New York City
Northern New Jersey
Search Better With
Shop for a Broker
Open House Planner
Saved Listings & Folders
Stats and Figures
Manhattan Condo Market Index
Thank you, streeteasy, for the "ignore this person" link in Discussions.
yes, i "ignore" the stevejhx and a few others now, and it's just such a better experience. plus, since it says "Ignoring comment by stevejhx." ..... it actually makes you feel like you put duct tape over his mouth or something. HA
You should put blinkers on your eyes, as well!
Ignore Stevejhx? Stevejhx is the most refreshing personality this board has had in a long time. I sleep easier at night knowing someone is constantly challenging the high price market cheerleaders.
I think Stevejhx always adds to the process....
While you're at it why don't you just stop using all the modern conveniences of life, tv's, cars, planes, air conditioners, etc. that people smarter than you thought up/invented. Lets just stop all discussion that leads to all forms of human progress because your overinflated egos are a little bruised.
I can understand the ignore link for people who are 100% rude, abusive and contributing nothing to the discussion. Stevejhx is completely on the other side of that spectrum, however. You people just can't handle it (the truth) and now are clinging to your new crutches (the ignore link).
(Note: I haven't read everything Stevejhx has written, havent been here too often lately, nor do I agree with everything 100%, but the bulk of his arguments are well reasoned. The censorship crowd should be ashamed.)
bonzo: "I sleep easier at night knowing someone is constantly challenging the high price market cheerleaders."
Wow, if you sleep easier at night knowing that some anonymous dude is ranting and raving on a public forum - I wouldn't exactly go around admitting it..
Bonzo, you'd probably believe Steve if he said the earth were flat so long as he cited impressive names like Pythagoras and Democritas and gave you a formula to support it like a^2 + b^2 = c^2 and then said it enough times.
If you had your eyes open, you might have seen that the only full discussion that has been censored on Streeteasy was one in particular where Steve had a meltdown after attacking just about everyone in sight.
I think before you continue to blindly believe such a dishonest idiot (who claims to have gotten 60% returns on his equity portfolio EVERY YEAR for 10 years; who talks about how tough the PhD program in languages is at Columbia as support for his smarts ... when he didn't even attempt for anything beyond a Masters) you ought to review this discussion: http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/3410-real-%20estate-is-a-bad-investment
And for the record, I've never told anyone to "buy buy buy." I believe people should make educated decisions based on external and personal factors. ... note the qualification "educated."
bonzo must be steve's mom or something.
If it's an option, it's an option and anyone can choose to use the option. I don't think it's censorship, it's personal choice. I think it's just hilarious arguing whether it's correct to use the option or not. LOL! I say, whatever floats your boat.
bonzo..please read everything steve has written ( it might be diffcult if you have a job ) and then tells us what you think..
Yes, I have a job, a business actually, to run, and dont have time to respond to each and every one you lunatics or read every post on this board.
You're right VVerain, someone shouldnt be worried about what people post on message boards, except, some media personalities use this particular board as a barometer for market attitudes. One bunch of idiots, (the media), is using anecdotes from another bunch of clueless market cheerleaders, (the people on this board), to write articles that will then influence the masses. A while back I made similiar historical price to rent arguments as stevejhx and finally concluded constantly posting on Streeteasy was just a big waste of time. I have better things to do and decided I should just sit back, let nature take its course and teach all of you your hard lesson. What goes up too much must come down eventually.
I could care less about Manhattan prices actually, its when you baby faced, selfish, ego driven little pampered brats with your overly hyped ivy league business degrees came on to my turf, Astoria, Flushing, Greenpoint, the Bronx and started driving up apartment building prices from 5-10x the gross monthly rent roll to 18-20 times the monthly rent roll that I started to care about the Manhattan crowd. Im not the one impressed with fancy formulas, its you people. I know the frustration of having to find good supers, stable tenants, good maintenance workers, having drug dealers intimidate me everytime I go to collect rent, help take out garbage etc. The price of doing business that way, was buying buildings at 10% cap rates. Can you read that......... 10% cap rates. You people with your fancy theories of future value, burned from the 2001 tech crash (caused by those same baby faced, spoiled, bratty bankers) brought cap rates down to 4%. Before you morons brought your repackaged dot.com theology to New York real estate, it was a good place to invest. It was about cash flow....... cash flow...... cash flow...... not this insane market pumping, higher, higher, higher mentality until no one can afford a place to live, or a worthwhile place to invest. Hence, the reason I appreciate some, if not all of Stevejhx's effort. He may be wrong in some areas, but many of his fundamental positions do seem more well grounded in reality.
