Discuss - Trulia says Manhattan down 44.7% (avg. price psf)

Didn't I just post this, nyc?

That data is WAY wrong.

I see, JuiceMan - when the data you request are provided, you just say they are wrong.

LMAO.

Most housing reports exclude 15 CPW and The Plaza because they were skewing the average up. My guess is this figure includes those sales.

Not at all steve. It is wrong. I posted the reason on the other thread. It is hysterically wrong. Are you now making up data to try and prove a point you can't prove?

I think nyc10022 and stevejhx should request this thread be deleted to save them the embarrassment. nyc10022 was so excited about some bad news he forgot to check it for common sense.

I don't doubt that we're headed there -- but Trulia is ridiculously bad at these ppsf calculations. Their model might work for tract housing in Ohio, but here ... not so much.

"I posted the reason on the other thread."

Here's what you posted:

"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."

That's it? That's your "reason"? Since when is "LMAO" a reason?

Find other data, Juicy. Jonathan Miller, maybe? Who gets paid by realt-whores and mysteriously changes all his data retroactively without saying why, to make things look not as bad as they are?

Please. If you can't post your own data, just shut up.

There's never a better reason than "LMAO". Expect maybe "Oh Em Gee!"

"I think nyc10022 and stevejhx should request this thread be deleted to save them the embarrassment. nyc10022 was so excited about some bad news he forgot to check it for common sense."

Wow, do you think juice really believes his own bs?

Its right up there, I post that I don't know what this means, I don't know their data source. Yet he claims I'm "excited" about it.

Juice, you still working on getting those "we will not see 2004 prices" and "there will be no financial crisis" posts removed?

Are you projecting yet again?

He says fear, he's talking about himself. He says "embarrassment", he's talking about himself.

and this is right up there with Juice saying I "loved" the report that I said "I think it sucks" about.

Nothing like a strawman argument to get a bull going in the morning!

OMG! (You're welcome, alanhart!) JuiceMan has shut up for 30 minutes!

He must be searching for those data that prove that Manhattan real estate prices are actually UP over the past year, as he had predicted they would be.

lol

From my earlier post
ALL MANHATTAN
irrespective of the type of property.
There are a total of 5943 transactions over the year and they translate into an annual psf decrease of $60
This is not 44.7%
However, there are areas and market segments that are down something like that --

Ive been living on Streeteasy for 5 months now.
Lots of "in contracts" for the most part that end up "delisted" or back on the market later.
And very rare closings until May and June.
Many downtown listings that actually close seem to be in the $1000 sq ft range very broad average.
Right now with the average rental at @ $50 per foot, the average value today should be $833 per square foot.

Here are some streeteasy broad search totals on apartments listed between $500K and 2mil asking prices.
We found 8,115 listings for between $500,000.00 and $2,000,000.00
Median price: $942,500 Median size: 1,000 ft² Median price per ft²: $995

Information on Manhattan

We found 449 listings for between $500,000.00 and $2,000,000.00
Median price: $1,099,000 Median size: 1,036 ft² Median price per ft²: $1,123
Information on Chelsea

We found 254 listings for between $500,000.00 and $2,000,000.00
Median price: $980,000 Median size: 994 ft² Median price per ft²: $998
Information on Greenwich Village

We found 85 listings for between $500,000.00 and $2,000,000.00
Median price: $1,395,000 Median size: 1,138 ft² Median price per ft²: $1,182

Information on Flatiron

We found 172 listings for between $500,000.00 and $2,000,000.00
Median price: $850,000 Median size: 840 ft² Median price per ft²: $997

Information on Gramercy Park

We found 187 listings for between $500,000.00 and $2,000,000.00
Median price: $779,000 Median size: 881 ft² Median price per ft²: $929

Information on Murray Hill

The best way to track prices is through REPEAT sales of the same units. I notice there are some "comp" threads on SE, but most of them focus on similar apts. rather than repeat sales of the same ones.

“Find other data, Juicy. Jonathan Miller, maybe? Who gets paid by realt-whores and mysteriously changes all his data retroactively without saying why, to make things look not as bad as they are?
Please. If you can't post your own data, just shut up.”

Testy, testy Stevie. Just look at your data steve.

