Citigroup Is Said to Be Raising Pay for Workers....CNBC

dude you really need to learn before you just parrot cnbc. you display sheer lack of intelligence with every post.

Citi employees haven't had a raise in 2 years. simply catch up

This is to get around the anticipated bonus restrictions due to TARP.

And going from $250K base to $375K base when you used to make a couple million doesn't mean shit. Nice to have but doesn't do anything for the MDs. You're a complete moron if you think this has anything to do with inflation - we're still in deflation mode for another 12-18 months.

(1)wage inflation and (2)declining inventory...2 overpowering, strong overhand rights that KO the bears....through the ropes goes marco....relax duuuuuuuude.

steveF - umm, no. This is the way of the new less sexy world, where talent will be lured in by higher salaries because there will be limitations on bonuses. Trust me, traders and bankers would rather it be like the way it is before. Amazing how people mis interpret the simplest things. Most base salaries are around $120K - $250K with most around $120-$150K, MDs make closer to $250K I believe. Bonuses were way bigger and now major limitations are coming there.

steveF, "wage inflation" is virtually impossible at a time of rising unemployment.

Inventories are not "declining": with the shadow inventory and current absorption rates, there are 5 years' worth of apartments on the market.

You should also not hope for inflation, as during inflationary periods interest rates rise, causing property values to fall. COLA's are a thing of the past.

oh please tell me you didnt say wage inflation

UD, he did! One more fantasy bites the dust.

How is this wage inflation when they are getting back to 2005 numbers?

Is SteveF really this dumb?

Or does he just not read past the first 5 words.
"to offset smaller annual bonuses"

If this is the best RE bull case one can make, I think Manhattan RE is even more screwed than I originally anticipated.

> 2 overpowering, strong overhand rights that KO the bears

The marshalls must be knocking on stevef's door right now with the foreclosure notices. He's positively delirious.

MD salaries are are more like 350-500k now.

right, sorry, was talking about before, when bonuses were handed out in the credit boom years

are they min that high already across the board? Im not sure they are

yes, were raised in May effective April 1 where I work, before then in a few other banks where friends work.

Who cares whether it's salary increases or bonus increases the net result is the same compaensation inflation. There, is that word better for you? Then let's call it COMPENSATION INFLATION. Still means the same thing. More buying power.

I agree with SteveF here.
There is NO way you can spin this and say it's bad for NYC housing.

We all know that the credit hayday big bonus are gone. What would you rather have?

The same pay with small bonus?
or
A 50% increase in base with small bonus?

Also,
It's not just citibank. They're reporting that JPM and BAC are doing the same thing.

BTW, did anyone read about what the 'RECORD BONUS' that goldman sachs will be handing out this year?

from what I here from friends at Citi, any total comp over 650k has to be approved by the new pay czar.

"We all know that the credit hayday big bonus are gone. What would you rather have?
The same pay with small bonus?
or
A 50% increase in base with small bonus?"

InFamous, you make a good point - it's hard to spin this as "bad" news. I do think the "wage inflation" claim was a bit ridiculous though, as that's clearly not the case. Is this good for the real estate market here? Yes. Will it get us back to 06-07 levels? No way. Overall buying power is still much lower than what it was.

"We all know that the credit hayday big bonus are gone. What would you rather have?
The same pay with small bonus?
or
A 50% increase in base with small bonus?"

But I think its a false choice.... its 50% increase with a smaller bonus.

Really depends what the bonus is. Small bonuses on wall street can still be a big chunk of (old) salary.

"Overall buying power is still much lower than what it was."

Bingo. If you raise someone's salary of $125K by 50%, you get a base salary of $189K. That's a BIG raise! Will it cause you to run out and start bidding up $1M 1 BRs in Mahnattan? No. Will you start buying chunks of condos for investment purposes? No. Will anyone give you a mortgage for that $1M property you want to buy? No.

Maybe this new compensation model puts a floor under Manhattan prices eventually, but it's a floor we haven't found yet.

