Best And Worst Cities To Buy A Home Now

Sound advice. Lock-in your losses now.

Sell now and rent forever.

"Lock-in your losses now."

Or:

ride_the_wave_all_the_way_to_the_bottom.dot.com.

plenty of people rent forever. nothing necessarily wrong with it as a lifestyle decision, it has its pros and cons just like purchasing.

but if one decides to purchase, might as well do it when rents are a bit better aligned with purchase prices, and when the affordability indices show that prices are a bit more rational, particularly during a period of severe credit restriction where even buyers who would normally qualify can't.

Well and rationally put, aboutready!

steve, there used to be an excel spreadsheet the NAHB used to track and put out that recorded affordability data by region over a number of years. I think NY/WP/W area fell to about 5% at the peak, which is just nuts. But i haven't been able to find that data in a while. Maybe with things as bad as they are, they just decided to take it down.

Massive price reductions in the next 6-9 months is my prediction as the market remains stalled, new developments come on line, rents continue to fall, and only one bank is making money.

Then there's health care: it is the single largest industry in NYC, vastly overpaid and inefficient. That's the next shoe to drop.

Seems to me that health care is the crown jewel of New York.

I think doctors are appropriately well paid.

steve, i very much agree that health care will be hit. others disagree. one in three people in their 20s don't have health insurance, despite carriers being compelled to keep dependents on their parents' coverage until they are 25. with un and underemployment at these levels, the number of uninsured must be skyrocketing, and many states are about to run out of money for extended health insurance benefits for the unemployed (i don't know about NY). but many employers also are cutting hours and forcing employees into part-time work and eliminating benefits. may improve a company's bottom line (profits CAN rise despite a drop in sales), but it will have a great impact on the health care industry.

"I think doctors are appropriately well paid."

Doctors are paid for each service they provide, giving them a vast incentive to provide too many services. Patients pay a fixed price for an unlimited supply of medical care. Therefore, under the current system supply and demand are artificially increased to infinity.

No other health care system in the world works like that. Look at what Massachusetts is doing - that is the future. You will have a single payer (the government) which will provide all basic health care services, and people will have the option to top that care off with a private policy. That's how it works (effectively) everywhere where they get similar results to ours for half the price.

This is just the first step. What value do health insurance companies add?

None, but they're paid mightily for it. Just like the government's student loan subsidies that are going away: the health care industry is about to shrink drastically.

And despite the inefficient system, most doctors, particularly the younger ones, are not relatively well paid, outside of certain areas and with the exception of doctors who have the reputation to enable them to fill their schedules with private-paying patients.

And there are relatively few GP's because they're paid much less to perform the same services as specialists. And the uninsured and underinsured are actually insured through emergency rooms and personal bankruptcy.

Health insurance companies add zero value beyond shuffling paper. The way the system will come to work is the way it works everywhere else: a patient chooses a primary-care physician who has a per-capita budget and a salary. Physicians will be required to see a certain number of government patients per day. After that, they can take higher-paying private patients who want to pay to jump the queue.

If not, we'll wind up with a country full of plastic surgeons.

And a beautiful America it will be.

Something's wrong with Health care costs. We received a $3,250 invoice for my wife's Epidural at the Hospital. It's a $3,250 for a single injection. Doctors are great in NY, but every single associated Health cost is ridiculously expensive and not justified for the most part!

stevejxh, I feel sorry for you. Instead of taking advantage of distressed sellers, you will just wait this one out - again - until the market turns higher (which I am not saying is imminent) and you missed your chance again. I just got a very nice retention package from a bank. I am back to 2007 bonus levels but meanwhile you keep saying the same old over and over again w.o realizing that things are changing.

Is anyone aware of any study on total legal spending per capita. US has to be one of the highest, and therein lies a big problem for why the health care system is the way it is.
All the special interest groups are too entrenched, especially in the democratic party. I wouldn't hold my breath for any meaningful change that would bring down the overall healthcare spending.

"I just got a very nice retention package from a bank."

Good for you! It must feel warm and fuzzy to be loved!

Yeah, iamlooking, the special interest groups in D.C. really steer clear of the Republican party. It is one of the strengths of the Reps that they don't deal with special interest groups. Well, aside from the gun vote being taken up by the Senate now. Or the fighter jet funding. Or ... wait. Maybe BOTH parties are lobbied by special interest groups, huh? Cherry-picking issues to say spec. int. groups lobby one party more than another is to miss the larger picture which is there is lobbying on every single issue and both parties are in bed with everyone in the end. Let's not stake out any moral highground for anyone in D.C. Please.