I could write more, give more examples, but I'd rather go watch Euro 2008. See ya and keep up the good work Stevejhx.
i'm not sure what the official definition of censorship is, but if i find someone annoying (whether he's right or wrong), and i choose to ignore him... ... gosh, isn't that kind of like changing the channel when i don't feel like watching? *that's* censorship? mea culpa.
bonzo, you and your state-school degree should really take that chip off your shoulder. all i was saying was that some people are annoying, rude, needlessly sarcastic, and immature. i don't have a vested interest in which way the real estate market is going to move, and i also think you people are suffering from delusions if you think this silly banter on this site actually has an effect on anything real.
bye steve's mom, please don't come back.
why be annoyed with someone else's opinion unless you feel it threatens the view you'd prefer to have ? just curious.
sorry - above was directed at dumberthanyou.
Bonzo, you have my deepest sympathy that there are people that took advantage of an investment opportunity "on your turf". Free markets are a bitch aren't they?
oh c'mon nyny. where do you people come from? first of all he said if he finds "someone annoying (whether right or wrong)". we've said it time and again, its not the message, its the messenger and the delivery. That said, so opposing opinions aren't supposed to annoy people? If say someone on this board continually was espousing racist or sexist views, that shouldn't annoy anyone, because after all it doesn't threaten our view which we know is right. Maybe if you live your life on a morphine drip or something. Most of us are not robots or Dr Spock.
racism or sexism is = having a different opinion on real estate and macroeconomic environment ? wow. good one, ccdevi.
steve is supremely convinced of his opinions but he has not been insulting except when he is a little, er, derogatory, of some personages intelligence. it's his right to have an opinion, whether right or wrong, on their merit as formed on the basis of their arguments and interactions with him (different from being based on their gender or race). also, he delivers back-up of his opinions which is different from getting up on a soapboax in Hyde Park and appreciated.
as to you - a person gets annoyed by someone else's strong opinions only when their own seem weak even to them and they are either too lazy to want to look at a new viewpoint or can't bear the thought of what they want not happening. the people who make it in the end are the ones who listen to what everyone is saying, apply their own filter and judgment to arrive at a conclusion which fits their personal situation. in fact, not listening to different opinions because a person has a different style than yours = precisely what led to sexism and racism and not making your own judgement call vs going with the herd / wishful thinking = precisely what led to the current credit crisis.
also, i'm presuming you meant Mr. Spock, the Star Trek guy, not Dr. Spock, the guy who tells you how to raise babies. fyi -- Mr. Spock had a great big Human heart which he controlled through his Vulcan sense of discipline. The character was a metaphor for Emotionalism ve Rationalism or the eternal battle between mind and heart. The same was also exemplified in the way he was made a foil to the very much human Capt Kirk.
besides which, steve has a sense of humour.
i still can't get the image of a chauffeur-driven prius sailing past anyone's window out of my head.
thanks to steve for making real estate even more fun.
"racism or sexism is = having a different opinion on real estate and macroeconomic environment"
No, I never said that. why do you keep making things up? I guess thats why you like steve, he does that all the time. you said "why be annoyed with someone else's opinion unless you feel it threatens the view you'd prefer to have." So now you're changing it to why be annoyed about opinions on real estate?
"but he has not been insulting except when he is a little, er, derogatory, of some personages intelligence"
First that's not true but the real issue is that he's incredibly intellectually dishonest. He makes up numbers, misrepresents or ignores others' arguments and points, basically he lies. Its been demonstrated time and time again. And apparently people like you eat it up.