"Hayday"?

Is this Hooterville?

"Who cares whether it's salary increases or bonus increases the net result is the same compaensation inflation."

Correct, except you ignore the biggest part. There IS NO NET INCREASE.

If your "raise" is to offset a lowering of your other comp, your compensation doesn't go up.

If 5+5 becomes 6+1, you calling that an increase is just downright dumb.

""Overall buying power is still much lower than what it was."

Bingo. If you raise someone's salary of $125K by 50%, you get a base salary of $189K. That's a BIG raise! Will it cause you to run out and start bidding up $1M 1 BRs in Mahnattan? No. Will you start buying chunks of condos for investment purposes? No. Will anyone give you a mortgage for that $1M property you want to buy? No."

Only in Steve's world is going from $125 + $700k bonus to $189 + $20k bonus paid in stock and deferred cash 1) a "raise" and 2) a positive change for NYC real estate.

Boy does try awful hard, though.

InFamous, I'm glad you agree and yes I did read about the Goldman bonus. Some thoughts for today...

I don't know how every positive article is spinned away by these renters/bears or whatever they are. I assume they all have the financial capacity to purchase. Then why would they wait to buy? What makes these people ignore obvious positive data rolling in. I bought my last investment, last year in Midtown West/Clinton. I snapped up a property b/c the buyer was moving and had to sell but I was the only one looking! It was a ghost town. So he had to sell to me at a favorable price. Now, i think others are catching on as activity is surging. But, it's amazing how these others(above) don't get it. They just get nasty.

Anyhow, thanks for listening to my talking out loud Infamous. Keep up the good work for us bulls.

After reading steveF's last comment, now I'm SURE it's Hooterville.

I find it hard to believe....these folks would all have been out of work if not for the govt rescue....and now they are getting pay increases while stockholders in the company lost millions and millions...not to mention that many folks at citi contributed to the excessive mortgage approval rates to folks who lost their homes because they couldnt afford the variable rates......pay increases maybe warranted but 30 to 40%???? not sure i buy into this......

The reason you get such a harsh response, SteveF, is because you say the same thing no matter what the data are. You were talking about a 'STAMPEDE' of buyers last October. Now that there's the barest glint of positive news, you act like the party's on again!

By your account, you make fantastic deals left and right and never lose. In the real world, people lose all the time. Why? Because they listen to fools like you.

"Correct, except you ignore the biggest part. There IS NO NET INCREASE."

Well, hold on. Over the majority of 08 compensation (many with low or no bonus), that sure is a net increase.

Hooterville? Steve, you are dating yourself!

"Correct, except you ignore the biggest part. There IS NO NET INCREASE."

I agree, there is no net increase from 2007 levels, but i'm sure there is a net increase from the end of 2008. Most of these banks didn't give out bonuses at the end of 2008. So essentially the pay increase will GUARANTEE THEM bigger income for the coming years from 2008 levels. That's the key...2008 levels.

"The reason you get such a harsh response, SteveF, is because you say the same thing no matter what the data are. You were talking about a 'STAMPEDE' of buyers last October. Now that there's the barest glint of positive news, you act like the party's on again! "

October? The guys has been saying it for almost 1.5 years now.... its still funny.

> "Correct, except you ignore the biggest part. There IS NO NET INCREASE."
> Well, hold on. Over the majority of 08 compensation (many with low or no bonus), that sure is a net
> increase.

Only if you learn math from SteveF.

"The shift means that most Citigroup employees will make as much money as they did in 2008... although some might earn more and others less"

> Now, i think others are catching on as activity is surging.

And Steve wonders why he's the town idiot.

There will be bulls and bears, sure. There will be two sides, sure. There will be "evidence" both ways, sure.

But hyperbole is the refuge of the desparate.

If you think we're in a "surge", wow...

C'mon guys, just like SteveF can't have it both ways, neither can the bears.

