YES, Condo Prices are Going Up.

Now you've done it. You've gone and ticked off the bears.

So, coops went down even more than we thought... interesting. If the blend dropped 7.5% (Miller Samuel reported), what did co-ops actually drop in that period? 10%? 12%?

Ouch.

Actually, no, just wrong... condos went down too...

Manhattan Median - Miller Samuel / All Condos
2010 4 997,885
2010 3 1,120,000

That's an 11% drop.

But, hey, if that's what bulls are now calling "up"...

Interesting question is whether an expected increase in mortgage rates translates into more sales now. If rates go up 2% that's a lot less home that can be financed.

so, I think we've confirmed that needsadvice is just steveF, trying desperately to find someone to agree with him.

RS lol...the overall market reports are good to use but I like to go right to the comps in buildings where I own apts. If the comps are listed higher and they are selling close to ask then that's my determination or vice versa. have a kick ass weekend!

Let's do this by size category, too, shall we...

Median Manhattan CONDO - Decline since Peak (Miller Samuel data)
Studios - 25%
1 Bedrooms - 18%
2 Bedrooms - 27%
3 Bedrooms - 42%
4+ Bedrooms - 55%
Overall - 21%

Btw, interesting factoid.... 1 bedroom condos median is lower in 2010 than it has been since... get this... 20005. and down 18% since Steve told folks to buy..

RS...the question is with higher interest rates comes an improved economy. Will wages move up to offset that i increase? Will they more than offset or not offset enough. We sall see...

Go to the home page of Streeteasy (the website you are on now). Click on market reports.

Actually read the words.

Q4 2008--Co-op resale average prices increased by 1.4% to $1.06M

Q4 2009--Average sales price $954K

Q4 2010--Average sales price $1.08M

> Will wages move up to offset that i increase?

Not in Manhattan, they went down again.... so much for that theory.

Apparently, "11% down is the NEW up!"

swe is on ignore......

Yeah, you said that before you responded to my last 5 posts on the other thread, too....

But, it's not like this would be the first time your head was buried in the sand. At least you didn't run away crying this time.

SWE just has sour grapes.

Me thinks he doth protest too much.

He should have bought in 2009 and he knows it.

swe why don't you put me on ignore..are you so infatuated with me that you can't? So weak that you can't do it? Of course you can't, your too weak. If everything I say is wrong then why, for the love of God, would you waste time reading my posts??????? You can't put me on ignore lol...

Methinks someone is just trying to rationalize their mistakes.
Yes, I should have bought for 20% more. Genius!

Since brilliant SteveF made his calls to sell stock and buy Manhattan RE, Stocks are up 70% and Manhattan RE is down 13%.

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/5719-im-sick-of-stocks-its-time-for-real-estate-investing

Better luck next life....

> SWE just has sour grapes.

btw, needsadvice, you need to actually look up what "sour grapes" means. You got that wrong (in addition to your ignorance on the market data).

I'm the one who ended up with the grapes!

Who do you think would be more fearful? Aging apt owners who feel they may have missed the chance of a lifetime to sell or young families that need a room for baby. I think apt owners who never dreamed of selling are going to put their apts up for sale this spring. We have just had a 100% rise in the stock market and rich New Yorkers -- the majority of the beneficiaries of the govt's put in the stock market-- are feeling flush. I think we will see sales and an uptick in the prices for a few months

But then, all bets are off. It is a strange confluence of events. An aging co-op population that had the bejesus scared out of them in 2008 -- the apts that they counted on as nest egg took a tumble. Now the gods have given them another chance and I bet they take it. The stevef's of the world will jump in and buy. Then when property taxes go thru the roof, the stock market tumbles after a much needed correction fueled by european jitters, mid east turmoil, rising prices, inflation, squeezed corporate margins, etc., prices will come down again. By then, young upstarts will realize that basically everyone they know has been burned in RE and that they will never recover their purchase price in an efficient way. The next generation will be renters and as you can see in buildings like the ALdyn, developers will gear luxury buildings to renters.

> Aging apt owners who feel they may have missed the chance of a lifetime to sell

I think you can add young owners who missed the boat too...

