,000
2007 1 345,000 549,000 1,120,000 3,200,000 6,100,000 675,000
2006 4 385,000 582,500 1,049,000 2,795,000 5,995,000 650,000
2006 3 357,500 585,000 1,100,000 2,700,000 4,900,000 685,000
2006 2 370,000 575,000 1,265,000 3,000,000 6,000,000 722,000
2006 1 383,000 612,000 1,217,300 3,250,000 5,700,000 665,000
2005 4 349,000 575,000 1,195,000 2,700,000 4,700,000 650,000
2005 3 352,000 579,000 1,100,000 2,400,000 5,995,000 649,000
2005 2 327,500 525,000 1,030,000 2,895,000 6,995,000 625,000
2005 1 295,000 500,000 915,000 3,000,000 5,050,000 610,000
2004 4 285,000 455,000 879,000 2,700,000 5,295,000 527,000
2004 3 275,000 446,000 875,000 2,000,000 6,000,000 505,000
2004 2 247,000 410,000 799,000 2,100,000 4,100,000 495,000
2004 1 237,000 395,000 825,000 1,950,000 4,650,000 475,000
2003 4 235,000 399,000 760,000 1,757,000 4,100,000 435,000
2003 3 229,000 375,000 735,000 1,895,000 3,612,500 449,000
2003 2 225,000 375,000 695,000 2,150,000 5,075,000 387,500
2003 1 225,000 370,000 685,000 2,025,000 6,249,000 382,000
2002 4 225,000 370,000 710,000 2,000,000 4,400,000 380,000
2002 3 220,000 357,000 715,000 1,900,000 4,200,000 399,000
2002 2 205,000 350,000 670,000 1,700,000 3,400,000 400,000
2002 1 195,000 330,000 625,000 1,700,000 3,000,000 359,500
2001 4 199,000 325,000 635,000 1,800,000 3,450,000 360,000
2001 3 198,000 330,000 652,000 2,026,000 3,850,000 372,000
2001 2 187,500 330,000 650,000 2,000,000 3,900,000 375,000
2001 1 185,000 316,000 650,000 1,850,000 3,950,000 350,000
2000 4 165,000 305,000 625,000 1,975,000 3,711,000 343,000
2000 3 159,000 300,000 655,809 2,105,000 5,150,000 340,000
2000 2 147,000 279,000 645,000 1,750,000 4,500,000 325,000
2000 1 135,000 262,500 575,000 1,800,000 3,300,000 295,000
1999 4 129,000 244,000 525,000 1,450,000 3,000,000 267,275
1999 3 125,000 230,000 530,000 1,400,000 3,350,000 260,000
1999 2 122 225,000 508,500 1,265,000 2,950,000 269,000
1999 1 115 204,000 500,000 1,350,000 3,050,000 235,000
1998 4 110 200,000 475,000 1,233,000 2,850,000 225,000
1998 3 106 185,000 460,000 1,100,000 3,200,000 229,000
1998 2 106 188,000 470,000 1,200,000 2,500,000 235,000
1998 1 92 170,000 425,000 1,200,000 2,850,000 206,000
1997 4 92 169,000 395,000 1,050,000 2,750,000 190,000
1997 3 87 155,000 370,000 990,000 1,950,000 186,000
1997 2 80 153,000 365,000 1,100,000 2,250,000 212,500
1997 1 80 152,500 357,000 1,025,000 2,425,000 200,000
1996 4 74 140,000 320,000 900,000 2,200,000 175,000
1996 3 72 140,000 345,000 874,000 1,950,000 193,500
1996 2 70 140,000 350,000 900,000 1,800,000 193,000
1996 1 70 142,000 305,000 950,000 1,675,000 190,000
1995 4 69 130,000 310,000 825,000 1,750,000 176,000
1995 3 68 135,000 310,000 775,000 1,950,000 175,000
1995 2 70 135,000 317,000 812,500 1,725,000 205,000
1995 1 69 125,000 302,500 882,500 1,900,000 182,500
1994 4 67 135,000 325,000 874,720 1,780,000 199,500
1994 3 65 135,000 340,000 900,000 1,843,000 235,000
1994 2 60 135,000 340,000 875,000 2,000,000 250,000
1994 1 54 130,000 325,000 830,000 2,200,000 230,000
1993 4 65 128,000 300,000 806,250 2,100,000 198,000
1993 3 62 131,000 320,000 750,000 1,750,000 215,000
1993 2 64 135,000 317,000 817,500 1,710,000 225,000
1993 1 67 129,000 301,000 800,000 1,690,000 200,000
1992 4 68 135,000 290,000 783,000 1,300,000 200,000
1992 3 75 140,000 322,000 800,000 1,450,000 229,000
1992 2 67 137,800 335,000 775,000 1,600,000 235,000
1992 1 77 143,000 285,000 945,000 1,425,000 200,000
1991 4 75 145,000 320,000 835,000 1,875,000 222,000
1991 3 80 145,000 315,000 800,000 1,400,000 220,000
1991 2 85 145,000 330,000 825,000 1,400,000 243,000
1991 1 79 145,000 315,000 775,000 1,650,000 210,000
1990 4 90 150,000 325,000 830,000 1,750,000 186,500
1990 3 90 155,000 340,000 895,000 1,705,000 206,000
1990 2 104 160,000 380,000 975,000 1,650,000 205,000
1990 1 103 165,000 411,000 1,200,000 1,900,000 225,000
1989 4 94 159,000 397,000 925,000 2,550,000 199,999
1989 3 103 170,000 380,000 1,150,000 1,850,000 202,600
1989 2 105 175,000 402,000 1,250,000 2,000,000 230,000
1989 1 109 170,000 365,000 980,000 2,800,000 210,000

