234 East 23rd Street
Building in Gramercy Park
1 sale•8 rentals
"House Prices In New York City Are Not Going In The Right Direction, And It's Because Of Wall Street Bonuses"
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/case-shiller-new-york-housing-market-falls-in-november-2013-1#ixzz2JNrZDsEt
High end will hurt. 2-3 bedroom rentals and sales will rise as a result of the ultra high end buyers stepping down. The mid range 2 bedroom market never took a hit through out the recession and is positioned to remain strong in certain neighborhoods for the next few years. Just try to find a decent 2 bedroom that is not priced crazily high (and they are selling them!)
The table at the link shows NY as the only metropolitan area with a negative YOY. Any ideas why?
Most people familiar with how Wall St. works know that 2012 bonuses were not announced until Jan 2013. How does an article using Nov 2012 data reflect current sentiment? In fact, the bonuses people received a week ago were generally higher than they got 12 months ago. While the stock market is doing quite well so far this year. People working in Wall St. should be quite optimistic of their next bonus payout. Logical?
Wrong. The public banks all say how much they have set aside for bonuses each quarter. The number was trending down YOY all year. Second, almost all the major banks have clamped down even further on cash bonuses. Third, almost all the banks are laying significant percentages of employees off - including at the MD level.
When you refer to public banks, do you mean commercial banks? I have never heard anyone using the term public banks. Historically, no one working in commercial banks expected any sizable bonuses anyway. We should be taling about people in investment banks, investment bank divisions, hedge funds and so on. Some do better than others, like GS was doing so much better the Morgan Stanley. At GS, people get big increases in bonus that were paid in one shot and mostly cash. In the other end of the spectrum, Morgan Stanley gave out smaller bonuses over longer period of time. May be smaller percentage in cash also. How about others in the middle. Most did much better than the year before.
vic64: In this context, public banks presumably means publicly listed banks (therefore entities for which financial information is publicly available). If you're not familiar with this, I doubt you're in a strong position to vouch for the overall strength of bank bonuses this year. From anecdotal experience (this is the time of the year afterall that bank colleagues talk), they suck.
^^^That. Exactly that.
1) this year seems generally better than last year, bonus-wise.
2) Case-Shiller tracks single-family homes, not apartments, so it being down in NY metro says nothing about Manhattan/Brooklyn co-op/condo prices.
3) Just came out of a gigantic (ten parties) bidding war on a mid-priced co-op. Somebody out there has money.
DG Neary Realty
It is strange that seasoned streeteasy posters continue to confuse case Schiller index with manhattan coops and condo prices.
Also, think about the stock bankers got in the last couple of year at much lower prices which is vesting now.
December streeteasy condo index up 1 percent mom, more than 5% yoy - if you put 33% down, 15 % return last year. I get the argument about being able to make good money in equities, but what does that have to do with real esatate in manhattan being a bad investment. All risky assets except long dated bonds have gone up recently.
"Just came out of a gigantic (ten parties) bidding war on a mid-priced co-op"
What price range would you define as a "mid-priced co-op"?
'It is strange that seasoned streeteasy posters continue to confuse case Schiller index with manhattan coops and condo prices."
Its strange that you did not even bother to notice that SCHILLER HIMSELF is the one who said that a poor bonus season was hurting NYC sales, idiot.
"this year seems generally better than last year, bonus-wise."
you are also an idiot. average bonuses are up FOR THOSE GETTING BONUSES. The bonus pool is down, and thousands have been or are getting laid off. Thousands more are NOT getting bonuses this year.
I work in a front office capacity at a large investment bank.
bonuses are mostly down, but even worse these new bonuses are stuffed with deferred cash or stock, and there are clawback provisions. all these things will reduce bankers willingness to spend, esp given job security remains low across the street as layoffs are now routine.
but i don't think businessinsider is a great source
more relevant source
bofa "morale is at an all time low"
cs "bonuses down 25%"
ubs "layoffs are happening, yet again"
ms "the deferred bonuses will be paid out over a three year period"
these are all recent
Tom, in a "down" year like this what does that mean for various ranks?