Most bears were talking about the disappearance of bonuses in 08 as well as jobs as significant in terms of the effect on the RE market.
If we are now moving into higher comp since then, then surely that has some kind of an effect on the RE market that is not simply to be dismissed? Perhaps even discussed intelligently?

My 2 cents:
In 2002 or thereabouts the NYT did a piece on how wall streeters were persona non grata when it came to buying RE because their bonuses made up such a big part of total comp and this was a period when bonuses were also cut drastically or did not get paid at all. Coop boards in particular were looking for people with higher base and of course reserves.

Today we have the same situation. People reliant on bonuses for the bulk of their comp are not going to make it past boards. Admittedly, base of 350K vs total comp of 1MM is a huge drop but it is better than 200K from 2008.

Will it revice the 1M to 5M market by itself? no but don't forget, some people have equity still. That's how we moved up the ladder and own a place that is worth a lot more than 3X comp because we had significant cash to put down from prior sale. Of course anyone who bought in the last few years won't have the equity but not everyone did.

Divvie,
Might also help with being able to qualify for mortgage? I know some lenders don't take bonus numbers into the equation.

Steve F, you are so incredibly stupid its beyond pitiful. For ALL of these bankers in question, there TOTAL comp, including salary and bonus, will likely BE LOWER. If you made $250k in salary and 750k in bonus in 2008 that = $1MM, while getting $375k in salary and $100k in bonus = getting $475k. This is NOT good. This is LESS money. Why are so stupid?

Here was what the NYT ACTUALLY says:

"The shift means that most Citigroup employees will make as much money as they did in 2008, although some might earn more and others less."

THAT IS NOT WAGE INFALTION YOU FOOL! It just means they will get more salary and less bonus, but the same total amount of money. What is more, cash will be less and restricted stock and options more...which means less money to spend on real estate until that equity vests. Like in 2010, 2011, and 2012.

So. Fricking. Stupid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/business/24citigroup.html?ref=business

I know MDs who get $200K, and others that get $150K, all on the come...

Divvie, I agree with you that higher salaries (and low bonuses) in the financial industry are better than lower salaries (and low bonuses). I also agree with you on the rest of what you said. Unlike SteveF, you don't draw outlandish conclusions about the overall health of the market from a small bit of data. YOu simply take it into account. Fine.

My $.02 on this:

Solid compensation in one sector of the New York economy wasn't what drove NYC prices sky-high (INSANE compensation is what did that), nor will it be enough to sustain them where they are, IMO. The
I-bankers who sell a place for the equity to trade up aren't sustaining high-end prices, they're demanding discounts because their compensation has dropped drastically, they can't make as much going forward and they have to sell their original places at a discount themselves.

In the long-run, overall, real-time compensation is what will determine prices. SteveF was babbling about 'wage inflation' as if it was widespread and happening today. It's not and it isn't. So the rest of his implied point is b.s. too - that there's going to be some kind of feeding frenzy for overpriced NYC real estate because everyone's so flush with cash and ready (and able) to buy.

Once those with 'equity' have bought their $2M places, who's going to replace them? Not the guy who'll make a very-solid $300K a year, and even those guys are a small segment of the market. UD is right - the new standard in compensation will demand that NYC prices come in line. Big bonuses, real estate investors, foreign buyers, soft lending standards, etc., etc. - none of these will be in play anymore, not for a long time.

SteveF is getting INSANE deals in Hell's Kitchen? Great. He's just set comps lower for the next set of buyers. Not sure how that translates into springtime (again) for Manhattan real estate.

"Most bears were talking about the disappearance of bonuses in 08 as well as jobs as significant in terms of the effect on the RE market.
If we are now moving into higher comp since then, then surely that has some kind of an effect on the RE market that is not simply to be dismissed? Perhaps even discussed intelligently?"

Only if you call a smaller decrease "higher". Even in the best case articles (like this one), they're still saying 2005 levels. We're still talking down from peak.

Its parallel to SteveF's mistake in sales.

If we're down 90% and now we're down 75%, yes, its relatively better.

But its still down, and still a negative effect on prices.