I think your points are good... all reasons we'll probably sit in this valley for a while, watching real prices continue to erode.

>>"You got that wrong (in addition to your ignorance on the market data)."

I see the numbers. I read the numbers. The numbers are now getting larger.

Does it make you feel better if I quote miller samuel?:

The median sales price of a Manhattan apartment was $845,000, up 4.3% from $810,000 in the same period last year.

you do realize that medians are a suck ass measurement tool? the mix of sales changed tremendously yoy, with the small unit market very strong at the end of 2009 and very weak and the end of 2010. a higher percentage of sales being 2 bedrooms and greater, and voila, median sales price rises.

condos are doing very well in certain submarkets. and very poorly in others.

aboutready, that's why the best way is to check YOUR comps. I'm not sure about the high end condo market but the low end market is doing very well.

@aboutready: Fine let's do it price per square foot, then:

http://www.millersamuel.com/reports/pdf-reports/MMO4Q10.pdf

Please note the price per square foot for Q4 2010 was $1058. Up from previous year of $1051 per square foot.

If we are so far off the peak (30%), why was the 2006 record per square foot $1,083?

Here's my source, if anyone cares to read it:

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/realestate/greathomes/GH-manhattan.html scp=10&sq=price%20per%20square%20foot%20mahattan&st=cse

The average price per square foot for co-ops and condos in Manhattan in the second quarter of 2006 was a record $1,083, according to Miller Samuel, an appraisal firm.

"Go to the home page of Streeteasy (the website you are on now). Click on market reports."

swe and aboutready ignore the streeteasy condo index because it uses the correct methodology and shows that condos have, in fact, increased in price. I guess the talk forum is the only feature these two trust on streeteasy.

> I see the numbers. I read the numbers. The numbers are now getting larger.

In what magical fantasyland do you live where 997k is larger than 1.12 mil?
specific period YOU mentioned... Q4 over Q3!

Oh, I know... stevefland!

> Does it make you feel better if I quote miller samuel?:
Only if you quote the correct numbers.

Miller Samuel says we went down 7.5% last quarter overall!

But I guess down is the new up!

Read year over year. It's a truer picture, SWE.

It's a bumpy road but it's trending up.

@Juiceman:

Exactly. The numbers are there.

For anecdotal evidence, the comps in my building are selling (not listing, SELLING) for $250K more than I paid in 2009.

I would like to flip for more space, but everything else has gone up too. I can't find anything unless I throw more money into the pot.

actually, JM, i think the SE condo index inflates prices. same unit resales are the easiest way to do comps, but they put an artificial floor on price discovery because people are so loathe to sell below a prior sales price. only extreme distress will cause them to do so.

but thanks for the assumption that i ignore the index. and the assumption that i do nothing on SE other than chat on the forum.

needsadvice, more expensive homes have been selling. i will readily admit that prices for large sought after properties have rebounded. prices for standard apartments have taken a noted turn for the worse, particularly those that are moderately above conforming limits. this downturn was unusual in that it started at the top. now it looks more like a normal correction, with lesser properties suffering which may very well in turn affect the move-up market.

that wasn't phrased properly. obviously everything is a same-unit resale of some sort. i mean that it primarily captures resales of a product that has greatly expanded during the boom, when prices were inflated to begin with.

Miller Sams quarterlies combined coops/condos p/psqft

1stQ '06 $1004
2ndQ '06 $1083
3rdQ '06 $1050
4thQ '06 $0998

1stQ '07 $1070
2ndQ '07 $1139
3rdQ '07 $1144
4thQ '07 $1180

1stQ '08 $1289
2ndQ '08 $1263
3rdQ '08 $1193
4thQ '08 $1183

1stQ '09 $1259
2ndQ '09 $1056
3rdQ '09 $ 996
4thQ '09 $1051

1stQ '10 $1038
2ndQ '10 $1051
3rdQ '10 $1095
4thQ '10 $1058

If anyone wants to go to each report and isolate the condo numbers only here is the link for 4th Q 2010.
All you have to do to jump to any quarter report is change the quarter number and year in the link after the MM part

http://www.millersamuel.com/reports/pdf-reports/MMO4Q10.pdf

> Read year over year. It's a truer picture, SWE.