As for the rest of your post, well suffice it to say I now understand. You have a very steve like style. You're very impressed with yourself and like to type a lot of words that don't really make any sense but sound kind of intelligent if read quickly. You were right about one thing, I did mean Mr Spock. So your post wasn't a total waste of time.
oh dear. vitriol.
1. he has only expressed opinions on real estate i think ? and this is a real estate board, so yes, i meant opinions on real estate. sorry if i wasn't clear.
2. if he's intellectually dishonest, that's his problem and he'll lose all his money or whatever. why are you getting annoyed ?
3. i'm eating it up ? i never said i agree with steve, some or all of the time. in fact, i don't really care to keep score whom i agree with - i read reports / opinions / news data -- filter, form a plan and act.
4. i'm glad to note my post taught you something. even if you only read it quickly. maybe you should try to read it slowly.
also, my gosh, steve-like style :) steve - you're famous. even if only on streeteasy.
Further, your response can be predicted based on a combination of quotes from only one of my favorite authors (google it):
1. Seriousness is the only refuge of the shallow
2. Nothing is so aggravating as calmness.
3. Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when he is called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
4. Always forgive your enemies - nothing annoys them so much.
5. The basis for optimism is sheer terror.
Regarding Steve and his "style" -- from the same author..Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital. When critics disagree the artist is in accord with himself.
The thing is -- understand if you will, don't if you won't. but whatever choice you make, at least be at peace with it...otherwise it is the wrong choice.
Wow - thanks for highlighting this feature!! Ignoring one person has reduced the posts about 90%...
newyorknewyork: to say that one should only be annoyed by people that threatens my views i think tells me more about YOU than ME. the fact is, there are people that can annoy me without my ever knowing what their views are. that's kind of the reason why i am not friends with the entire world. it's just called "different personalities". it's kind of like how you probably wouldn't want to sit around sharing a cup of coffee with me or that jerk you have at work. it has nothing to do with my views being threatened because i'm just a bit more secure than you -- i have my views, and if they're threatened, well life's a bitch, i move on.
I could see the point to this feature if there were an IM or email feature, but why read a thread and not be able to understand what non-blocked people are replying to?
It makes little more sense than an "ignore all" feature.
yes in fact the entire thing is a little silly. why, you can't just ignore the poster with your own eyes and just skip down to the next post? i guess the only real benefit is what i originally mentioned: it's this immature feeling of glee one gets from slapping some duct tape on someone annoying.
NYNY! i just spent a few minutes to ignore EVERYONE on this post, and now all i see are my own wonderful, deeply insightful comments!
... gosh, now i just hope i don't ever say anything to threaten my OWN views because then i'd have to ignore me too. cognitive dissonance, it's a bitch.
yup definitely steve-like style. lots of dressed up nonsense.
love it. exactly the point im making (you do know that, right ?). and you know what. im not even asking people to not have cognitive dissonance. im asking people like ccdevi to let those of us who want it to have it. for me at least cognitive dissonance ultimately leads to the best decision and much less bother later on.
either engage in discussion, quietly listen or quietly don't listen. don't waste posts in -
- meaningless vitriol which doesn't even have the redeeming quality of being humourous (a little humour is always welcome to lighten the day)
- trying to beat down sources of opinion just because they are too loud or the message is too uncomfortable.
as to your post on getting immature glee out of wanting to duct tape people. perfectly natural and perfectly harmless to others. your right to want to do so (just don't actually do it like boy george) and by being so self-aware, you have shown it might be time to change your handle. ;)
"humorous" above not "humourous" -- gosh.
hmm...ccdevi - you seem to prefer a style of undressed up nonsense. if you are going to speak at all, at least pretend to have a point or a case for it or perhaps, if you feel ambitious, even both. you seem to want a sense of belonging more than anything else (your use of "most of us" / "people like you" in earlier posts -- without there being any basis that most people here feel like you or there are any other people like me).
you really love to hear yourself talk don't you? you must be a blast at parties. there i go again, more "vitriol." you know you use that word quite liberally.
"im asking people like ccdevi to let those of us who want it to have it."