Those who believe there will be a perfect time to buy could end up disappointed. Once rents grudgingly align with purchase prices -or vise versa- where will we be with respect to inflation? Will prices then be misaligned relative to borrowing costs? If so, how long after that will it take for prices realign with borrowing costs? Will there ever be perfect equilibrium and balance in such a dynamic market? And what if equilibrium is achieved? Won't it be that everyone will be out buying, competing for limited prime spaces and pumping up the bubble again?

As Buffet said to Buffet: "Its like trying to reason in hurricane season."

To which Buffet replied: "Be fearful when people are greedy, be greedy when people are fearful."

I've never been more miserable in my life as I have been this past year as a renter. For me and my family quality of life issues far outweigh where the RE market will be in one or two or three years from now. I think we bought smart at 17% below a 2005 comp and carrying costs that are almost 40% lower than our rental. Time will tell.

Yea..like Hong Kong, London, Tokyo and Moscow..prices will crash to affordability.

"carrying costs that are almost 40% lower than our rental."

Why don't you give us the deets on that impossible claim?

"plenty of people rent forever. nothing necessarily wrong with it as a lifestyle decision, it has its pros and cons just like purchasing."

If rent and total mortgage + tax payment is fairly equal..over the course of 30 years, the renter will lose out big times. Even if prices to own are down 25-30% from entry point. No?

kyle, I am not suggesting that republicans are not in the pockets of special interest groups. Both parties are to blame for the current mess. But the comment was on the legal costs. All i was saying was just because dems are in control, doesnt mean they will fix the system. BTW, According to the Economist, Dec. 17, 2005 “about $250 billion is spent on legal services world-wide, about two-thirds of it in America.”

Work backwards from 40% using any figures you like. Its not impossible.

"the renter will lose out big times"

No. The result will be approximately the same, adjusted for risk and adding in transaction, opportunity, & other costs.

iamlooking, obviously i am biased because my husband is an attorney, but those numbers are skewed. a disproportionate amount of worldwide legal claims occur in the US because US companies have an advantage in business relationships. Thus the vast majority of my husband's work is for foreign clients involved in lawsuits in the US and even abroad (does international arbitration as well) and those legal fees are counted as accrued in the US.

aboutready, if your husband works for one of the major firms he's probably indirectly worked with me (through an agency): international litigation is 99% of my work, as well!

Getting people healthcare coverage is just a piece of actually fixing healthcare in this country. You also have to straighten out the pharmaceutical companies (kickbacks, "ask your doctor for this drug, etc) and also reign in the costs for procedures. Too many doctors just going through the motions for a co-pay.

Just for fun, the next time you are in Europe, go ask a doctor if he/she can help you out with your Restless Leg Syndrome and see what their reaction is. RLS....are you kidding me? Totally made-up. No doctor outside of the US has EVER heard of RLS.

In my family it was called the "willies": my grandmother couldn't stop shaking her leg. Maybe it was the 10 cups of coffee & 2 packs of cigarettes per day?

spinnaker, why don't you just provide figures, address and stuff or stop claiming that you bought at 17% below 2005 (not impossible BTW) and that THAT is 40% below what would cost you to rent a similar apt. (or even the same, uh?) We have no desire to IMAGINE your circumstances but rather to see if your factual claims have any basis or if you're rather a recent buyer full of doubt or remorse who has just gotten down to realtwhore quality arguments?

Steve - very funny! I love coffee as much as anyone, but 10 cups? I wouldn't be able to focus on anything.

If only you had known my grandmother! She was a hoot! Beat up a nun and a monk once. Not simultaneously, but she could have done that, too.

I think it was Kramer who called it "Jimmy Legs"

Tromp - I'm not here to win you over. I have neither doubt, nor remorse. Provide an address on an anonymous board full of nut cases? Are you serious?

Then just give us the deets of your rental, where you no longer live.

"Look at what Massachusetts is doing - that is the future. You will have a single payer (the government) which will provide all basic health care services, and people will have the option to top that care off with a private policy. That's how it works (effectively) everywhere where they get similar results to ours for half the price.
This is just the first step. What value do health insurance companies add?
None, but they're paid mightily for it. Just like the government's student loan subsidies that are going away: the health care industry is about to shrink drastically."