If you look at the Streeteasy Manhattan condo index, we're at the same level as August 2010, February 2009 and June 2005. The Feds are intent to keep all financial levels as inflated as possible, papering over the Grand Canyon and whistling as we stroll over the abyss. It looks as if we're going to eat that elephant a little bite at a time.

I wish we could just eat that elephant all at once and get this over with...I'd rather pull that bandaid off in one quick motion - it maybe more painful initially, but it sure beats a little bit at a time.

Great figures quoted on this posting, and I agree based on what I am seeing with my buyers and sellers. As an average, I have it pegged at late 2005/early 2006. That being said, it depends on the apartment and location, like always. I recently had a classic 6 co-op in a prime Village location trade for at or slightly higher than peak prices; on the flip side I had a condo in the Financial District close earlier this year for closer to 2004 levels. I have said for years how lucky we are to work/own in New York City; with limited exposure to sub-prime lending because of co-op and condo downpayment requirements, we took less of a hit. But unless something gets going with the economy and jobs, we'll trudge along for a while....

Yeah, recall that after the last major Manhattan RE downturn, it took 4-5 years for prices to bottom. And given that this was the largest RE downturn overall since the depression (technically, the only downturn)... and Wall Street was at the middle of this, should it surprise us that it will take more than 1-2 years?

Mets, I hear you... but this is RE, not stocks. The lack of true liquidity, repeated transactions, and true real time data mean that things just move slower - truths just don't get exposed as quickly. Remember how these factors allowed brokers years into the crisis to claim that Manhattan was still UP....

- Manhattan is a highly desirable place for the rich including foreigners. Rich have been not been impacted as much by the recession mainly due to the fact that they had a lot of money in safe assets (bonds) and they are more likely to have a skill-set which can be leveraged in an increasingly global economy. Also, real estate tends to be a smaller portion of their wealth as many have more than one home with Manhattan being the primary residence. Second home locations around Manhattan have not fared as well.
- Also, if you think in inflation adjusted terms (3% per year for 6 years since end of 2005), we are actually cheaper than late 2005 - closer to 2004 levels.
- Of course, this does not address the fact that prime Manhattan has not gone down as much as other US cities. Some reasons are other cities being heavily manufacturing based. For example: Detroit
- Also new supply in Manhattan is very expensive due to higher construction cost and poor accessibily of areas where one can build. Other cities suffer less from this issue as people drive.
- In the last ten years, Manhattan is a home to a new industry - hedge funds. While they are not doing as well, they probably employ at least 5000 people in Manhattan with an average comp of at least 300K (taking out the top 1%). Other cities have not been so lucky to have a new high paying industry.
- That said, if the current conditions in the economy continue, we can see flat to 5% percent down over the next two year - do not think any more. Inflation adjusted is 5-8% decline.

Also real estate beats the 15-20% decline in a month in SPX especially if you are living in it and do not have to deal with increasing rents or moving. 3% 5/1 is cheap money. Short-term rates are not going up for the next 10 years. If they do, it means that economy is doing well and real estate prices and higher earning will more than make up the shortfall. However, do not forget to keep 2 years of liquidity after your downpayment should you lose your job.

who are you trying to convince?