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

Has the average list price Manhattan ever been $2M? What is it now? Close to $1M? If so, how can the average listing price be $2M and only down 0.5%? Simple stuff steve, simple stuff. LMFAO. When you are done hiding from embarrassment, check out the average price/sqft from your data. That will give us all a nice chuckle as well. Down 44.7%. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

Was that an answer nyc10022? I didn't start this thread, you may want to check numbers for common sense before starting a thread about them.

"Has the average list price Manhattan ever been $2M? What is it now? Close to $1M? If so, how can the average listing price be $2M and only down 0.5%?"

I think you're confusing mean and median.

"Was that an answer nyc10022? I didn't start this thread, you may want to check numbers for common sense before starting a thread about them."

If thats the rule to apply, you should have never, ever starting posting here in the first place!

;-)

"Has the average list price Manhattan ever been $2M? What is it now?"

When you put in all the trophy properties that StreetEasy and JM strip out it was. Remember malraux's (proved to be false) claims?

There are two properties for sale, Juicy, one for $50,000,000 and another for $500,000. What's the average price?

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA"

Based entirely on the fact that you don't believe something? Way back when, Juicy, when the figures supported your positions, you were ready and willing to believe them. Now that they don't....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!

is the best that you can do.

What are YOUR figures, Juicy, for White Plains and Wayne, New Jersey, both of which have plenty of their own trophy properties?

You have none.

And if you haven't heard: the super-high end of the market is DEAD. Which would account for trulia's data.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!

We found 13,644 listings for between $250,000.00 and $20,000,000.00
Median price: $1,049,150 Median size: 1,100 ft² Median price per ft²: $1,046

Information on Manhattan

Yes, JuiceMan, according to Jonathan Miller (whose data are suspect), the average price for a Manhattan property was $1.72 million in 1Q09.

Close enough to trulia's number that one trophy property could make the difference.

truthskr10 - those are the MEDIAN data, not the MEAN data, which is what JuiceMan is getting hives over.

But notice they're NOT that different from trulia's:

Median Sales Price $992,000 vs. $1,049,150, which are current, not backward looking.

Sorry JuiceMan, the numbers look right to me, and even if they weren't they would suffer the same skew for Wayne and White Plains as the methodology would be the same.

So just shut up or put up.

It is a little scary how some folks are so scared of the discussion. Disagree, fine. Argue, fine. But this "its boring" or "we already knew that" stuff... its just really disingenuous.

You're the only one who said it's boring, nyc. What are you talking about?

"Has the average list price Manhattan ever been $2M? What is it now? Close to $1M? If so, how can the average listing price be $2M and only down 0.5%? Simple stuff steve, simple stuff. LMFAO."

JuiceMan - LMFAO. As per truthskr's post:

1) streeteasy doesn't calculate mean (average) prices, but rather median prices.
2) streeteasy excludes trophy properties, which trulia does not (or at least they don't say they do).

LMFAO right back atcha.

Now, instead of being the Poster of No (or should I say, "The Poster-Boy of No"?) get some of your own data, as everything out there supports me.

So let's see, JuiceMan, for months now you've been laughing at including Wayne, NJ and White Plains, NY in comparisons because, you imply, they are irrelevant to Manhattan when, it would seem, they are in a better position than Manhattan currently.

Which makes perfect sense because they've been falling for longer. Where goes New Rochelle....

stevej
Ya I'm just posting figures that I as a buyer find relevant. I realize many on this board get carried away and it's more about winning the argument.

Can anyone post what last years totals were, which must be somewhere on this board.
'Cause in the end, it's all about square feet, whatever you value a walkup vs elevator, high floor/low foor, soho vs chelsea vs harlem, etc.
From memory, I'd say last year was around 1500 per foot average.
That's 33% percent without even figuring todays differential between asking and actual closing price which has to be at least 10% less.
Also last year, you would have apartments close for 10% above asking price.

The numbers can be played with so many ways, just follow Malley listings ( sorry had to through in a dig at someone with no sense in his listings)

The most important point though is nyc real estate hasn't tumbled to 50% like the stock market and hasn't been saved either by eurotrash dollars. But it will arrive to 50 % like a hung parachute, not quite freefall but no soft landing either.