"Here was what the NYT ACTUALLY says:

"The shift means that most Citigroup employees will make as much money as they did in 2008, although some might earn more and others less."

THAT IS NOT WAGE INFALTION YOU FOOL! It just means they will get more salary and less bonus, but the same total amount of money. What is more, cash will be less and restricted stock and options more...which means less money to spend on real estate until that equity vests. Like in 2010, 2011, and 2012.

So. Fricking. Stupid."

Unfortunately, this time he managed to get 2 different folks to believe him. Granted, they were folks of his "persuasion" to begin with.

I should add that I don't see 'overall compensation' going up. It may be going up in parts of the financial industry, I can't say, but that's not the trend in any other part of the NY economy (or the US economy). I work in law, and compensation for attorneys is stagnant, actually going backwards in some cases. That is if attorneys can keep their jobs.

The picture in THIS sector is ugly. No one's hiring, everyone's plugging financial holes hoping the world economy will come back full-tilt in a year or less. Guess we'll see ...

And, Divvie, you seem to imply that jobs are coming back. Do you really believe that, in the aggregate, employment in NYC is going up?

The bears ANXIETY builds as does the NASTINESS of their comments. All you people calling me dumb, stupid and an idiot. Well if I was all that then you would ignore the hell out of me. But you don't, b/c I stir those real estate fears that you try to keep dormant. So you lash out with anger & frustration. S-cks for you.

Deflect much, Steve? Any time SteveF accuses someone of something, it seems pretty clear to me its because he's knows he's gulity of the same.

He's talking about bear anxiety? This is the the guy who admitted he's shitting his pants because he leveraged himself too far in. I can speak for everyone, but I feel pretty relaxed these days. Prices still declining, and yet I get a nice stock bump. If I was anxious, I'd be calling brokers.

In terms of the nastiness, I think that just builds with continued stupidity. They'll humor it for a while, but folks generally lose patience with repetitive stupidity.

SteveF has told us pretty much each month for 15 months that this is the month of the stampede. He bought when he should't have, and now he's trying to fix that by getting others to buy.

And he'll do it my intentional misleading.

Seriously, if the guy had an actual argument, why would he need to do selective reading, change his story, etc?

I'm surprised he thinks he's fooling anyone

It was funny for a while, then lame, then stupid, now just pathetic. That he thinks the response vindicates him might be the saddest part of all.

nyc10022....

nyc10022....ahh forget it, why am I wasting my time on you. see ya.

Anyone catch Jeff Bernstein's comments on this at Urban Digs?

"Net net, it seems to me that overall compensation is clearly going down."

http://www.urbandigs.com/2009/06/wall_street_salaries_rising.html

"I should add that I don't see 'overall compensation' going up. It may be going up in parts of the financial industry, I can't say, but that's not the trend in any other part of the NY economy (or the US economy). I work in law, and compensation for attorneys is stagnant, actually going backwards in some cases. That is if attorneys can keep their jobs."

I think that's fair, and in line with what I'm seeing in my sector. I don't think anyone except the OP believes that this means everyone's going out and buying $5m apartments again. steveF, I will agree that some posters feel the need to be unnecessarily nasty towards you, so I actually buy that your words are disturbing them, though I don't really understand how.

"If I was anxious, I'd be calling brokers.
In terms of the nastiness, I think that just builds with continued stupidity. They'll humor it for a while, but folks generally lose patience with repetitive stupidity.
SteveF has told us pretty much each month for 15 months that this is the month of the stampede. He bought when he should't have, and now he's trying to fix that by getting others to buy."