Mets79, Agree that prime village is very strong. There is no supply and people want to live here. 28 East 10 (devorshire) sold at the peak of the recession at 1500 per s

cc, I am just adding to the discussion about why Manhattan is not down as much. Do you have something to add to the discussion besides personal attacks?

personal attack?

hardly.

fact: the world economy is in free fall.

tell me one fact that disputes that.

cc, that what you should have stated. However, I already ackowledged the economic downturn "That said, if the current conditions in the economy continue, we can see flat to 5% percent down over the next two year - do not think any more. Inflation adjusted is 5-8% decline."

what facts are you basing that on? does that assume that the euro problem is resolved or that it blows up? does that assume that 25 million americans continue to be unemployed? does that assume bank balance sheets continue to be ignored or that there is a day of reckoning?

my personal point of view is that the unknowns are beyond understanding.

You and I both entitled to our opinions on this discussion board. I tried to give justification of why I think Manhattan is not down as much. Where is the justification for yours. Banks in the US are over-capitalized. Their issue is how to make enough return on that capital. 25mm americans employed do not matter for New York real estate as was the case in 2009 and 2010.

banks are overcapitalized? what happened to the toxic loans? did they all get written off? did they magically disappear? wake up.

the 25 million americans are unemployed, not employed.

how long do you think that won't matter?

do you think that employment is going to magically happen for them?

if not, what do you think the implications are for the rest of us?

cc, sorry for trying to tell why you are greyed out. I will try one last time. State your opinion and justification as I did. Write a well thought out paragraph justifying your view and let it rest.
To answer your comment, Why did not the unemployed matter in 2010 for Manhattan? As for the banks being over-capitalized, fed has been all over the banks and capital ratios have tightened. No big bank is failing any more. Buffett's investment in BAC is a prime example. All big banks based in New York are safe but they may not make as much money due to lower prop trading and regulation cost.

so, disagreeing with you is a sin?

i stated my opinion.

your stated opinion is that 25 million unemployed americans don't matter. to me, that is insane.

who is going to pay for these people? their unemployment is running out and they have no prospects. the idea that somehow they don't matter is impossible to understand.

my stated opinion is that there were billions if not trillions of toxic assets that have not been resolved. how long do you think they can be ignored. the new york times now reports that the united states is about to sue a dozen banks over mortgage issues; does this not matter either?

dream on, my friend.

and good luck.

300_mercer, if you really think BAC is over-capitalized, you should place a big bet on it because it's pretty cheap at current valuation... again, assuming you really think it's over-capitalized.

There's a reason why BAC is selling assets left and right...

"Buffett's investment in BAC is a prime example."

Do you even know the terms of the investment? BAC basically "bought" a vote of confidence at a very high price. The $5 billion infusion is a drop in the bucket in BAC' funding problems.

The panic for BAC is over - it already divested some assets at good prices (not fire sale) and got additional money from Buffett.

I only invest small portions in stocks as I do not like volatility (and bottomless downside without utility) and distraction it causes from my work. No individual stocks due to conflicts at work and a lack to time to analyze. Just macro and some sectors. XLF will just mull around here as it will take time for investors to get used to lower return. Eventually they will realize that the banks are less risky than they used to be and deserve higher multiple.

Sunday, Also, BAC is trading at a substantial discount over book. In my view, that is an adequate compensation for futher unknown write-downs for which there clearly has been a history with management credibility being low. However, the issue is JPM and GS also are trading at a discount to book despite the books being clean. Most investors I would think prefer these over BAC.

you still have not addressed your thoughts about the famous toxic assets. gone and done with?

what do you think about this point of view?

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/bomb-might-blow-hole-bank-america-115755169.html

300_mercer, BAC is not over-capitalized. That is a fact. Not an opinion. I'll give you another chance to name one major bank that is over-capitalized.

There are tons of stocks from various sectors that trade at a fraction of book value. There are many that in fact trade under cash per share with no debt.

cc, do you genuinely think the economy is in a free fall or just generally stuck in neutral for the foreseeable future?

bjw2103,

Your "smart" enough to answer your rhetorical question.

despite the fact that people like mercer want to believe that unemployment doesn't matter, it does. the debt crisis surrounding the euro is not over. our toxic assets have not been written off. we have come to a point in our political system where the president cannot even schedule a congressional address without fighting over the date.

how long can interest rates remain at zero before the sizable portion of the population that depends on receiving stable income from their savings goes belly up either because they lose their money in a search for greater returns or die the death of a thousand cuts from no returns?

do you think that the almost daily stock gyrations of 1-3% is a sign of economic health?

All the things cited by columbiacounty, what in the world does any of that have to do with Manhattan's real estate market? Can someone draw the line between a presidential address to Congress and real estate prices? Is this the first time that a sitting president has had a disagreement with someone? Or are some people just negative people who have spent their lives being scared?

why do they call it "greek"?

Jimmy?

I would guess NYC is back to 2009 prices?
They seem to still be near peak prices, as well.
I know it was still going up years after the so-called recession started

"Your "smart" enough"

Amazing.