Obviously, partners / MDs are going to be down because the have to bear the brunt of the variability. But what about associates? Is "down" for them an actual drop, or just the lack of an annual bump? If not there, at what general point is "down" really down?
this year most who saw increases either 1) got a promotion / title change, which will come with a raise, 2) switched firms and got a guaranteed bonus, 3) or work on a good desk or group that happens to be doing well
bonuses have been good at the high end...the guys who make it rain get paid. but the vast army of analysts, associates, and vps have been hurting. a first year associate out of mba might make $100K base, and expect to get a bump up to $120K then $150K over the next two years. But these increases aren't happening for analysts, associates, or vps. And bonus levels are down with 25-40% of the bonus doled out over three years. You lose that money when you leave the firm.
i know one floor where 40% of associates got $0 bonus last year. vps also getting the shaft. these are the guys making $150-500k, they are getting killed.
banks lure talent with large guaranteed bonuses, leaving current employees dividing up a smaller pie.
my pay was up, go figure.
I think it is fair to say that with bonuses/tax changes everyone is making a bit less. Has to have at least a mild impact on the market. And; if the gov't wasn't keeping interest rates artificially low it would have a greater impact
This is surprising? Come on
Tom, as part of my job I read the sell-side notes on the big global i-banks, so I had seen all that you say in those notes. I can't post those notes here. Thanks for digging up those articles.
NONE of the big or boutique banks are paying MORE in total bonuses than last year, and most are paying a lot less. Fact.
...and hedge fund performance has been relatively poor this year, on average so there is not that outlet either...
Oh, and generally ALL the notes say that the buldge bracket banks globally, and the capital markets business as a whole is in the midst of a multi-year secular decline because of Basel 3 (mainly) and Dodd-Frank, MFID, EMIR, etc. If you work at a big bank, you see YOUR OWN BANKS analyst writing this on a regular basis about Wall Street's future.
BS, the RE market had already been hurt by the unlimited QE's and political action to block foreclosures
Lloyd Blankfein said he is more of a shareholder of GS than an employee.
"vic64: In this context, public banks presumably means publicly listed banks (therefore entities for which financial information is publicly available). If you're not familiar with this, I doubt you're in a strong position to vouch for the overall strength of bank bonuses this year. From anecdotal experience (this is the time of the year afterall that bank colleagues talk), they suck."
How many people have dealed with or heard of any major financial institue that is not a publicly traded company? Are we talking about bonuses being handed out by those mom and pop local banks in Flushing or what? My point was, no one in Wall St. classify any of these major financial institues as public banks or not public banks. We don't call people receiving bonuses working for a public bank or not that way. We are talking only about people working in commercial banks, investment banks (front offices or back offices), investment bank divisions of a large bank or all sorts of funds. For me not calling public banks as losing my credentials? I think the reverse is true.
My points was meant to not just look at the few institutes that reported dimmer results. There are some bright spots too. Read the articles below:
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) will pay its employees an average of $399,506 for 2012, up 9% from a year ago as the securities firm's revenue climbed 19% and it reduced its headcount by 900 employees last year.
The firm, known for rewarding its bankers and traders with the highest payouts on Wall Street, set aside $12.9 billion for compensation and benefits for 2012, up 6% from $12.2 billion, a year earlier. Compensation expenses include salaries, bonuses and the vesting of previously granted stock awards. For 2011, Goldman employees earned an average of $367,057.
By comparison, employees at J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.'s (JPM) corporate and investment bank stand to take home average compensation of $216,928, down slightly from $217,600 for 2011.
The firm, which combined its investment bank with its corporate bank and treasury and securities services units in 2012, reduced its headcount for the business by 3% from a year ago to 52,151 employees. The company reported compensation expenses and staff in its fourth-quarter earnings report earlier Wednesday.
Meanwhile, Goldman accrued compensation for fewer employees than a year ago as the firm, along with its peers, have been trimming their workforces amid economic uncertainty, weak trading volumes and sluggish dealmaking activity. Goldman's total headcount as of Dec. 31, 2012, fell to 32,400, down 3% from a year ago, and declined by 200 employees from the prior period.
The securities firm paid out 37.9% of its revenue in compensation and benefits for 2012, down from 42.4%, a year earlier. A better-than-expected fourth quarter, along with cost-cutting, helped Goldman reduce the closely watched compensation ratio, which was tracking at 44% through the first nine months of 2012.
For J.P. Morgan, the ratio was 33% for the unit for 2012, down slightly from 34% a year earlier.