I think some people get nasty when they feel their agenda is being undermined, and yes, this works both ways. There are people on here who feel they should/will never buy.

divvie, i think it's the move-up market that will take everything down. i think that those who have had, unless unemployed, will continue to have. i think that those who have had quite a bit, but not as much, will have a lot less. i think that the number of people who have, even a lot less, will be a lot less.

your md who bought a $1.5m apartment three years ago and now would like to move to the $3.0 apartment needs to find a buyer for the current apartment. it's going to be a bitch. so it's not just the bonuses, it's the hiring patterns, the total number of employed and yes, the bonus vs. salary structure. i personally think that a higher amount paid in salary is a much healthier situation, but it doesn't mean that the rest, or even any in some cases, of the money will be coming in bonuses. And it probably isn't going to do much to goose this market. Although it may help a few younger people buy for the first time.

What about the record bonus to be expected from Goldman Sachs?????

where am I? Why am I naked on the Appalachian trail with camping gear? What just happened to me?

NYC11109... yep it was the 20K investment bankers and their "deserved" bonuses of the last 10 years that pumped up NYC RE.... yep they are gonna spend every stinking red cent to bail out the ENTIRE NYC RE... yep... it's gonna happen... just pull your listings and wait for April 10'... yep.... don't think...... not gonna do it... nope... no thinking involved... one data pointz is allz I needz.... just one... just one....

you know, i'm fucking pissed off. i have no issues with banks making money, but the fact that they nearly took down our economy, and now are making HUGE profits off of government subsidized money (target rate), refis and mortgages, and debt issuance, all paid for by the taxpayer, it seems to me as if the shitheads that fucked up so badly ought to be required to sell government debt without any reward.

rant off.

rant ON!

"nyc10022....
nyc10022....ahh forget it, why am I wasting my time on you. see ya. "

Why? You have no problem wasting your time with anybody else?

You think you've suckered anyone?

> What about the record bonus to be expected from Goldman Sachs?????

Say the highest predicted bonuses actually come true. Say we actually get all the numbers that the most imaginative bulls are putting together.

1) $$$ are concentrated on fewer people. Taking one guy from $10 to $15 mil isn't going to have nearly the same effect as losing 10 people at $500k each. Total employment numbers are down

2) You can't keep conveniently ignoring the fact that bonuses will not be paid in the same way. Even the most unbeat articles not the shift to LESS CASH. Not only have bonuses shifted to more stock (beginning with a couple years ago), but you now have companies spreading payments over years.

So even the "wildest dreams" scenarios - which assume that the intentionally propped up first half continues - still are problematic for RE investment.

"I think some people get nasty when they feel their agenda is being undermined, and yes, this works both ways. There are people on here who feel they should/will never buy."

There might be a few... but its a false comparison to be making.

The majority of folks you are inferring this about would consider buying / have bought / plan to buy eventually.

Taking an "always buy" person like perfitz or steveF and saying they're just the inverse of the "never buy" crowd is, well, a strawman argument... when the folks you're actually talking to have noted that it is sometimes time to buy.

"The majority of folks you are inferring this about would consider buying / have bought / plan to buy eventually."

and, btw, I'm just basing that on what these folks have said.... me included, steveF, etc. If you want to indentify folks who have said "never buy", I'd be curious to hear who you are talking about.

Everyone seems to be focussing on if this is good or bad for the $5M condo market. I think we're overlooking most Wall St employees -- they're VP's or lower. Those in tech, operations, back office are also getting a shift towards higher base and lower bonus. They aren't masters of the universe, but they are the couples who bought generic 2/2's in UES East of Lex, Lincoln Towers, or FiDi. A change from 150 base, 100 bonuse to 200 base (less than 50% for some of them) and a small bonus will make them more appealing to mortgage lenders and co-op boards. Wouldn't that give us a floor for the lower end of the market?

MeMe, think about your numbers. And then compare them historically. Then try to imagine what it used to be like to buy in NYC when people could kind of afford it (i.e., 8-10 years ago).

I'm looking at what you're looking at, the people necessary to allow others to move up. when those who want to move up paid $900k for a two bed at the St. Tropez that used to cost $450k in 1999, and young people don't have a huge amount of money (or are smart enough not to listen to the hype), what do you think happens to that price?