>"Your "smart" enough"
>Amazing.

I disagree too.

dealboy..wouldn't say NYC but Manhattan is near peak prices. Boroughs/Long island closer to national trends. Unlike Manhattan which is it's own animal(coop condo boards etc).
That's why these boards are so slow, in 2008 after Lehman it was a zoo here now it's only crickets. Manhattan is back to the 'good old normal days.

cc, of course unemployment matters. And we're probably stuck at 9-10% for a long time. Euro debt crisis not over by any means either. My question was more do you see things falling off a cliff completely because of interest rates and politics and whatever else you might see on the horizon?

"the sizable portion of the population that depends on receiving stable income from their savings"

Really? Don't you think far more people depend much much more on their income from working? Obviously, unemployment is stuck where it is, but I think the jobs situation matters far more to these people than interest rates. I also think the daily gyrations of the stock market are way overblown.

According to columbiacounty, the unemployed face a quadruple whammy. Not only are they out of work, but their European vacations are too expensive and if they do go to Europe, they are nervous the whole time because their stock portfolios move too much. To top it all off, they can't watch Barack Obama on tv giving them a solution to their unemployment.

Mets70-- very accurate statment.About time, thank you

With the changes in the finacial industry, a globale double dip recession and the structural changes taking place in the economy-- my bet is NYC real estate has a lot more room to go down..

bjw:

the problem with the economy is lack of demand. that is created by the fact that the majority of the population has far less income than they used to or thought that they used to.

25 million americans unemployed and underemployed contribute to this.

retired and close to retired people counting on interest from their often meager savings that is now effectively zero contribute to this.

the absurd gyrations of the stock market scare away (or should scare away) most middle income americans. that contributes to this.

Dealboy and SteveF - are you two guys incapable of reading a column of numbers? Swe and I posted the Miller Samuel data, by quarter, by apartment size above. We are 20%+ off peak in each size category. If you reject that data please state why in simple terms.

Have to agree on BAC not being properly capitalized. It's not just my opinion but the markets. BAC trades at less than a 1/3 of book value and CDS protection is the highest amongst the banks.

West34..all the comps in my neck of the woods are closing at near peak pricing. Which happens to be condo studios. Both rental and sales inventory listings have been cut in half. It is what it is. Charts and graphs and a column of numbers are nice but the bottom line is what are your comps doing? I think most people on this site will attest that their comps are near peak as well. Demand is still not at peak but supply has been halved that's what's causing the higher prices. Also as rental pricing gets higher and higher people will decide it's better to just buy and the cycle continues...however this time we have no inventory(credit crisis impact). All this with an uncertain economy, imagine what will happen when the economy gets rolling.

West34, I bet you have been frustrated as well that your apt findings don't quite agree with your column of numbers.

>BJW/Columbiacounty.

A SOCIALIST recently said to me that there is a lack of demand because there were not enough government jobs.

I am certain the Socialist would say --Maybe the government should hire all of these unemployed people. Maybe we should employee them to make rules and regulations to make it more difficult for business to profit and grow. Better, yet when all of these 25mm people are employed by the government, lets make them bicker and dispute about the rules and regulations they will make to make the future uncertain. This will make it more difficult for business to make a plan to grow and prosper. Without planing it will male it difficult for them to profit. Without profit they will be unable to pay their employees. So they will have to be laid off... but no worries, the government will hire them to repeat this cycle

because it is her demand that will creat jobs

Steve - real estate doesn't frustrate me it entertains me. And my building and the others I watch are all down about 20% based on recent comps versus 2008 prices.

And can we keep the thread focused on why NYC is not tracking national trends. We've all heard the 12th grade macroeconomic blather before.

West34, whatever you say man. Have a great weekend.

>dealboy..wouldn't say NYC but Manhattan is near peak prices.

SteveF- can I have the beeper # to get some of that stuff you are smoking?

Data Brooks, data. Anyone can spout opinions and be a wiseass. Data elevates the discussion.

steveF, what do you make of this then? It's Manhattan condo-only no less.

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/market/condo_index

Definitely not at or that near to peak prices.

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.

Data Brooks, data. Anyone can spout opinions and be a wiseass. Data elevates the discussion

When the data is blatantly obvious and guys like SteveF ignore them, being a wiseass is so much more fun.

> Also real estate beats the 15-20% decline in a month in SPX especially if you are living in it and do not have
> to deal with increasing rents or moving

Uh, not when leveraged 5x...

And when rents are lower than carrying costs, it is not really hard to "deal" with paying less...

"I tried to give justification of why I think Manhattan is not down as much."

Why are you giving an opinion of where you think prices are when the data is sitting right up there?