Thats nonsensical.

Thanks, truthskr.

Which brings me back to my original point: 2009 was the bottom.

ppsf is problematic, because the numbers are made up by brokers. Here is the overall median by period....

Year Quarter All
2010 4 845,000
2010 3 914,000
2010 2 899,000
2010 1 868,000
2009 4 810,000
2009 3 850,000
2009 2 835,700
2009 1 975,000
2008 4 900,000
2008 3 928,263
2008 2 1,025,000
2008 1 945,276
2007 4 850,000
2007 3 864,397
2007 2 895,000
2007 1 835,000

truthskr, even if you isolate condos, pretty much the same picture: we've been essentially flat since Q2 09. Which means that BOTH needsadvice and SWE's assertions are wrong. Flat is boring, but it's what's been happening.

but 2Q 2006 was NOT the record top, not in the slightest.

Q2 09 condo avg ppsf = $1,181
Q4 10 condo avg ppsf = $1,198

"but 2Q 2006 was NOT the record top, not in the slightest."

It was even lower than it is now. Peak for condos was Q2 08, which most likely means contracts signed towards end of 07 in many cases.

Don't forget in contract lag times to actual closings. Especially all those crispy new developments that would take 1/2 years to close in the last 5 years

BJW
Yes, it appears $1000 p sq ft is like a very stubborn 10K Dow Jones, while the lesser liquidity obviously affecting lack of volatility.

truth, looks like $1,100 for whatever reason. It's like pre-empting the panic of approaching $1,000. Buyer/seller mentality is amazing sometimes.

And as a bear I will admit the market has surprised me in it's resiliency.
The fact is, and I'll use the adjective(s) based on the viewpoint.....so the market's stability (bulls) or stagnation (bears) cannot remain so with the current dsiparity between the sales and rental market. One WILL have to break.
Serious job growth could leave under $1000 in the dust and not to be seen, however sudden enforcement by banks to delinquent mortgages will show us the double dip.

So is it red or black. or double zero (terorist act?)

and then there are some buildings where sellers are breaking even or taking a modest hit in resales (not counting transaction costs) but almost NOTHING is selling. the irish carpenter building The Centria is an example. 15 units on the market, 12 sales over the last 27 months (to state the obvious that's a shitty absorption rate). building marketed in pre-sales exclusively to the irish, i can't imagine the building meets the owner occupancy requirements for mortgage lending. huge numbers of units rented at negative carry.

there are many interesting condo buildings out there. and has anyone else noticed how many projects have been announced/come out of the cobwebs these last couple of weeks? got to get going before rates go up.

one of the condo buildings I follow has had 40+ sales listings and 40+ rental listings for the past 2-3 years. Now there are 15 sales lisitngs and 21 rentals. Prices for the lowest studio are now 48k higher than 2 years ago. They are approaching the highest prices that have ever been listed at this building. It's the facts.

Timmmmmmmmeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyy!

> Which brings me back to my original point: 2009 was the bottom.

And we're lower NOW than where we were mid-2009, and the whole year overall.

So much for that "up" thing.

Here is that calculation in terms of decline from peak (Miller Samuel Median Manhattan, Co-ops + Condos)

Year Quarter
2010 4 17.6%
2010 3 10.8%
2010 2 12.3%
2010 1 15.3%
2009 4 21.0%
2009 3 17.1%
2009 2 18.5%
2009 1 4.9%
2008 4 12.2%
2008 3 9.4%
2008 2 0.0%

steveF, i'm seeing high listing prices also. high lists are in and of themselves meaningless.

swe did u put me on ignore yet hon? when u going to do it?

Why would I put SteveF on ignore? His brain damage is a source of endless amusement?

SteveF, when are you going to run away crying again? Start screaming to have me banned?
Call me a "c*nt" again?

>ppsf is problematic, because the numbers are made up by brokers. Here is the overall median by period....