You keep saying this, but there's little evidence for it. First, as much as I support what Massachusetts is doing, it's facing bankruptcy and recently made some changes as to whom it covers. It's not proven to be a model for success just yet. Second, as I've said before, not every country has a single-payer system (France, Switzerland, Netherlands, to name a few), and many that do are wrought with problems just as our system is. Lastly, there is value in health insurance companies, especially those that can bring innovative and genuinely useful products to a competitive marketplace, something that government, by itself, cannot do as easily. It's not just about pushing paper. That said, I think a whole lot of reform is needed still.

stevejxh, yes, I feel good about my job. My point is that you keep repeating and repeating the same lines over and over again but don't even know what's going on with bankers. I feel you will post the same comments in 20 years and still be a renter. Feel sorry for you.

"it's facing bankruptcy and recently made some changes as to whom it covers."

Yeah, excluding legal aliens, which will be struck down as unconstitutional.

What is is doing is moving away from the pay-for-service model to the capitation payment model that I described.

You're wrong about France - it has a single payer system:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/11/frances_model_healthcare_system/

that is the "government option." In practice, there is little difference between the British Health Service (which I have access to b/c I lived there) and the French system. As the article says, "Private health insurers are also central to the system as supplemental insurers who cover patient expenses that are not paid for by Sécurité Sociale. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of the French population possesses such coverage, making France home to a booming private health insurance market."

The Dutch system is virtually single-payer:

"Insurance companies must offer a core universal insurance package for the universal primary, curative care which includes the cost of all prescription medicines. They must do this at a fixed price for all. The same premium is paid whether young or old, healthy or sick. It is illegal in The Netherlands for insurers to refuse an application for health insurance, to impose special conditions (e.g. exclusions, deductables, co-pays etc or refuse to fund treatments which a doctor has determined to be medically necessary). The system is 50% financed from payroll taxes paid by employers to a fund controlled by the Health regulator. The government contributes an additional 5% to the regulator's fund. The remaining 45% is collected as premiums paid by the insured directly to the insurance company."

The Swiss system is similar. In all cases, however, the care is as good or better, at half the cost, and is based on capitation payments.

"You're wrong about France - it has a single payer system:"

Steve, you're actually talking to French citizen here (not to mention someone with an MPH), so I'll you again - you're wrong. Indeed, look at the very quotation you pulled: "making France home to a booming private health insurance market." The Netherlands' system is much more similar to ours (and especially the version Hillary wanted and now Obama may want): about 60-65% government-funded, with mandatory primary care through private insurance companies. The Swiss system is even more like ours in the way they set premiums and the like. I think that's where we'll end up. Here's more reading if you doubt this: http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13899647

I do agree that fee-for-service needs to go, and we'll have to ram capitation down people's throats, even though it failed pretty hard the first time. It will take much longer than you think to get there though.

"The NAHB's Housing Opportunity Index reports that only 14 percent of homes in the New York-White Plains-Wayne area"

A collapse in Wayne and White Plains NY will be an apocalypse for us all.

"you're actually talking to French citizen here (not to mention someone with an MPH), so I'll you again - you're wrong"

Social Securite is mandatory, no? It covers basic health care and the government pays for it, no? The additional insurance is to top off government insurance, no?

That is the same system the UK has and Spain has, with slight differences. What NONE of them has is fee-for service.

Oh JuiceMan - STOP! You think Manhattan is so special, completely unrelated to the rest of the world and isolated from the effects of free-market economics.

Fine. You and LICC be the only two people left in the world who think that. Leave everyone else alone!

You STOP! steve. There is nothing new in these articles and certainly nothing that would tell me that things are any worse than they have been. I know you enjoy watered down journalism that isn't based in reality, but the over anxious tone on silly matters is a tired act.

Bulls tired of bad news. So surprising.

"That's how it works (effectively) everywhere where they get similar results to ours for half the price."

In terms of healthcare costs.... UK % of GDP spent on healthcare jumped to 9.4% in 2006.... bringing it near France and the rest of Europe, which a bunch in double digits.

And that was 2006. With spending up, and GDP down.... I'm scared to think of what those numbers are now.

If thats "success", they can keep it.

Too bad we don't get to try and actual free market. You know one in which a doctor can come up with a great idea like just charge you a monthly fee to keep you healthy. (people loved it, but the insurance industry sued and he had to stop). Or one where you can open a clinic to provide services cheaper (the nearby hospital lobbied to block it from ever opening because the competition would hurt them - yes, thats what they actually said). These were both in Crain's in the last few months.

Unfortunately, the socialized medicine fans socialized medicine and then said "look, see, free market doesn't work", even though the failings were their own doing.

"Bulls tired of bad news. So surprising."

This isn't bad news, its old news that you guys like to continue to post and treat as new. What would you say the new information in these articles nyc10022? Tell us all where the big beefy news is here won't you please?