The next decade will not be like the last one posting an average of 10% gains each year on the value of a property. Which for some odd reason translated to people willing to pay 20 times rent roll for a property. And if we stay on this lunacy, todays sellers are still off the mark.
Average rents are $50 per foot according to the stats. But that's not including the free months everyone is giving away.
That puts real rental average at around $45 per foot.
Let's say a 1000 square foot apt. 1000 times 45 is $45K income.
45 times 20 is $900 per foot.
Anyone closing above this base number with 100 per foot up or down for amenities (discluding the ridiculous palazzo chupis,etc. ) is nuts.

Any bulls out there can tear me up anyway you like but Im not buying over $800 per foot and I guarantee I will be closing somewhere within 6 to 8 months.
'till then I will quite comfortably rent.

:)

You're about in agreement with me on just about everything truthskr10.

Or I'm in agreement with you.

Juicy?

yup, either or.

Just exposing the red pill to the blue pill munchers.

If you could take LSD by the spoonful, I think JuiceMan would be there.

Maybe they failed to take into account the change of the size of a square foot?

Maybe JuiceMan can tell us what he bases his statements on, because (as with LICC) he pooh-poohs every data source that he doesn't agree with, but never provides any of his own.

nyc10022, apologies for jumping on you. I mis-read your OP, you were opening it up for discussion and I misunderstood.

steve, so now you are telling me that Wayne, NJ and Manhattan are comparable because of average prices. Should I re-post all of your statements about the worthlessness of mean data? Yet you use it it here? This is so much fun! Keep digging that hole steve.

"Yes, JuiceMan, according to Jonathan Miller (whose data are suspect), the average price for a Manhattan property was $1.72 million in 1Q09.

Close enough to trulia's number that one trophy property could make the difference."

What? Re-read that statement and see if you can still keep a straight face.

Average prices are telling us that Wayne, NJ and Manhattan are related! You can't make this stuff up! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAH

steve, I apologize for the delay in my post. Had to take a run in Central Park, I'm getting pretty fast but not fast enough to reply to you every 5 minutes.

Oh, just so you know the data is still malarkey. Have a look at ave price per square foot. If it is down 44.7% wouldn't that mean the average price per square ft was at some point $2,532? When was that steve?

"Maybe JuiceMan can tell us what he bases his statements on, because (as with LICC) he pooh-poohs every data source that he doesn't agree with, but never provides any of his own."

What data do I need to provide steve? This is simple math. When was the average price per square foot $2,532 in Manhattan?

Nice job with that example steve. Great data.

Oh, Juicy, Juicy, Juicy! You and LICC are the only ones of your ilk left alive, it would seem.

"so now you are telling me that Wayne, NJ and Manhattan are comparable because of average prices"

I didn't say that. What I said was that, as measured by average prices, Wayne and White Plains are doing much better than Manhattan.

Do you disagree with that?

"Should I re-post all of your statements about the worthlessness of mean data?"

What you will find is that I said that MEDIAN data taken alone is not worth much; the mean and the median must be used together to gain an accurate understanding of price distribution. Mean psf is meaningless, is what I said.

And I further said that the best method is comparing the same properties over time.

And what I said was that because the means reported by JM and trulia are about the same, all their data are likely the same.

So may I quote: "What? Re-read that statement and see if you can still keep a straight face."

You asked me to provide data, I provided data that prove my point and are consistent with what I have been saying for a long time. Are those data perfect? No. No data are perfect.

But they're sure as hell better than anything you've posted, which is NOTHING.

"You can't make this stuff up!"

Yes, JuiceMan, one $50 million property could account for that difference. Where were you in math class?

Do this: take the average of these numbers:

100,000
200,000
300,000

and then take the average of

100,000
200,000
30,000,000

and tell me the results. The medians are the same, the means are far, far apart.

So re-read your statement and see if you can still keep a straight face.