Forget about Wage inflation, if the wage deflation is over won't this have a positive effect on housing going forward? The larger monthly take home is going to appeal to a lot of people. With prices being down 15-30% from the peak, i can't see why these potential buyers will continue to hold off on purchasing.

you must be joking. wage delfation is HUGE and continuing.

JKB and AR, thank you for your considered responses to my post. Very good points, very well made.

nyc10022, you could learn a thing or two from them.

that's bad news for Wall Street

here goes my bonus

instead of 200K plus multiples of it in form of bonus I am getting just

300K plus most likely not even 1x bonus

PS wage inflation? Are you kidding me ???

"A change from 150 base, 100 bonuse to 200 base (less than 50% for some of them) and a small bonus will make them more appealing to mortgage lenders and co-op boards"

1) Only if they still have the actual job. Remember the wall street employment numbers.

2) And, it might make them easier to get approvals, but I'm not sure how you're overlooking someone whose comp just went from $250k to $205. Regardless of what they get approved for, now they can afford less. That might actually matter these days. And that 'aint going to help RE.

If this is the floor, the floor just got poorer.

Not to mention, I think there is (was) a floor below wall street. I know folks in law firms, media, with not wall street standard but can-afford-to-buy salaries (say at least $100k, and they could get into $400-500k apartments). That bunch also got wacked. Layoffs in both places, incoming classes are fractions of what they were, and they make less now.

"Taking an "always buy" person like perfitz or steveF and saying they're just the inverse of the "never buy" crowd is, well, a strawman argument... when the folks you're actually talking to have noted that it is sometimes time to buy."

How is that a strawman? People in both cases can and have gotten nasty here; I don't see how that's a problematic comparison. I assume most people here would buy at some point, but I do not think you're one of them, which leads one to wonder what exactly you're aiming to get out of this site.

> How is that a strawman? People in both cases can and have gotten nasty here

Fairly simple... because you're arguing against a point that wasn't made by the people you are arguing with (and trying to use it against).

> I assume most people here would buy at some point, but I do not think you're one of them, which
> leads one to wonder what exactly you're aiming to get out of this site.

Wow, you really like making a habit out of this.

Take something I didn't say, and then start arguing against it.

Well done...at least you're consistent.

"I assume most people here would buy at some point, but I do not think you're one of them, which leads one to wonder what exactly you're aiming to get out of this site."

Also, if we follow your logic, that would mean anyone who bought and claims to be happy with it shouldn't really be here either (outside of say questions on maintenance).

Of course, here you are, every day.

nyc10022, I'm not "overlooking someone whose comp just went from $250k to $205." Prices are already down since that person took home 200k. I'm just wondering if these types of buyers would be more likely to get in and thus create a floor at these levels or a little lower-- I'm not suggesting bubble prices are coming back. Many co-op boards would have considered the old comp $150 not counting the bonus. The bonuses were helpful in building up the required downpayment but ignored in the debt ratio calcs.

Why does everything have to be all or nothing?

I look at this as good news and bad news.

The good: This does guarantee a certain level of compensation for a number of people. Some will make more than 2008. With a higher base salary they will be able to qualify for mortgages and pass co-op boards. This seems to help the $2 million (roughly) and under RE market. This helps firms keep talent, which helps them make money and this helps the stockhodlers.

The bad: The astronomical bonuses are likely gone for the people at the TARP firms for the time-being. Soem will make less than in 2008. This doesn't seem to do anything at all to help the $2 million+ RE market. This is only happening because the economy is a complete and total shit-show.

Overall, I think this is a small plus for the RE market in the sense that the compensation concerns were looked upon as killing the market and this will help a little bit. It certainly doesn't mark the end of the downward trend at all, but it is a bit of good news and we could certainly use some of that...even if it doesn't markedly change things either way.

Just my $.02.

Sorry, I thought you were using it as prices up logic. My mistake.

It is an interesting question. Base can't hurt qualification, but will be interesting to see how everything offsets in that case. Lets also not forget that those folks may be seen as less stable now simply because they work on wall street.