On a conference call with analysts, Goldman Sachs incoming Chief Financial Officer Harvey Schwartz said the firm's "lower compensation ratio in 2012 is, in part, a by-product of our efficiency efforts that began in early 2011."
Goldman Sachs, which launched a $1.4 billion cost-cutting program in 2011, said in July it would seek an additional $500 million in cost savings by the end of 2012 as it focuses on reining in expenses amid tough business conditions.
In a recent note to clients, Sanford C. Bernstein analyst Brad Hintz said Goldman investors would "see the effects of relocations and headcount reductions" in a lower compensation-to-revenue ratio for the firm during the period, adding that Goldman has "increased the proportion of its work force employed in 'high-value locations' from 10% to 22%" since 2007, while its headcount has come down.
The increase in average payouts for Goldman staff came a day after news surfaced that rival Morgan Stanley (MS) said it would forgo paying immediate cash bonuses for employees making more than $350,000.
Morgan Stanley will pay its bonuses in four equal installments, with the first chunk coming in May and the last in January 2016, according to people briefed on the firm's bonus deferral plan.
At Goldman Sachs, the firm typically pays out cash bonuses to employees in February, while stock-based compensation for staff vests over a three-year period.
On the call, Mr. Schwartz said Goldman has no plans to increase its bonus deferrals, adding a company has to be careful it's not "mortgaging the future" if it implements that policy. Pushing more such awards off to future years means they are accounted for in future expense disclosures and could leave a bank with less compensation flexibility to pay its staff.
There are many people out there who made millions before (or right after) the crisis, and still have tons of cash to buy property. The question is: how many? Enough to prop up the market, or not?
The question is not firm-wide, its NYC-wide. And you gave us just two banks. The two BEST. Trust us - the top 20 banks globally are drastically reducing headcount and overall bonuses, including in NYC. Try looking up RBS, UBS, CS, DB, MS, and the rest, and not cherry picking the two best (one of which WAS IN FACT DOWN.)
300_mercer: regarding the gains in the SE index since 2009, it depends on your baseline. Once you account for negative carry, then if your benchmark is 3% return on capital, then your expectations may have been met. My baseline is higher. I'd want more than a 3% return on capital that is exposed to 15-20% volatility, especially so during a recovery period where so much govt support is given directly to the asset. Between ZIRP and $3 trillion of quantitative easing ($2 trillion of which was mortgage assets, about 20% of the total outstanding mortgage debt in the country), cost of financing has dropped by 40%. Economic recover, stocks and bonds through the roof. But nary a whisper from NYC RE.
Take the SE index January 2009-present and look at the annualized increase averaged across all possible purchase points, it's been 3%. Jumbo mortgage rates have averaged 5% (30-yr) or 4% (ARM), let's call it 4.5%. You take out a loan for 66%, that's 3%. Then take out another 3% for maintenance / taxes / upkeep / transaction costs. It's cost you 3% to stay in the home even after putting 33% down (but you don't pay rent).
Average annual increase for stocks on all entry points between Jan 2009-present has been 14%. On a 33% down payment, that amounts to 4.5% of purchase price. So the buyer has had to pay 3% annually, but got a roof over their head in return. The renter received 4.5% annually, but had to pay for rent.
For me, that 7.5% difference between -3% and 4.5% is equal to 2.5x my rent. Had I owned, my return on capital would have been 0% even after accounting for my rent. Relative to buying, I gained (each year) an amount that is 1.5x my rent even after paying my rent. If you know my rent, that is a lot of money.
Stated from the other side, I could have bought a place that is 2.5x less-expensive and it would have cost me the same amount. A lot of people like owning their home, it's more than just dollars-and-cents, they couldn't have handled the uncertainty, blah-blah. Fine by me, good for them. Myself, I am happy to have lived in a 2.5x better home for the same cost.
300 Mercer, STFU:
"Deutsche Bank has revealed that it is considering transferring more than 8,000 full time employees currently based in New York, London, Hong Kong and Singapore "to more cost-effective locations...
...The German bank, which this morning reported a loss in its corporate banking and securities arm for the fourth quarter, revealed in an accompanying analyst presentation that there was "scope for transfer of 8,000 [full-time employees] in New York, London, Hong Kong and Singapore to more cost-effective locations...."
Banks net-net are CUTTING in NYC.