"Lots of "in contracts" for the most part that end up "delisted" or back on the market later.
And very rare closings until May and June.
Many downtown listings that actually close seem to be in the $1000 sq ft range very broad average.
Right now with the average rental at @ $50 per foot, the average value today should be $833 per square foot."

truths, how much of the increase in closings do you think is due to the stock mkt picking up after the March lows? wonder what the post-bubble sustainable level of closings might be going forward. how many of those that didn't close lost their deposit? didn't close cause they realized that instead of a deal they were catching a knife or due to lack of finance? wonder whether & how fast will that potential buyer come back to the market.

your calculation of $50 rental => $833 sale is based on what?

bad data? compare to this story (Patrick.net)

http://eyeonmiami.blogspot.com/2009/07/housing-sales-data-contaminated-in.html?ref=patrick.net

"Do this: take the average of these numbers:

100,000
200,000
300,000

and then take the average of

100,000
200,000
30,000,000"

Thanks steve, that little piece of work was impressive. Now do the same exercise with a data set of 3,000 and tell me what price you need to list a property to impact the average by $3M. When you get the answer, feel free to come back to all of us and admit you have no idea what you are talking about and that your data stinks.

"You asked me to provide data, I provided data that prove my point and are consistent with what I have been saying for a long time. Are those data perfect? No. No data are perfect."

That is a fact. It's not perfect, it is pretty friggan lousy. It isn't even in the realm of common sense, yet steve still uses it.

How about my question here steve, can you take another big swing and miss?

"Oh, just so you know the data is still malarkey. Have a look at ave price per square foot. If it is down 44.7% wouldn't that mean the average price per square ft was at some point $2,532? When was that steve?

What data do I need to provide steve? This is simple math. When was the average price per square foot $2,532 in Manhattan?"

"What data do I need to provide steve?"

Data, JuiceMan. Data.

Like your BFF LICC, you're good at claiming you've won an argument without even making one. I provided you with data from a reputable source that proves my point. You, without basis, act like a harpy.

What are your data? The median shows it, the mean shows it, and at least for the non-Manhattan areas of metropolitan New York, the Case-Shiller data show it. Only a fool would believe that a region whose economic engine is Manhattan would not be affected by what happens there, or more incredulously, that what happens in Manhattan does not affect what happens here.

That's the essence of your argument, Juicy: What happens in Manhattan doesn't affect what happens here. Just because the engine of our growth has collapsed, just because unemployment is 9.5% and rising, just because prices have already fallen 30% as per Dottie Herman herself, just because real estate tax revenue has plummeted, just because what is happening here happened elsewhere just as you were predicting that because it happened didn't mean that it was going to happen here, all amounts to the same conclusion: what happens in Manhattan doesn't affect what happens in Manhattan.

Of course it doesn't. According to you it affects what happens in Wayne New Jersey and White Plains New York, but not Manhattan.

Pardon the ad hominem, but you have truly proved yourself to be a fool.

Post data - pick your source - and get back to us. Otherwise, shut up.

"Post data - pick your source - and get back to us. Otherwise, shut up"

Here is your data dumbass, go to Miller-Samuel and run the reports yourself. A three year old could do it. Average price per sq ft by Quarter:

2Q, 2009 1,056
1Q, 2009 1,259
4Q, 2008 1,183
3Q, 2008 1,193
2Q, 2008 1,322
1Q, 2008 1,289
4Q, 2007 1,180
3Q, 2007 1,144
2Q, 2007 1,099
1Q, 2007 1,070
4Q, 2006 998
3Q, 2006 1,050
2Q, 2006 1,083
1Q, 2006 1,004
4Q, 2005 1,002
3Q, 2005 984
2Q, 2005 970
1Q, 2005 910
4Q, 2004 780
3Q, 2004 803
2Q, 2004 762
1Q, 2004 711

So answer my question steve. When was the average price per square foot $2,532 in Manhattan?

and Average price by Quarter:

2Q, 2009 1,312,920
1Q, 2009 1,825,847
4Q, 2008 1,485,102
3Q, 2008 1,480,363
2Q, 2008 1,669,729
1Q, 2008 1,722,991
4Q, 2007 1,439,909
3Q, 2007 1,369,486
2Q, 2007 1,333,316
1Q, 2007 1,290,391
4Q, 2006 1,224,840
3Q, 2006 1,288,748
2Q, 2006 1,386,193
1Q, 2006 1,300,928
4Q, 2005 1,187,404
3Q, 2005 1,149,813
2Q, 2005 1,317,528
1Q, 2005 1,214,379
4Q, 2004 987,257
3Q, 2004 1,044,166
2Q, 2004 1,009,998
1Q, 2004 966,292

So answer my question steve, where do you get $2M as 0.5% lower as your data says?