Though I think we agree that they probably look better than they did a few months ago, but still worse than they did last year. And even if that is all it is, I think thats still a continued downward pressure toward equilibrium.

(got post jumped, the apology was to meme).

Waverly, I agree its a mixed bag of stuff here. But, in response to anyone saying "we are saved, by re now" to this news, the logical argument is going to show the flaw by demonstrated the downside.

At best, yes, its mixed. At best, steveF is only a little off his rocker.

"Fairly simple... because you're arguing against a point that wasn't made by the people you are arguing with (and trying to use it against)."

Who am I arguing with (except now, apparently, you)? I made an observation, not a direct refusal of what you were claiming. Chill out, curmudgeon.

"Wow, you really like making a habit out of this.
Take something I didn't say, and then start arguing against it."

Uh, no. I said I don't think you're one of them, that's all. It's based on your narrow-mindedness and my recalling your saying that no matter the timeline, you'd still favor renting.

"Also, if we follow your logic, that would mean anyone who bought and claims to be happy with it shouldn't really be here either (outside of say questions on maintenance)."

Except I've never said I'm not interested in buying again (and I am). Huge difference, sorry.

"Who am I arguing with (except now, apparently, you)? I made an observation, not a direct refusal of what you were claiming. Chill out, curmudgeon."

Dude, you throw out accusations of people being nasty, and then pretend it was just an observation?

Nice backtrack.

"Uh, no. I said I don't think you're one of them, that's all. It's based on your narrow-mindedness and my recalling your saying that no matter the timeline, you'd still favor renting."

You can guess whatever you want of me, but you're still arguing against something I never said.

As I said, at least you're consistent!

"Except I've never said I'm not interested in buying again (and I am)."

Wait, 3 seconds after you complained about me responding to something you claimed to have said generically, here you are doing exactly what you accused me of.

I've got to give it to you, bjw... at least you're 100% consistent in your hypocrisy (a contradiction of terms, but I guess you make it work!)

No, people were being nasty on this very thread, but I was generalizing about why it happens.

"You can guess whatever you want of me, but you're still arguing against something I never said."

Found the thread: http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/12073-3br-uws-or-ues-rent-or-buy
Like I said, I don't know if that definitively means you'll always rent, but you can understand why it sounds that way.

"Overall, I think this is a small plus for the RE market in the sense that the compensation concerns were looked upon as killing the market and this will help a little bit. It certainly doesn't mark the end of the downward trend at all, but it is a bit of good news and we could certainly use some of that...even if it doesn't markedly change things either way."

Bingo. Really well-explained.

"But, in response to anyone saying "we are saved, by re now" to this news, the logical argument is going to show the flaw by demonstrated the downside."

Really? You go on and on about strawmen, but show me where anyone remotely credible here said "we are saved." Amazing.

Where's the Pay Czar? Isn't he going to stop Citi from raising salaries?

Amazing how you'll do the research, and then conveniently leave out all the ones where I said I would buy.

Also, you simply don't understand the post I linked to. I'm not sure how you completely missed the point. I was talking horizon.

> If your timelines is less than 100 years, I would rent. OK, if more than 100, I'd still probably rent.

I'm specifically talking about how buying at the wrong time won't correct itself with a long time horizon. And I then exaggerate that to 100 years.

Thats NOT a "never buy". Its the opposite. Its a "don't buy NOW, even if you can wait it out"

If you're going to do the research, do it correctly.

I've said several times that I'd been looking at a timeframe of buying in the next couple of years.

But you knew that.

http://lolfed.com/wp-content/uploads/pay-czar.jpg

"I've said several times that I'd been looking at a timeframe of buying in the next couple of years.
But you knew that."

Honestly did not, but thanks for explaining. I do still wonder about stevejhx though...

Steve already bought, remember? Not quite in Manhattan, but in the metro. So that makes 2.

in the final analysis Citibank will/must be broken up into different activities and investment banking will become an independent partnership-style company with NO ownership by the new Citibank. Same model should be forced on all other banks - banks have to become boring as utilities. Any trading activity should be done by specialized entities - again set-up as a partnership.