From the above:
"The German bank also revealed it had cut 1,700 jobs, of which 90% were in the US, UK and Asia, as part of its cost-cutting drive. Around 1,400 of these were in the corporate banking and securities unit."
Lets be clear: of the top 20 global i-banks/u-banks, 19 are cutting drastically, one is flat in hiring.
meaningful mtm considers liquidation value of asset, with consideration of exit transaction cost.
and RE is a deteriorating asset--it experiences wear and tear, and style/taste devaluation. longer the hold, the more renovation buyers will consider when making offers.
so short hold doesnt defray hideous transaction costs. long hold requires renovation. suck on that, while i rent.
true all that, jason
the wealth req to support NYRE may be out there somewhere, but it sure aint going to come from banking
"Exclusive: Goldman to begin fresh round of job cuts"
Where is ericho to tell us how bonuses are going to blow our minds and Wall Street is lifting the real estate market? That was good stuff. I miss it.
Unable to pull link to story but on Bloomberg today: "Wall Street Bonuses Climb 8% to $20 Billion, DiNapoli Says"
>He's gazing at the Newtown Creek.
You don't see it from Williamsburg/Greenpoint?
It's right there on the border.
ericho aka toxic avenger
DiNapoli was as good as many bears in this board. He predicted earlier that Wall Street bonuses would drop in 2012, but he was wrong.
I know the story. Its on Bloomberg's website. This is mainly due to past deferred bonuses whether stock or cash vesting in 2012 - for the most part in the FIRST HALF of 2012. The story is, after all, about FY2012. All 12 months of it.
My comments above, and the stories above, are about nominal bonuses being paid as we speak, which will mostly be taxable over the next 3-4 years. THOSE are unambiguously lower. If you are buying a house, and KNOW your income will be lower going forward, do you
A) spend more
B) spend the same
C) spend less.
I opt for B or C.
In addtion there is this:
"..The pool climbed as some firms moved up payments to 2012 to avoid paying higher federal personal income taxes taking effect this year and as profits in the securities industry increased three-fold, [DiNapoli] said..."
Seriously vic64, get a grip. The amount firms set aside for bonuses in 2012 was lower than in 2011. This is entirely about deferred bonuses from past, better years vesting and about ACCELERATED bonus payments at year end.
Jason, if you are going to say you know better than the Comptroller of the State of New York, at least cite a memo from a law firm that you conveniently refuse to provide access to.
I thought the article said cash bonuses and didn't take into consideration deferred or other incentive.
No, its based on taxable income. There is NO OTHER WAY the comptroller could possibly know.
From the WSJ: "...boosted in part by the payment this year of compensation deferred from prior years..."
He DOES predict bonuses will rise in 2013...but that's based on deferred comp from 2009 to now vesting. If you want to know at what bonuses 2-3 years out will be, you look at accrued comp expenses as reported by the banks, and 100% of Wall Street sell-side analysts who cover banks will tell you that is down. The fact is, 2009 was a great year for banks, and 2010 decent, so the bonuses given out in early 2010 and early 2011 were great. The vested over 11/12/13 and 12/13/14 typically, so they are TAXABLE now, but based on profits from years ago.
>There is NO OTHER WAY the comptroller could possibly know.
Yup, the Comptroller knows nothing about Wall Street money.
so...what's your deal?
"Yup, the Comptroller knows nothing about Wall Street money."
His only insight is tax receipts. Don't be stupid.
"Here's Why Wall Streeters Are STILL Getting Axed"
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-wall-street-bank-layoffs-wont-stop-2013-2#ixzz2M7UGmAb6
"3) Just came out of a gigantic (ten parties) bidding war on a mid-priced co-op. Somebody out there has money."
Bidding wars at lower prices doesn't mean higher prices. And this sounds just like 4 years ago. Try some facts.
Folks can cherry pick anecdotes all the want, the stats keep coming out... we're down.
uh oh--now this!!
i concede that banking may not be the driver of nyre at the moment
i do have a problem envisioning successful 200k/yr google engineers buying 2 mm$$ 2 bedroom apts in nyc.
An insane percentage of the Google NYC folks I know live in... Hoboken.