What are you talking about? When did I say you shouldn't have cognitive dissonance? I have never used the ignore button (if for no other reason then the point alanhart made above), and have never suggested anyone else use it. do whatever you want.
VVerain, you still hold that real estate is not leveraged?
You are right about that conversation, as well it should have gotten censored. Some very horrible things were said on it, but not by me. By eah, whom I do ignore. They will not be repeated here, and I am always careful to log on before reading anything, lest I be forced to read what eah has written.
ccdevi: "He makes up numbers, misrepresents or ignores others' arguments and points, basically he lies. Its been demonstrated time and time again. And apparently people like you eat it up."
You mean like 40x monthly rent, 28% total housing expenses, 12x annual rent? Those are lies?
"steve - you're famous. even if only on streeteasy."
Gosh gee, golly whiz!
1. there is no need for me to change an adjective when it fits so perfectly.
2. i don't think you know what you are talking about. which is what makes it so much fun to run rings around people like you and observe the ironies of life unfold. e.g. you were complaining about steve -- that it was not the message but the messenger / delivery...your delivery now leaves much to be desired, the message has always been a little conspicuous by its absence.
3. i am FASCINATED. i haven't ever come across a person who speaks only in terms of what he/she has not done or not said.
4. i generally do what i want. but always heartwarming to know i'm stepping on one less person's toes while doing so. thanks.
above was to ccdevi...
Again nothing substantive and responsive. Just more dribble dressed up in that ridiculous and pompous writing style you have. Good luck with that. I have to go lie down, my head is spinning from having rings run around me. LOL.
ccdevi...i sympathise. i'm sure your head must hurt from the rings as well as trying to decipher anything more than a simple sentence (i mean "simple" in terms of its grammatical definition). tylenol might help. a little backbone definitely will. good luck with that. for the sake of your own sanity, try to ease up in general but def on the vaccuum-like posts.
ccdevi: "dribble" = "drivel."
dribble: saliva running from the mouth.
For future reference.
I actually like the word dribble, it is a much more accurate discription for what is contained in this thread.
Yes, but in deference to George Carlin, let's use the right word: drivel.
Real estate is not leveraged.
People buy a house, or a piece of land, or a building, and in many circumstances they go to the bank and ask for a mortgage, and then they own real estate on a leveraged basis.
But no, real estate, the house, the piece of land, the building doesn't come with any leverage attached when you buy it.
If you buy a stock, you are buying the equity piece of the corporation. The corporation is most often leveraged with debt, and therefore the stock reflects a leveraged instrument.
So as I said, you can not compare appreciation in the real estate market, which is what you cited in your rants as being low, with returns on the stock market. I said that an appropriate comparable would be the investment returns from owning real estate on a leveraged basis to owning stocks.
Frankly, I'm shocked that by this time you haven't bothered to understand these distinctions. You haven't bothered to learn. And so you keep highlighting your ignorance instead of just either being man enough to admit either that you are wrong, or being a p*ssy and not admiting it but at least changing to another subject.
How does it benefit your cause to be wrong and then not learn?
By the way, on ignoring eah, you sought to censor eah. You said some pretty ridiculous and offensive things there as well, and were filled with invective.
"Real estate is not leveraged."
Here's Paul Krugman, from the New York Times:
"First of all, there’s the financial risk. Although it’s rarely put this way, borrowing to buy a home is like buying stocks on margin: if the market value of the house falls, the buyer can easily lose his or her entire stake."
Now, here's his biography:
"Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics."
vverain: "Frankly, I'm shocked that by this time you haven't bothered to understand these distinctions."
We're BEGINNING to see the BRILLIANCE of the bulls, and how they talk out of their...
I promised to be nice.
Real estate is a highly leveraged investment.
vverain is fighting with an MIT professor with an endowed chair. OMG.
malraux tries to tell us that the Case Shiller says something about Manhattan real estate, when Case Shiller does not include data on Manhattan real-estate.
malraux tries to tell us that because C-S cannot tell us how Manhattan prices behaved in the past, we cannot use the ratios it presents to predict what will happen in the future.
Sorry, but I haven't "bothered to learn." I admit that. Because when the teacher doesn't know what he's talking about, why bother to study?