Everything else is just waiting for another disaster.

Agreed... and its already on the way.

Smith Barney just officially became Morgan Stanley SB, about 2 weeks ago.

And I'm sure there is more where that comes from.

"JKB and AR, thank you for your considered responses to my post. Very good points, very well made."

Thanks Divvie, we aims to be civil.

"IMHO.....Sounds like the beginnings of the inevitable inflation. Record amounts of money supply will spike inflation by early 2010."

BTW, anyone catch the fed announcement. That whole "uh, yeah, there is no inflation" thing?

And, Steve, you haven't mentioned the dow either this week. Why? I'm curious...

"BTW, anyone catch the fed announcement. That whole "uh, yeah, there is no inflation" thing?"

I did not. But I did catch the fed's announcement 2 years ago... you know, the "uh, yeah, subprime is contained" thing.

What I love is how you believed them then, but when it doesn't work for you, you flip the other way.

"Steve already bought, remember? Not quite in Manhattan, but in the metro. So that makes 2."

What was it, years ago, in Fire Island? And he sold it, no? The contention is that he won't ever buy again unless it's significantly cheaper than renting. And even then...

"you haven't mentioned the dow either this week. Why? I'm curious..."

I haven't mentioned it in a long time. Why are you curious?

I have already owned in Manhattan - bought in 1998, at the nadir.

i think they meant SteveF. Deflation will negate any inflation and the fed printing is filling a void on banks balance sheets that was a huge destruction of wealth/credit market to market. The void is bigger than the printing. Picture a hole in the ground that the fed is pouring its newly printed dollars into. Its not being lent, its sitting idle in excess reserves. Multiplier has plunged as credit has contracted and lending contracted. Thats not inflationary.

"Where's the Pay Czar? Isn't he going to stop Citi from raising salaries?"

Only the top 100 employees.

I will repeat this:

Here was what the NYT ACTUALLY says:

"The shift means that most Citigroup employees will make as much money as they did in 2008, although some might earn more and others less."

THAT IS NOT WAGE INFALTION YOU FOOL! It just means they will get more salary and less bonus, but the same total amount of money. What is more, cash will be less and restricted stock and options more...which means less money to spend on real estate until that equity vests. Like in 2010, 2011, and 2012.

So. Fricking. Stupid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/business/24citigroup.html?ref=business

I do agree there isn't wage inflation 'yet' in NYC.

The link you posted is about Citigroup, but what about Goldman Sachs? I assume record bonus payouts would mean higher overall wages? So, in Citigroup there is no indication of wage inflation, but in Goldman Sachs there is.......what's your point?

> "you haven't mentioned the dow either this week. Why? I'm curious..."
> I haven't mentioned it in a long time. Why are you curious?

Other Steve, sorry.

> What was it, years ago, in Fire Island? And he sold it, no? The contention is that
> he won't ever buy again unless it's significantly cheaper than renting. And even then...

... even then, still a very far cry from "never buy". If bought once and might buy again is all we can find...

"If bought once and might buy again is all we can find..."

Actually, I thought about that for a sec... isn't that you, too, bjw?

"The link you posted is about Citigroup, but what about Goldman Sachs? I assume record bonus payouts would mean higher overall wages? So, in Citigroup there is no indication of wage inflation, but in Goldman Sachs there is.......what's your point?"

You are an imbecile. That was ONE story in one newspaper picked up by a million bloggers.

Meanwhile: Goldman Sachs denies reports it will pay out huge bonuses; Lloyd Blankfein: pay reflects performance

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/06/22/2009-06-22_financial_firm_goldman_sachs_to_pay_out_biggest_bonuses_in_its_140year_history.html

"Actually, I thought about that for a sec... isn't that you, too, bjw?"

I'm quite sure I'll buy again someday. Where or when I have little idea, but I'm not nearly old enough to start thinking I'll be leaving my current place feet first.