"I know you enjoy watered down journalism that isn't based in reality"

Actually, I don't enjoy your posts at all anymore, JuiceMan. We should go back through the past and look at how well your real estate predictions have come true so far.

Show me where you have evidence that what happens in the housing market in White Plains or Wayne is unrelated to what happens here. I think there is no such evidence.

"Social Securite is mandatory, no? It covers basic health care and the government pays for it, no? The additional insurance is to top off government insurance, no?"

Yes, and it's continuing to expand. How is that single-payer? They're actually moving in the opposite direction. You're right, we need mandatory insurance for basic and preventive care and less fee-for-service, but we don't need (and mostly don't want) single-payer. I will say that people who throw around the "socialized medicine" bs usually have even less of a clue.

"Show me where you have evidence that what happens in the housing market in White Plains or Wayne is unrelated to what happens here. I think there is no such evidence."

Show me where you have evidence that what happens in the housing market in White Plains or Wayne is related to what happens here. I think there is no such evidence.

"This isn't bad news, its old news that you guys like to continue to post and treat as new. What would you say the new information in these articles nyc10022? Tell us all where the big beefy news is here won't you please?"

A new calcultion of price targets going below 2004 prices, which you are on record saying would never happen. Given that you still haven't taken that one back, it must clearly be beefy news to you.

Or are you going to be taking that back?

"A new calcultion of price targets going below 2004 prices, which you are on record saying would never happen."

I must have missed that nyc10022, where was that little tidbit?

What do you think the whole cap rate analysis points at? DO you need a class to know what that means?

"Show me where you have evidence that what happens in the housing market in White Plains or Wayne is related to what happens here. I think there is no such evidence."

Actually, JuiceMan, Manhattan is worse:

White Plains, NY
Average Listing Price $610,405 -3.3% w-o-w
Median Sales Price $500,000 -0.1% y-o-y
Average price/sqft $265 -14% y-o-y
Number of Sales 19 -71.2% y-o-y

New York, NY
Average Listing Price $2,010,718 -0.5% w-o-w
Median Sales Price $992,000 -19.4% y-o-y
Average price/sqft $1,132 -44.7% y-o-y
Number of Sales 588 -38.7% y-o-y

Wayne, NJ
Average Listing Price $531,620 +1.1% w-o-w
Median Sales Price $380,000 -18.2% y-o-y
Average price/sqft $218 -20.4% y-o-y
Number of Sales 101 +1% y-o-y

trulia.com

NOW WILL YOU SHUT UP PLEASE?!

> Average price/sqft $1,132 -44.7% y-o-y

Steve, where is that from?

That's crazy huge.

sorry, just saw trulia url...

Juiceman = realtor? or why the stubborness. just accept the article as is. It's not a good time to buy currently in Manhattan. because price/earning ratio doesn't make sense right now. period. That's all it is saying. I'm looking to buy, but I'm not going to buy at current prices.. unless I can get 10-20% discount from where the sales are now..I'm hopeful I can find such place in the next 3month to year and a half. so I'm a proponent of buying (but ONLY for the right price though).

"What do you think the whole cap rate analysis points at? DO you need a class to know what that means?"

Oh I see, you are implying that the cap rates for the upper east side and Wall Street are predictive of 2004 prices for Manhattan. That is definitely not news because it is fabricated nonsense.
DO you need a class to know what that means?

"New York, NY
Average Listing Price $2,010,718 -0.5% w-o-w
Median Sales Price $992,000 -19.4% y-o-y
Average price/sqft $1,132 -44.7% y-o-y
Number of Sales 588 -38.7% y-o-y"

Don't know where you get your data from steve but Manhattan average list price is not $2M (that would be an ~100% INCREASE) and an average price/sqft at $1,132 is not a 44% drop. It was $1,169 when I checked 18 months ago. You only get to ask me to shut up if you aren't pulling data out of your kafka. What the hell is wrong with your data?

"What the hell is wrong with your data?"

Nothing. It's from trulia.com, precisely as I posted. Sorry you don't like it, but them's the data.

"Nothing. It's from trulia.com, precisely as I posted. Sorry you don't like it, but them's the data."

That's right steve, you are wrong again and if you got that data from trulia, then they are wrong as well. The data is so bad it doesn't even make sense, do you read stuff before you post it? Average listing price $2M down 0.5%. LMAO.

NY has always been unaffordable. This article is just part of a broken record. If you want affordable hosuing, go move to flyover country.

Heck, in some parts of Ohio and the rest of the rust belt, you can literally buy a modest house for less money than a 7 Series.