"Pardon the ad hominem, but you have truly proved yourself to be a fool."

Pardon the ad hominem, but you are an arrogant idiot who just showed (again) that you have no idea what you are talking about and everything you say should (and is) taken with a grain of salt.

"Like your BFF LICC, you're good at claiming you've won an argument without even making one"

Thanks for playing steve, that was fun.

JuiceMan 415
stevejhx 0

"JuiceMan 415
stevejhx 0"

Tee-hee-hee!

Juicy, in every single category the trulia data agree with streeteasy and Miller Samuel. Here are the trulia data for AVERAGE prices in Manhattan:

1 bedroom $790,607
2 bedrooms $1,605,068
3 bedrooms $3,143,931
4 bedrooms $5,505,389
All properties $2,010,718

Do they look real? Yes.

And the number of listings match and the median sale price matches. In fact, given the different methodologies, trulia's $2.01 million figure is not that far off from the $1.826 million figure given by Jonathan Miller in 2Q2008.

http://millersamuel.com/reports/pdf-reports/MMO2Q09.pdf

Juicy, go here:

http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/New_York-New_York/market-trends/

Press on:

"Average Price Per Sqft for Homes in New York"

And look at the chart. You will see that there was a HUGE blip in the average price per square foot PRECISELY at the time trophy properties were on the market: 2Q2008. It is a statistical anomaly from one quarter, and is not in line with the other property data.

I don't know what's included in last year's psf data - most likely listings at 15 CPW and the Plaza, which would skew the results. I do know that THIS year's median price of $1,132 psf is just about in line with Miller Samuel's.

The fact is the real estate market, using trulia's methodology, is doing far better in Wayne and White Plains than it is in Manhattan, your psf value notwithstanding.

"you have truly proved yourself to be a fool"

Now JuiceMan, if your point is that the 44.7% figure is not really indicative of the market, I would agree with you. It is a statistical blip and that won't be the figure next quarter. I have long argued that the sample size in Manhattan is relatively small, so these figures are to be taken within context.

I didn't start this thread, nyc10022 did.

Nonetheless, it does not diminish from the fact that Wayne and White Plains are both currently doing better than Manhattan, which was your point.

steve, the average sales price is off at trulia for a very simple reason and I knew it as soon as you posted the data. I'm surprised you haven't figured it out. Regardless, it is wrong which is what I said in the beginning and the best you have come up with is "it's close enough". Maybe someone else can help you out with that, I’m having fun watching you dig out of your hole.

The average price per square ft is a data travesty, there is no way you can get to a -44.7% number with the data you posted.

Look, you are the one that wanted to take this conversation in a direction of name calling, but I will refrain. The answer is simple, the data is wrong, and you realize both but can’t get yourself to admit it. Why we are even discussing average prices is beyond me and, the ultimate irony in your argument to begin with.

JuiceMan 416
stevejhx 0

Keep score however you want in your mind, JuiceMan, the data are NOT WRONG. That they may be a statistical anomaly is one thing, that they are wrong would be another.

The average sales price for THIS quarter is not wrong, nor was it wrong the last quarter. Does it mean that prices have actually fallen 44.7%? Yes and no. Yes from last quarter - an anomalous data point - but no overall.

"there is no way you can get to a -44.7% number with the data you posted."

Yes actually there is, and it's precisely because of what I've criticised your arguments for: with a small sample size, if 2 properties such as 15 CPW and the Plaza come to market in the same quarter, the numbers will be all messed up.

Sorry, you neither won this argument (though how you can "add one" to your delusional victories when we're still discussing the same point is beyond me) nor proved your point: that what happens in Wayne New Jersey stays in Wayne New Jersey.

The 44.7% IS correct y-o-y.

It is NOT indicative of a trend, however.

Don't you have to study statistics in dental school?

"the average sales price is off at trulia for a very simple reason"

What would that be?

"Any bulls out there can tear me up anyway you like but Im not buying over $800 per foot and I guarantee I will be closing somewhere within 6 to 8 months."

Wait, Steve, you agree with this too? Congrats on buying in advance!