They make great money for middle America. For NYC, kinda low now that the equity component is relatively meaningless.
purely anecdotal: my nephew, an associate at a big bank got a paltry bump in salary for his 16-18hrs per day. he and his girlfriend -- another biz school graduate-- were looking to buy an apt and start a family. between no salary bump (for her either), and the constant threat of layoffs, they spent their vacation looking at other cities. He found that he could get almost comparable salary but the cost of living was almost half, the air was delicious and the weather was warm. Upshot: they both moved out west last month. One less high end apt purchase for NYC. but how many others out there are going to get fed up at high prices and lower salaries.
>purely anecdotal: my nephew, an associate at a big bank got a paltry bump in salary for his 16-18hrs per day. he and his girlfriend -- another biz school graduate-- were looking to buy an apt and start a family. between no salary bump (for her either), and the constant threat of layoffs, they spent their vacation looking at other cities. He found that he could get almost comparable salary but the cost of living was almost half, the air was delicious and the weather was warm. Upshot: they both moved out west last month. One less high end apt purchase for NYC. but how many others out there are going to get fed up at high prices and lower salaries.
Not everyone can make it in NYC. Some people move west. Some move to Miami. Some look for a country house until their husbands get out of jail.
apt23 has been posting the same stuff, over and over again for at least the last 3 years. She is simply not willing to admit that she's missed the bottom in NY, and cannot bring herself to pay an "outrageous" price now for an apartment she would like.She also gets annoyed that anyone would dare ask more now than was paid in 2009 (which IMHO was the bottom).
apt23 will go on like this ad infinitum. now it's the suburbs for her, before it was Miami.Sad
greensdale-I am seeing similar anecdotals- 30-32 year olds finishing training program and going to jobs paying about 150k with spouses making variable amounts. Most are leaving NYC, although admittedly most came from outside NYC. Those who aren't seem to have no qualms about moving to places like Jackson Heights. 2 who have spouses on Wall St are in Brooklyn. Although some rented in Manhattan during training, none of the married ones planning to start a family are even talking about Manhattan-buying or renting. I was thinking of buying for investment, but don't know that today's prices will be sustainable when interest rates go up. Got unsolicited e-mail from realtor advertising rentals with ONE MONTH FREE RENT !
actually ph41 it is all about investment opportunity which is a valid discussion on a board. I contend -- as do many on this board-- that buying the slight dip in 2009 was not better as an investment than investing in other assets or other areas that have more upside. I am not arguing lifestyle. There are plenty on this board who are more interested in settling in a long term home and riding out the turns in the economy. Others do not have the luxury of staying put for years. Do you have a problem with different viewpoints being expressed?
mym, I'm a Manhattanite, though I also have roots in the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn. This isn't about moving to Jackson Heights, or Brooklyn, that's not the issue. And leaving NYC, if it isn't for you, that's the world, no judgments here on that. The issue is the total quitter whiney chicken little mentality exhibited by apt23 and her family, because she believes her nephew has some entitlement and in absence of receiving that entitlement, deserves to blame others for failure.
so you are stalking greens dale/huntersburg?
apt23, only you are stalking yourself. and likely drove away your husband.
why don't you explain why you changed your name from hunters burg?
Haven't followed thread long enough to figure out people's personal agendas. My dilemma is about whether or not to buy now as an investment. Live in Manhattan and love it, but was only able to afford it because we bought 21 yrs ago. Thinking of buying now, partly as investment, partly with the thought of letting my offspring take it over in 5-8 yrs. I am sure that it would pay off if I kept it for 20 yrs, and would be a source of income. But if offspring wants to live somplace else, and I sell in 5-8 yrs to help with downpayment -don't know that I won't lose. Haven't seen apt 23's threads , but....she's right that if you had put money into market in 2009, you would have done just fine...
look, apt23 bought in Miami to escape paying taxes in New York State, so let's put her aside. Yes, the S&P has outperformed. Yes, historically, equities have outperformed owner-occupied residential real estate. So what.
I've never told a single person to buy equities or real estate. I've only encouraged people to do what is sensible for themselves, to avoid irresponsibility (such as excessive leverage) or stupidity, and to avoid taking others' gospel whether that's based on their own economic/ career agenda or their ego.
is that why you changed your name from hunters burg?
c0lumbiac0unty, none of what you want to talk about absolves you for the hurt you've caused your family, your friends, your neighbors, and the people you've done business with. Your convenient nasty personality here online can't be a virtual or real life distraction for your own dire failings and all of the damage you've caused.
any facts here?