Steve, you are fighting with reading comprehension.
But thank you for posting the link.
Lets examine exactly what Mr. Krugman says,
First of all, there’s the financial risk. Although it’s rarely put this way, borrowing to buy a home is like buying stocks on margin: if the market value of the house falls, the buyer can easily lose his or her entire stake.
This isn’t a hypothetical worry. From 2005 through 2007 alone — that is, at the peak of the housing bubble — more than 22 million Americans bought either new or existing houses. Now that the bubble has burst, many of those homebuyers have lost heavily on their investment. At this point there are probably around 10 million households with negative home equity — that is, with mortgages that exceed the value of their houses.
And there was that missing paragraph 2 from your misunderstanding. Mr. Krugman, while not explicit in the first paragraph that you do quote, is pretty clear in the second paragraph that he is referencing purchases that are made on a levered basis. So a person buying a house, and doing so WITH A MORTGAGE.
No crackhead could possibly come up with logic that says that a house, a piece of land, a building, etc. comes with debt built in. And someone with just a slight bit more education than a crackhead (i.e. someone who got a graduate certificate in creative writing, anyone come to mind on that?) ought to have been able to read the first paragraph and then continue on to the second paragraph.
I have a date with a 25 year old boy
My ex boyfriend never called me back in the 80s
I'm drunk now
for those of you who think this is all too nuanced, reference back to:
and these exact quotations from Steve:
No matter how you slice it, renting is ALWAYS financially more beneficial over time than owning.
Guys, it's indisputable: renting is FAR better in the long-term than buying. All the figures and assumptions I used are real and verifiable.
you will see IT IS ALWAYS MORE BENEFICIAL TO RENT.
and then specifically related to this ongoing topic:
1) From January 1, 1950 through December 31, 2007, the average capital gains from the S&P 500 was 8.66%.
2)0.7% real gain on real estate is from Robert Shiller of Case-Shiller fame:
ps - of all ironies about learning from professors, I can't find the discussion where you talked about how hard the Columbia PhD program in languages was. That's because it was the discussion where you had one of your more serious mental breakdowns and asked Streeteasy to delete it. But, for the audience, that Columbia PhD program that Steve referenced ... well, Steve didn't go for a PhD. Was it too tough for him? Maybe. But why would he reference that program to support his credentials and intelligence when he didn't even try for it?
Here may be a funny story after all that recent posts:
Good thing I'm not even 30. LOL!
Too bad for the baby boomers....... they can go be greeters at walmart in their 70's and 80's.
omg, thanks for the info on Ignore this Person. That's the best. Does that exclude them from posting or only from you reading them? Stevejhx has been singled out b/c he often hijacks someone elses thread.
Why would it exclude them from posting? Why should you be able to control someone from posting because you choose to ignore someone's posts? And I don't think anybody would really want to intentionally get someone kicked out cuz that's just silly and immature. Plus not everybody feels the same way, so you'll just ruin things and invite retaliation.
Steve - no rebuttal yet?
Give it a try - ask those who know things, read exactly what you said from the beginning, what I said from the beginning, and come back and issue an on-subject complete rebuttal using only facts.
"No crackhead could possibly come up with logic that says that a house, a piece of land, a building, etc. comes with debt built in."
Then, by that definition, neither are stocks, because they don't necessarily have to have any debt built in. They may, but it's not necessary.
The fact is that 70% of all properties are purchased with mortgages, aka leverage.
"1) From January 1, 1950 through December 31, 2007, the average capital gains from the S&P 500 was 8.66%.
2)0.7% real gain on real estate is from Robert Shiller of Case-Shiller"
Both of which are true.
"No matter how you slice it, renting is ALWAYS financially more beneficial over time than owning.
Guys, it's indisputable: renting is FAR better in the long-term than buying. All the figures and assumptions I used are real and verifiable. you will see IT IS ALWAYS MORE BENEFICIAL TO RENT."
Also true - if you look at owner-occupied residential real estate as an "investment," which is what I was discussing. If you look at it as a capitalized expense, sometimes it's better to buy, sometimes to rent, but it's never a good "investment" because it doesn't come with a yield.