Juicy, since you brought up your 415:0 score card, let's just take a look:

JuiceMan: "You may be just joking around joedavis but if not, I think your expectations are completely unrealistic. Decent UWS 3/2's are in the $2.5 - $3M range right now, and prices are going up, not down. Over the next year, you will be have to get eally lucky to get a decent 2/2 in that price range. I looked at a 3/2 yesterday that hasn't hit the market yet and it already has an offer above asking."

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/3732-where-is-my-3br2ba-for-1-to-1249-million-on-the-uws

From a mere 14 months ago. Which of your 416 points is that?

And from a mere 18 months ago:

"I don’t think anyone has argued on the meaningfulness of a 10-15% lower purchase price, what I have always said is that the 10-15% decrease in purchase prices is unrealistic. There is a current softness in the market, there are some decent deals to be had, but folks waiting for $100-$150k discounts on $1M properties in good neighborhoods are being unrealistic (new construction may be different but I know little about this market and refrain from commenting)."

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/2651-where-are-all-the-idiots-who-made-the-2007-doomsday-predictions?page=2

Need I go on about how WRONG you were? Find the post where you predicted increasing rents?

Which of the 416 points you claim to have accounts for this.

That's why I went all ad-hominem on you (though I don't like to). You claim victory yet you have been proved wrong at EVERY turn. You disregard all evidence, cling to one statistic that you say is "wrong" (it's not "wrong" - just not "indicative"), make claims that amount to saying that what happens in Manhattan has no effect on Manhattan, claim that we're an island unto ourselves, yet you've been wrong EACH AND EVERY TIME.

The evidence is there. Just fess up and go away.

bjw, I didn't say that I would be buying - I said that I generally agreed with the point being made about $800 psf. I made that prediction myself over a year ago, and it represents 2004 prices, which is where I said we were headed.

I'm not buying anytime soon: still VASTLY overpriced.

"Just fess up and go away."

tee-hee-hee.

The ultimate in desperation steve. Posting past comments out of context to change the subject. Do you realize that post on 3/2's on the UWS was in response to a poster looking for 3/2's in the UWS for $1M - $1.2M? Once again, I was 100% correct. I ask you to find a livable 3/2 on the UWS in that price range. Can't be done. Wrong again.

JuiceMan 417
stevejhx 0

admin
"truths, how much of the increase in closings do you think is due to the stock mkt picking up after the March lows?"

Not exactly the main factor, my personal opinion is the shellshock from the financial sector left buyers high and dry from getting paper. Lot's of banks between Dec and Apr either temporarily ducked out of the mortgage biz and/or withdrew at the last minute before closings.I saw many friends in long island commercial deals left high and dry and Im sure it was the same in Manhattan. How is a bank supposed to give 70/80% of paper when next month or next week it ends up being 90% and more?
Other than Wells Fargo I believe, you basically needed a mortgage broker to find you a bank to give any kind of mortgage commitment.
Bottom line is any amount of closings was an increase as you had 4 months of deals hung up.

"wonder what the post-bubble sustainable level of closings might be going forward. how many of those that didn't close lost their deposit? didn't close cause they realized that instead of a deal they were catching a knife or due to lack of finance? wonder whether & how fast will that potential buyer come back to the market."

I think it's going to be the wild west for a while. A friend of mine is getting his deposit back from the Setai. But not all will be so lucky. Courtrooms are going to be quite busy for the next 2 years.
Buyers will depend on their personal situations and needs. Patience is rather easy now because the rental market is quicker to correct than the purchase market.

"your calculation of $50 rental => $833 sale is based on what?"
My mistake, if you look at my later post which includes free months of rent that number should be $900 per foot. As to where the $833 actually came from? I'm not quite sure how I typed that number.

Though an old quick formula with no rhyme or reason that used to correlate with the difference between rental and asking price I used to notice.
200 times monthly rent. So if I saw a property that was getting $7500 per month. Multiply by 200 and the rough asking price seemed to be 1.5 mil.
Purely unscientific and downright silly, I know but it seemed to fit 90% of the time.

JuiceMan: "what I have always said is that the 10-15% decrease in purchase prices is unrealistic."

JuiceMan: "Once again, I was 100% correct."