"Look over there, look at greensdale, avoid looking at me and the horrible things I've done as c0lumbiac0unty."
why are you ashamed of being hunters burg?
Who is ashamed? Someone who has hurt his family, friends, and people he's done business with? Someone who has had to escape physically and merely maintain a grouchy online personality?
so, you're not ashamed about being hunters burg? then, why did you change?
you seem even more sad than usual lately, even apt23 doesn't acknowledge you
so sad for you. why are you so ashamed? why the need to change names so often. what are you hiding?
So greesdale, have you bought in the last few yrs.? If so, where?
>So greesdale, have you bought in the last few yrs.? If so, where?
I really haven't discussed my own family's details like that. The real point is that one person's decisions aren't appropriate for another's. I assume you are educated and will do your own research as well as fairly evaluate your own circumstances and needs.
do facts matter to you? why have you changed your name from hunters burg?
do facts matter to me? What a stupid question.
why did you change your name from hunters burg? what are you hiding?
What am I hiding?
What a stupid question.
why did you change your name if you're not hiding something? what are you hiding?
hiding? hiding what?
why did you hurt so many people for personal gain?
why would you change your name on an anonymous board? what are you trying to hide?
so many have changed their names to no fanfare.
Does a name change offense your righteousness, despite all you've done to hurt so many people in real life?
Note the fresh round of cuts announced. Banks are the first one to cut jobs when there is something coming.
There are a lot of structural events going on in the industry to warrant the job cuts (outsourcing, low volumes in general etc). If the banks were so clever they would have had lay offs in 2006 instead of having record industry employment in 2007.
greensdale, what did columbia county do?
mym: greensdale is a notorious stalker on this site. He used to go by the name huntersburg and was greyed out by SE since he was such a nuisance. Columbia County didn't do anything wrong except to try to get huntersburg to go away. Most posters do not acknowledge him because of the above problem.
If you want a place in NYC but are not sure of the investment potential if you kids don't want to take over the apt in 5- 8 years, have you considered renting? We found an apartment we liked then found a comparable rental and realized that we could rent for a lot less money --- and problems. Why don't you make a spread sheet. Since rates are undoubtedly going up, your downpayment dollars will earn more money in safe vehicles as the years go by. Inonada has written extensively about this on this site.
apt23 posted on streeteasy (so you can feel free to search for it) that she called the police, stating that her husband was going to use an illegal gun to go and menace a neighbor of hers. According to her, after they came over, she said that the story wasn't true (filing a false police report is illegal) and then used the police to do her bidding with a neighbor she didn't get along with.
Huntersburg, and Greensdale, don't like apt23. Many others don't like apt23 and have expressed it on streeteasy. Typically she accuses each and every one of her detractors of being me. That's paranoia. If you read her postings on real estate or the economy or just about any other topic, her chicken little paranoia is manifest in many other depressing ways. Like I've said before, apt23 is her own stalker. Few if any really want anything to do with her in real life.
dont you remember the 2006 layoffs? I recall that was when the RE agents really kicked in their 'RE never goes down / be priced out forever' pitch.
"Banks and brokerage firms first started layoffs in the fall of 2006. By the time the financial crisis receded three and a half years later, more than 428,000 financial workers had lost their jobs nationwide — an 11 percent drop in the industry’s work force, according to Moody’s Analytics." NY Times
STREETEASY: greensdale is admitting to being huntersberg using the same untrue story to stalk me -- among many other posters that he is attacking. He is also disrupting nearly every thread where subscribers and new posters are trying to exchange information. Please eliminate greensdale/huntersburg and any other name this poster might be using to stalk,spread falsehoods and interrupt the threads with nonsense. This is the worst troll that has ever appeared on your site and this has been going on for years with this poster.
It is especially discouraging for new posters who are making a genuine effort to engage on Streeteasy and are repulsed by the confusion caused by this poster. I know you do not condone stalking and many on these boards would like to continue to exchange information on these boards with out the constant nuisance of this poster. Please take action
Apt23 lied when she told the story about lying to the police?
Apt23 were you lying then or are you lying now?
I honestly wish that Streeteasy would block every posting which is just a personal vandetta against someone else. Even discussions/debates about the market going up or down are sometimes tinged with such sarcasm and diatribe- it gets really tiresome !