To quote: "Frankly, I'm shocked that by this time you haven't bothered to understand these distinctions."
And I said all of the other things, as well, and I don't have any problems with what I said, especially when taken out of context.
vverain - no rebuttal yet?
You claim that stocks are leveraged because the companies carry debt on their balance sheets, and real estate is not levered because there is no debt inherent to a house.
Well, frankly, I'm shocked. Not all companies carry debt on their balance sheets, yet 70% of properties have mortgages attached to them. Very few have a debt-to-equity ratio of 4, which is what an 80/20 mortgage is. Even capital intensive companies rarely have a debt-to-equity ratio above 2.
Then, the leverage used by companies produces - yes! - INCOME! The leverage used to buy a home produces - yes! - EXPENSES! They are completely different types of leverage, you know not what you speak.
Frankly, I'm shocked that by this time you haven't bothered to understand these distinctions.
I love how this was started to discuss "ignore this person" and that the people most likely to be ignored try and hijack it, and people take the bait.
I'm all for debate, the debate on much of this has been had.
Personally, I think "ignoring" is exactly the right thing to do. You choose who to ignore. I just wish we had this back when Bonzo was on his "bid low, bid low, bid low" campaign of low-brow terror.
I love dumberthanyou's: "it actually makes you feel like you put duct tape over his mouth or something"
Right now I'm taping up stevejhx, vverain, and bonzo...
I'll admit in advance that I'm sure I'll occasionally view one of their comments, because each of them does have interesting contributions, but their need to selfishly monopolize this place has become perverse.
The bid low campaign was started by the bid low guy, but yes, it was around that time I posted more alongside him. I wonder where that guy went. Only to the snobs and overly snooty do my posts seem low brow....... (Cap rates are very simple math and you still dont understand them, which means its time to come off your high horse and drop the holier than thou attitude) terror? hardly....... you'd probably get scared by a mean look from teenagers on the subway.
If I remember correctly (its been a while) but the bid low guy started his posts before, a few weeks, maybe two or three months (April?) the July/August 2007 mortgage melt down. He was warning you guys even before Stevejhx (I think, Im not 100% sure.). Looking back, seems very prophetic. His posts were trying to inspire you to common sense and reason in his own simple way, I dont remember them being mean at all.
It's a year later and most of you are still fighting the day by day, slowly but surely advancing truth.
BTW- To the poster upthread, I have a city college degree, not state school or Ivy league, and I got it at a time when city schools were much harder than today's ivy leagues. The good old days. We didnt spend every night, all night, partying in our dorms like a bunch of spolied brats.
"BTW- To the poster upthread, I have a city college degree, not state school or Ivy league, and I got it at a time when city schools were much harder than today's ivy leagues. The good old days. We didnt spend every night, all night, partying in our dorms like a bunch of spolied brats."
Wow, you seem to be of a reasonably advanced age, still carrying that chip on your shoulder, huh? shame. lighten up, enjoy.
ccdevi, surely you can do better than your trademark insults. Nobody insulted you, that I can see.
Bonzo, I've only been posting here for a few (glorious) months, back in the day that spunky would tell us that we were pissing our rent money away. Point of fact, spunky asked me where I had posted 3 years ago that I thought Manhattan real estate was way overpriced, and I said I didn't post at the time but I took one look at what was going on - open house lines around the block, open outcry auctions to buy so-so properties - and I said, "Nope."
Then I was called a - insult of insults - RENTER!
HOLY F*CK, did that affect me! Depression for days. Thought to go back to my therapist. Doesn't matter that I actually own a co-op on Fire Island and so could be considered (even though I have a lease) an owner, I was called a....
So for all you New Dev people who are renting your units out for 50% less than it costs you to carry them on a cash-flow basis, I'll gladly pay you the rent. And stand on your balcony and piss my rent money down 23 stories to the street.
Steve: yet 70% of properties have mortgages attached to them
Steve - just take some deep breaths, meditate a little, ignore the little drama queen in your head, ignore the memories of your recent date with the 25 year old, don't worry about the fit of your manzier or bro, re-read the specific statements you made in your posts, re-read the specific statements I made. Read them carefully. Carefully. Not while drinking another martini.