Maybe we should count that as 418?

bjw2103
"Any bulls out there can tear me up anyway you like but Im not buying over $800 per foot and I guarantee I will be closing somewhere within 6 to 8 months."

Wait, Steve, you agree with this too? Congrats on buying in advance!"

Give the guy a break. :)
I said it give me crap about it if you want.

truthskr10,

Just after you wrote that, Steve wrote:
"You're about in agreement with me on just about everything truthskr10.
Or I'm in agreement with you."

I won't give you crap for it - if you are buying that soon, congrats to you then!

bjw2103
Fair enough.... but he did say "JUST about everything" and not "everything." :)

admin
Wanted to add, with the impending doom of commercial real estate around the corner, this will strain bank lending even further. Those without 50% or more deposits for residential are in for a very frustrating time.

truth - don't worry about bjw. The reason he's all over me is he bought at the height of the boom and is watching his money fly out his high-rise building:

bjw2103 about 16 months ago: "Ah, come on Juice, I'm no doomer (I'm about to go into contract on a 2BR actually, pending my attorney's comments), just having a bit of fun with spunky's rah-rahing. He also sounds a little desperate pleading with sellers to hold off so he can be "right" about all of this."

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/2651-where-are-all-the-idiots-who-made-the-2007-doomsday-predictions?page=14

And here's JuiceMan's response:

JuiceMan about 16 months ago: "Congrats on the new place bjw2103. Don't let the doomers try and convince you that you made a bad decision. This time next year, you will be doing just fine."

Should we add another "point" for you, JuiceMan?

Or here's another point, from 13 months ago:

JuiceMan about 13 months ago, quoting CNBC in agreement: "Manhattan has already fallen 10% and we don't expect it to fall more than another 10%"

Is that another point for you, as well? "100%, once again"?

Steve, what a load of garbage. You presume to know so much, but know so little (I didn't buy in a high rise, I pay less than I would to rent, and I bought after the height of the boom). I was just having a little fun at the very reasonable inference that you may be buying in the near future. And guess what, JuiceMan was right again - it is next year, and I'm doing fine! One more point. Sorry brother.

Hmm, bjw, very defensive when your posting history sells you out.

If 16 months ago wasn't the height of the boom, when was? 15 months ago?

I already asked for the details about your rental and your purchase, but you won't give any. Of course if you put down a huge down payment your costs might be low, but it's the same as prepaying your rent: prepay a year's worth of rent and your current rent will also be zero.

JuiceMan was right? Then give him another point! Every real estate broker, every statistic, every data source has that Manhattan is about 30% down from peak, which was about 16 MONTHS AGO!

Yup. So if you only put down 20% and had to sell today, you'd lose your home AND have to pay the bank for the privilege.

Actually Steve, I'm just calling you out for presuming to know things you don't (namely, my finances and apartment). That's not being defensive, that's calling attention to bs. The height of the boom was fall '07 in my book and I closed nearly a year later. And I don't recall you ever asking for details on anything, but if you insist: comparable rentals in my neighborhood go for $3,500 and my monthly expenses are $3,268. I put a bit more than 20% down but not a crazy amount more.

Well according to Juicy's data (and you agree with him on everything else):

2Q, 2009 1,312,920
1Q, 2009 1,825,847
4Q, 2008 1,485,102
3Q, 2008 1,480,363
2Q, 2008 1,669,729
1Q, 2008 1,722,991

1Q2008 was just about the peak. Sorry.

"comparable rentals in my neighborhood go for $3,500 and my monthly expenses are $3,268. I put a bit more than 20% down but not a crazy amount more."

Okay, out of pocket it costs you the same to rent and to buy. Good. Did you factor in the transaction costs, add them to your monthlies, and subtract the opportunity cost from the rent, then adjust for risk?

If you do, you'll see you're waaay behind unless you plan to stay in your place for 15 years.

"Well according to Juicy's data (and you agree with him on everything else):
2Q, 2009 1,312,920
1Q, 2009 1,825,847
4Q, 2008 1,485,102
3Q, 2008 1,480,363
2Q, 2008 1,669,729
1Q, 2008 1,722,991
1Q2008 was just about the peak. Sorry."