SWE
Agreed, but isn't that a constant. They were exaggerated in 2006,2007,2008,2009,2010.
Of course, the last 5 years did see an enormous upswing of new developments with their newer and more creative ways to call a window sill a closet, and the hallway a foyer.

All these measures are problematic in some ways, but I don't see why median (which I don't particularly mind) is that much better than avg ppsf. Anyone have a compelling explanation? I agree with truth, square footage exaggeration has pretty much been a constant.

Park West Village studios are now $600k...

"Agreed, but isn't that a constant. They were exaggerated in 2006,2007,2008,2009,2010."

To the same degree? Any by type of apartment? I think it has been increasing... but more important, it isn't consistently applied. In the end, why add in an extra variable that isn't reliable?

"Of course, the last 5 years did see an enormous upswing of new developments with their newer and more creative ways to call a window sill a closet, and the hallway a foyer."

Someone once had a creative idea on that... do it by numbers of bathrooms. You can't fake that (well, you could try).

> Park West Village studios are now $600k...

Strange, streeteasy shows one for $429k.

It would be fair to argue in a declining market cheating of 5/10% of size may spread to 10/15% or even more to cover declines.
If I were in the market in 2006 and measuring as diligently as I was in 2009, I could say for certain.
A few other things for sure, condos cheat more than coops and include shared hallways and the like in their new facacta methods. Add to that, the increase of new inventory source over the last 5 years has to be 80/20 condos to coops.
Think about that people. How many brand new coops have been built in the last 5 years, and compared to how many condos.

also, truth, many brokers won't even list coop square footage these days.

I think essentially, we are ALL right.

Percent change of price per square foot, 2009 versus 2010:

Central Park West Co-ops +31.5%
Lincoln Center Co-ops +12.5%
Upper West Side Co-ops +12.4%
Midtown East Condos +12.4%
West Side Co-ops +11.4%

Meanwhile, to pull down the average overall:
Fort George Both -20.5%
Battery Park City Condos -18.4%
Inwood Both -17.5%
Financial District Both -14.7%

So, yes, the lousy properties are still slipping. The lousy areas were overbuilding during the bubble. Their supply still exceeds the demand.

But the good stuff is going up again.

That's it? Where did everybody go?

isn't ppsf still subject to mix issues? higher sqf ==> higher ppsf

swe distorts his analysis by cherry-picking the peak periods by apartment type. You can't go by his numbers.

PWV...$429k is on the ground floor but the others are all $550-$598. What's crazy is they are closing at that price.

Julia, PWV studios at 600K? let's see them close. That's where insanity meets insanity.

mark my words...
By June you won't go to an OH without seeing an arabic head dress or a broker going on and on about camel parking.

Bad news for the industry. Things are still down.
http://furmancenter.org/files/publications/Q4_2_25_1.pdf

listen to aboutready, she's got "grandmotherly experience"

well, sometimes:

aboutready
about 6 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse
>you do realize that medians are a suck ass measurement tool?

"actually, JM, i think the SE condo index inflates prices. same unit resales are the easiest way to do comps, but they put an artificial floor on price discovery because people are so loathe to sell below a prior sales price. only extreme distress will cause them to do so."

Yes, let's disregard the only methodology that everyone actually agrees on. Give me a break

Swe, why have you never acknowledged the streeteasy condo index?

somewhereelse,

Stands correct!

Attached is the meaning of sour grapes.

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/sour.html

JM, you really don't think that someone who bought a condo six years ago who doesn't want to sell at a loss doesn't have much room, whereas someone who bought a coop 20 years ago has more room to undercut the market and still make a profit?

you, of all people, don't think there's a psychological aspect to real estate? give me a break.

plus, the condo market is totally different than the coop market. i think that's been said here many times before.

for example, the midtown east condo market is doing swimmingly. the coop market in the same neighborhood is doing horribly. the condo market is a building by building phenomena right now. in the buildings that are not so healthy there simply are almost no sales, and the few that occur are at less than healthy prices. in the healthy buildings things sell quickly and at very healthy prices. just like the other indices the mix skews the numbers and distorts the picture.

>i think that's been said here many times before.