I actually do believe that you can understand what is correct, if only you weren't so emotionally needing to put forth a different position than me. By carefully reading your own recent posting, you would actually see that you've contradicted your earlier misstatements. If you can bring yourself to appreciate the difference between an investment in real estate (levered as in with a mortgage) and the growth of the real estate market (unlevered, as simply in the price of a house or property over time), the light bulb may go off.
No need to post a reply right away. Take this, write it down, look at it, put it under your pillow for osmosis, check it out in the morning, rinse and repeat.
"If you can bring yourself to appreciate the difference between an investment in real estate (levered as in with a mortgage) and the growth of the real estate market (unlevered, as simply in the price of a house or property over time), the light bulb may go off."
No, vverain, I am far too much a mortal and drama queen to understand this. Please explain it to me. And while you're at it, your theory of dark matter.
And while I have you on the horn, please explain why financial leverage (gearing), which produces income, is bad, whereas mortgage leverage, which produces expenses, is good.
'Cause I have some serious investment decisions to make in the upcoming months, and I value your opinion and yours alone.
Steve, find me one U.S. company investor report (you pick - SEC filing or investment banking research report or call transcript) where the term "gearing" was used.
Then we'll move on to trying to understand how being a debtor produces income.
But I really do think you should try the part where you think, read, understand before you post a rebuttal. Try it. Come on. Try it.
Vverain, what does it matter whether "one US company investor report" uses the term "gearing"?
Here's the WSJ, a bastion of fascism: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gearingratio.asp.
You're such a blowhard. It's a British term that means "leverage." You yourself claimed that you worked for a British company in the infamous eah thread that was deleted. I lived there for years, worked for Price Waterhouse, Bank of America there. So you want me to find a US firm that says "gearing."
I want you to find a US firm that says, "analyse."
But if you MUST know, here's what Oxford says it means: "British the ratio of a company's loan capital (debt) to the value of its ordinary shares (equity)."
Now then, let's "move on to trying to understand how being a debtor produces income."
"I really do think you should try the part where you think, read, understand before you post a rebuttal."
Go ahead, Mr. I-Know-It-All. Say.
You, like JuiceMan, and Sneaky Pete, and ccdevi, have no credibility.
Investopedia is owned by Forbes, not the Wall Street Journal.
The point Steve, over gearing, is that you like to show people how smart you are, so you bandy about your so-called knowledge in the form of big words learned from an online encyclopedia or the Oxford dictionary. This highlights the fact that you have neither practical experience, nor have you attempted to engage in intelligent dialog with actual people who know the real world.
by the way, why was that the eah thread that was deleted?
I recall you were the one cursing and spewing hatred.
I recall you having the breakdown.
Did you see, vverain, how the British say, "ordinary shares," rather than "common shares."
Like Australia's "All Ordinaries"?
So, find me one US company that calls their common shares "ordinary shares," and I'll introduce you to Kylie Minogue.
Explain your theory, O Grand Master of Leverage.
"This highlights the fact that you have neither practical experience, nor have you attempted to engage in intelligent dialog with actual people who know the real world."
Fine. Tell me what you mean, O Grand Master of Leverage.
"I recall you were the one cursing and spewing hatred. I recall you having the breakdown."
I recall you have a selective memory.
Steve: So, find me one US company that calls their common shares "ordinary shares," and I'll introduce you to Kylie Minogue.