It's helpful to have grandmotherly experience, I agree.

You are arguing a completely different point ar. I merely pointed out that the streeteasy condo index uses the agreed upon and best methodology and, shows condos are up. Pretty simple actually.

I'm not sure what's worse, the fact that you disagree with the methodology or the fact that swe won't even acknowledge the index. I guess there is no need to let facts cloud circumstance and agenda.

It's helpful to have grandmotherly experience, I agree

I like the family feeling that this comment brings to the table. Like in every family, there's that learning disabled socially maladjusted low birth weight cousin (whose mom smoked like a chimney and drank like a fish during her pregnancy) that everyone tolerates because we know the story and they belong to us.
Thank the lord for special ed. and hockey helmets.
Small yellow school buses rule!

I have been doing research to buy a condo in ny (2 bedroon). It is amazing the how some specific condos are selling at very high prices. Some of t.hen higher than 2008!, or at least at the same levei.

Some exemples, the caledonia ( closing prices are unbelievable, but yet, they close), the park imperial is another example.

Aboutready, tour comments are very sensible in this fórum.

What is going on? Are the buyers in those buildings headed for a very ugly surprise in the short to medium period?

Park Imperial is a very specific boutique building with condos in the sky, and the people who buy there probably do so in order to rub elbows with their neighbors in the elevator. That cohort of people didn't run out of money in the bust, and I don't foresee them doing so in the future.

The Caledonia is a different story. When the bust came, and in-contract buyers scrambled to be let out of their obligations, Caledonia buyers went through with their purchases (rumoredly, some of them with discounts). So these are not people who are trapped at 2006 prices, these are people who bought with their eyes open at essentially later prices.

In other words, what I'm saying is that there are certainly overall market trends (and if I had to give you an aggregate number it would be 20% off peak) but each building also faces its own set of circumstances.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

Makes sense. Are there many other buildings that presented the same behaviour?

One example, I noticed that the prices of the metropolitan tower did not suffer, despite of the fact that carnegie 57 will block part of the park view that the higher floors enjoy today

@outoftown: Carnegie 57 is supposed to open at $4500+ per square foot. That thing is a monster.

I know. But the point is that it will block part of the view metropolitan tower enjoys today. Why this did not mean a significant price drop in met tower flats?

"swe distorts his analysis by cherry-picking the peak periods by apartment type. You can't go by his numbers."

People, people, if you are going to use terms like "cherry picking" and "sour grapes", please use them correctly. Really, LIC, you're just wrong here. The distortion is all yours (and we haven't forgotten when you completely misunderstood these numbers and make all those wacky claims.. let me know if you want that reposted).

And cherrypicking is about picking INDIVIDUAL CASES that confirm a particular position while ignoring related cases.

That would be.... only looking at one building and ignoring others (like SteveF likes to do).... only naming certain neighborhoods (like folks just did here). Only naming certain size classes to represent a market. Only naming portions of an overall decline (like some folks tried to do here)

Giving a total marketing picture (as I did) and its components (as I did) is the opposite of cherry picking. It is giving all.... breaking it down further isn't cherry picking if you include all the pieces!

And if you want make the case on cherry-picking dates... note that I pasted all the data from EVERY QUARTER for the last few years.

Jeez, seriously, learn the words before you scream them out.

Folks also got sour grapes wrong, thanks for the definition mutombo.

"Swe, why have you never acknowledged the streeteasy condo index?"

You want to change horse midstream, and only look at a fraction of the market now? And only resales? Now *that* would be cherrypicking.

The universal agreement on this board years back was the miller samuel medians. The bulls were the ones who loved pulling them out, and bears who disagreed were shouted down.

Now the bulls want something else?

Precious.

> But the good stuff is going up again.

Again, you are using the problematic psf again....

"Yes, let's disregard the only methodology that everyone actually agrees on."

Actually, isn't that everyone challenging the medians now? including you?

"The universal agreement on this board years back was the miller samuel medians. The bulls were the ones who loved pulling them out, and bears who disagreed were shouted down."

Still harping on the same supposed bull-bear dichotomy? You like the medians? You're a bull then! Glad we cleared that up.

I think medians and averages are nice (even though the numbers in my original post are right), but buyers don't buy a median, they buy into a neighborhood, a specific block or area. If I'm looking in the Upper West Side (co-ops up 12.5%), do I really care that FiDi is down 13.2%? Of course not. All I care about is that I should have bought that co-op in 2009.

I don't want to be a dog in the manger about the data, SWE. Check the stats again, Y-O-Y we're seeing prices rise in the best areas:

http://www.millersamuel.com/reports/pdf-reports/MMR10.pdf

Feel free to bring in as much extraneous info as you like (fables not withstanding) you can't deny the market, in some areas, is rising A LOT.

@Riversider: It's fun to poke the bears . . .

Bulls sound desperate to me. *high five*

Yes, the bulls do sound absolutely desperate to me. All this work to cover the fact that we dropped AGAIN last quarter... and medians are near the lowest they've been post-crash.

> Y-O-Y we're seeing prices rise in the best areas

You mean the ppsf ones? My my, you do like fudged numbers, don't you?

> Feel free to bring in as much extraneous info as you like

Stats, data, truth... yes, all "extraneous" to the fuel of the ignorant... the ANECDOTE!

> @Riversider: It's fun to poke the bears . . .

said the guy right before he got eaten by one

I am not going to make price prediction here. Lets just look at the data some had presented:

By SWE:

Here is that calculation in terms of decline from peak (Miller Samuel Median Manhattan, Co-ops + Condos)

Year Quarter
2010 4 17.6%
2010 3 10.8%
2010 2 12.3%
2010 1 15.3%
2009 4 21.0%
2009 3 17.1%
2009 2 18.5%
2009 1 4.9%
2008 4 12.2%
2008 3 9.4%
2008 2 0.0%

He argued that 2010 Q4 is lower than 2010 Q3. Thus market is on a down trend. Let rearrange the above table to this:

2008 4 12.2% 2009 4 21.0% 2010 4 17.6%
2008 3 9.4% 2009 3 17.1% 2010 3 10.8%
2008 2 0.0% 2009 2 18.5% 2010 2 12.3%
2009 1 4.9% 2010 1 15.3%

We can see that prices on Q4 were lower than Q3 in their respective years. Not surprised. After all apartments are just like other commodities, which has a seasonal cycle. For example, gasoline prices are always lower after summer unless their are some geo-political crises. I agreed that the price trend is better judged by comparing quaters with prior years. Therefore, housing did perform better in 2010 than 2009.

The table aligned better when I typed. It did not come out that way. Sorry.

"Therefore, housing did perform better in 2010 than 2009."

Is performing better than a massive cratering the new up? ;-)
I don't disagree, 2009 was awful. Did that make 2010 good? Not necessarily.

To the original point, Q4 was lower than any other quarter in 2010. To say that prices went up recently (OP even says "since last quarter" in view of that is wrong.

"Actually, isn't that everyone challenging the medians now? including you?"

swe, I didn't challange YOUR numbers until streeteasy came up with something better. You, however, have repurposed every single number you have posted to fit your agenda since the days of EddieWilson

"You want to change horse midstream, and only look at a fraction of the market now? And only resales? Now *that* would be cherrypicking."

Hey swe, check out the title of the thread. I think it says something about condo prcing. swe chooses to use data that has condos and co-op data in it when answering a question about condos. All while there is an index on this site tailor made for tracking condo prices. Why is that? swe doesn't care about facts, only his agenda.

Juice, the guy's been essentially recycling the same posts for a couple years now. And switching screen names every now and then to keep things "fresh" I guess. It's become more yawn-inducing than anything at this point.

"I think it says something about condo prcing. swe chooses to use data that has condos and co-op data in it when answering a question about "

Nope... try again. First numbers I posted were... condos only.

whoops.

"until streeteasy came up with something better"

It isn't better just because you really, really want it to be.

"Nope... try again. First numbers I posted were... condos only."

here is the post I read from swe

"Here is that calculation in terms of decline from peak (Miller Samuel Median Manhattan, Co-ops + Condos)"

oops!