I'm not sure why I ever have been responding to you, but what can any person who isn't on LSD or a schizophrenic say to something like this?
vverain, stevejhx, do you people not have anything better to do? i mean, seriously now, what does a normal day in your life look like? are you on this site CONSTANTLY? the name-calling back and forth -- are you guys still in gradeschool? i honestly can't comprehend it. i just see it going back and forth, and i confess, at times am amused, but other times, i'm just wondering: who the hell are these people? were you both picked on and bullied as kids? i seriously want to do freudian pop psychological analysis on you people. i mean, i know why I'M on here: i'm a loser with too much time on my hands. but YOU guys -- you're all supposed to be smart, mature, rich, hard-working folks that have worked your way thru the ranks to be where you're at. ...... so i don't get it. WHAT AM I MISSING????
ok. here's my 3rd posting of tabulating posts. i'm up at 1.50am.
i've taken a second to tabulate steve's responses on this thread, the "case schiller april report just released" thread, and the "23% of Manhattan List Prices Reduced in the Past 60 Days" thread. as of 1.50am, steve posted at the following times:
18 hours ago
17 hours ago
15 hours ago
13 hours ago
11 hours ago
9 hours ago
9 hours ago
8 hours ago
7 hours ago
7 hours ago
6 hours ago
6 hours ago
6 hours ago
6 hours ago
5 hours ago
4 hours ago
4 hours ago
4 hours ago
4 hours ago
3 hours ago
3 hours ago
3 hours ago
2 hours ago
2 hours ago
and that's the last one, which comes to about 15 hours of continuous posting, and puts him in bed at approximately 11.30pm.
my question is: who the f is this loser that is POSTING pretty much ALL DAY LONG. i haven't even counted the OTHER threads he's posting on. so this guy seems to be on here ALL friggin day. STEVE, what do you do? are you a student? do you have a job? do you have a life? do you have any friends? do you have a clue? do you have any sense of what a loser you are? do you live all day on your soapbox? do you have a mother? do you spend all your days locked up in your fire island mansion eating spam and eggs? what the hell are you? are you like charles dickens -- paid by the word? are you human? do eat babies?
please refer to the new thread "Stevehjx posts all day long.........................."
for a full update.
about 6 hours ago
ignore this person vverain, stevejhx, do you people not have anything better to do? i
Thank you for your observation. As some wise person said on this original discussion by Steve: http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/3410-real-%20estate-is-a-bad-investment
about 9 weeks ago
ignore this person Just to be clear, Steve, I thought maybe you may have had different views on the world, ok, put together poor argument, ok, been a bit flashy, ok, seeking attention and prone to combativeness, ok.
But as I just re-read your last post, including most amusing your criticism of my knowledge of corporate finance theory and practice and misstatement of same, I realize you really are just simply not knowlegeable. And ignorant of your lack of knowledge.
This will be the last time I engage you.
After all, never argue with a fool.
So I should have listened to myself.
Steve, you win, your prize is 72 virgin 25 year old young men who all return your calls after your first dates.
So, vverain, where is that explanation about leverage...?
By the way, who gives a rat's how often someone posts, at least in a general sense? They reward you for it on Wired. And many of you post rather frequently yourselves (not quite Stevian levels, I'll admit). Basically, our economy sucks, it looks frightfully like the early-mid-80's (earlier I'd said early 90's which would have been better, many are now saying recent Japan, which is WAY worse), New York has over-built ("luxury units") and under-supplied education, Wall Street jobs and bonuses are looking WAY grim, the hot economies of Europe that helped our market are in the toilet (Spain, Ireland, England, particularly), and the export market that we've so relied upon will not do well with increased shipping costs and particularly many countries' inability to continue gas subsidies.
UWsider, if I had been in the position to get your deal, I'd be happy as a pig rolling in some particularly rich earth. Many of us are in nowhere your position ($190/sf) and think that perhaps we should be SOMEWHAT closer to it, given that prices raised by multiples that were horrific between 1998-2007.
aboutready, stop it! you're scaring people here!!!
everything is fine. nothing is wrong. everything is looking really good. Manhattan real estate will continue to go up!
So sorry, my bad. You're SO right. Things are grand. I'm off to see my banker to see if I can get a loan for the damn $36,000 private tuition for the school that I was SO SO snotty to think might be right for my only child. I'm just bitter that I sold in 2004 and could have made a couple of hundred grand more if I'd waited two more years (well, no. I'm not, but I probably should be).
Let's just hope as many of us as possible make it through this with our homes, our families, and our jobs intact (and, hopefully, a bit of cheer). Best of luck to us all.
Ignoring is ignorance
Bonz OO OO! lol