"It isn't better just because you really, really want it to be."

Tracking re-sales of same units isn't better than measuring overall medians? I don't have to "want it to be" it is just is BETTER. Miller Samuel, streeteasy, Urbandigs, and many others agree this is the best way to track real estate performance. swe would rather use medians. Why? Because he can re-purpose the data to his liking. Sad.

> here is the post I read from swe

Of course, you read the wrong post. I'm sure that wasn't intentional. Here were the first and second responses.

> Manhattan Median - Miller Samuel / All Condos
> 2010 4 997,885
> 2010 3 1,120,000
> Median Manhattan CONDO - Decline since Peak (Miller Samuel data)
> Studios - 25%
> 1 Bedrooms - 18%
> 2 Bedrooms - 27%
> 3 Bedrooms - 42%
> 4+ Bedrooms - 55%
> Overall - 21%

both condos only. But, hey, I'm sure you knew that, and were just playing dumb.

whoops....!

> Tracking re-sales of same units isn't better than measuring overall medians

Conceptually, sure. But you need enough data... and you shouldn't... well... leave out... uh... most of the market.

And, even if you want to go with that data... still double digit down.... just like Juice said would never happen.

Whoops again!

SWE wakes up around 1pm with a perimeter of froth around her mouth. The more positive news she dreams about the more froth. Then she'll look to spread her hate against anything positive on SE while the foam drips on the keyboard. She'll begin to look like the kid from The Shining trying to summon Mr. Halloran. She'll continue spilling her hate, yelling and throwing things until she collapses from mental exhaustion. Where she will sleep it off to begin again the next day......
what a quality human being.

"Conceptually, sure."

Ok, that means I am right.

"But you need enough data"

the streeteasy condo index uses data from January 1, 1995 through August 2010. That's pretty good huh? I'm right again.

"and you shouldn't... well... leave out... uh... most of the market"

but when you are responding to a post about condo performance you probably want to leave out coops (duh). AND it is a pretty good idea to use the streeteasy condo index, read what streeteasy says about leaving out co-ops:

"For the purposes of our index and study, we excluded co-op sales. Condos are real property.
They are tangible and their values are easily measured. In contrast, purchasing a co-op means
purchasing shares in a corporation. Co-ops are jointly owned among all the shareholders and
therefore, the values of individual units are difficult to separate from the value of the entire
corporation. Additionally, the data currently available is much more reliable for condos than it is
for co-ops. It was not until 2006 when the NYC Department of Finance required that co-op sales
disclose the full purchase price. Even still, obtaining unit numbers for co-op units have proven
unreliable and difficult. In terms of market share, condos made up 50.2% of all apartment
closings in Manhattan, while co-ops made up 49.8%, from January 2006 through August 2010."

poor swe, can't maneuver out of this one, looking quite silly once again.

> Ok, that means I am right.

Whatever you want to lie to yourself with to make you feel better, but... no

"But you need enough data"

"the streeteasy condo index uses data from January 1, 1995 through August 2010. That's pretty good huh? I'm right again. "

Nope. 0 for 2.

Wow, you're really bad with this math thing. We're talking about the amount of data per period. Length of time it is stretched out over actually makes it LESS statistiscally significant.

Length of time isn't amount of data points.

That's a horrific math mistake.

> but when you are responding to a post about condo performance you probably want to leave out coops (duh).

Probably why I responded about condos only twice.

whooooops.

""For the purposes of our index and study, we excluded co-op sales. "

Just like I said, missing most of the market.

whoops...

"what a quality human being."

SteveF calls people "c*nt* and "she" as insults... doesn't know math... does't get logic... can't tell double digit down from up, and made the worst investment call of all time on this board.... and then is too dumb to realize that.

Now THAT is quality.

Sorry toots.

and, juice, i love how you just ignored this part...

"And, even if you want to go with that data... still double digit down.... just like Juice said would never happen.
Whoops again! "

even the data you'd like everyone to switch to (after you didn't like what the first set said anymore)... says you are wrong too!

double digit down.... whoops!