When did I say I agree with JuiceMan on everything? It's just bizarre (and incorrect) for you to say that. Like all of us, he's right sometimes, wrong others. Regardless, I find him to be one of the better and more enjoyable contributors to this board.

"Okay, out of pocket it costs you the same to rent and to buy. Good. Did you factor in the transaction costs, add them to your monthlies, and subtract the opportunity cost from the rent, then adjust for risk?
If you do, you'll see you're waaay behind unless you plan to stay in your place for 15 years."

Really, $3,268 = $3,500? Nice. I'll trade you the former for the latter anytime. I did actually factor transaction costs on the buy side, but not on the rent side, so that hurts the equation even more. You can take care of the rest if you're so knowledgeable in these things, but you're arrogant and mistaken if you think I'm "waaay behind." I'm sorry you find that so hard to believe.

And to address the 1Q 2008 peak - the data are from reports that (as you well know) lag at least a few months. So if reports say 1Q 2008, actual peak was indeed likely to be around fall 2007. Sorry.

"Really, $3,268 = $3,500? Nice."

I factored in your down payment over 20%. An approximation.

"I did actually factor transaction costs on the buy side"

You need to factor them in on the sell side, as well, as no one can own property forever. That's where the expenses are: brokerage, flip tax, conveyance tax, etc. They're all detailed in another thread.

Then you put down this huge down payment that you could otherwise be earning money on. You need to subtract that from your "rent."

Then you have to adjust for the risk of home ownership - far more than rentals.

"but you're arrogant and mistaken if you think I'm "waaay behind." I'm sorry you find that so hard to believe."

I don't think so. Properties have fallen 30% from their peak - why is yours so special that it's immune?

"Sorry."

Read them any way you want. You bought at about the peak. Couldn't have timed it better had you tried.

"You need to factor them in on the sell side, as well, as no one can own property forever. That's where the expenses are: brokerage, flip tax, conveyance tax, etc. They're all detailed in another thread."

That's fair, but it's near impossible to calculate right now if you have no idea when you're selling. For every year, you're adding 12 to the denominator - it's not something you can accurately measure.

"Then you have to adjust for the risk of home ownership - far more than rentals."

I'd like to see how you do that. There is risk in either scenario, and most people would pay a premium to own rather than rent.

"Properties have fallen 30% from their peak - why is yours so special that it's immune?"

There's nothing particularly special about it - what matters is that I bought after peak (especially in a neighborhood that had seen declines before much of prime Manhattan anyway), in a development that had few units left, so they were looking to get rid of them quickly since they were already well in the black. I picked my spots, found an apartment that I love and could afford at a very good price, and moved. If that weren't the case, I might still be looking, but I had an opportunity and took it. It's not as crazy a scenario as you make it sound.

"Read them any way you want. You bought at about the peak. Couldn't have timed it better had you tried."

Or just about a year later, but call it what you want. Don't be so daft.

"When did I say I agree with JuiceMan on everything? It's just bizarre (and incorrect) for you to say that. Like all of us, he's right sometimes, wrong others. Regardless, I find him to be one of the better and more enjoyable contributors to this board."

Thanks bjw, feeling is mutual. Poor steve, the master of the shiny object has to bring others into the debate when he knows he is wrong.

"I factored in your down payment over 20%. An approximation."

That's great steve. Hopefully you also factored in what would have happened to that down payment if it was invested in the market over the past two years. Probably not though.

"I'd like to see how you do that."

You use the same risk premium you use for similar investments, such as stocks. It's been detailed a lot here.

"but it's near impossible to calculate right now"

That's not a reason not to try. The average time properties are held is 5-7 years in the US. Use that.

"There is risk in either scenario"

The risk in renting is 1 month's rent, maybe two. The risk in owning is your down payment, and lack of liquidity. If I lose my job and have to move someplace fast, I can. You can't.

"and most people would pay a premium to own rather than rent"

Actually, that's not true. In theory owning should cost less because a) it's riskier; and b) it is a hedge against future rent increases, so it should cost less than rents.

You bought at about the peak, "but call it what you want."

Juicy, you still have a lot of data to provide to disprove that link between White Plains / Wayne, and Manhattan.

If you can't prove your statements with anything resembling reality, then it's time to pack up your bags and head to wherever spunky went.

We've seen some of your past statements on where real estate was going, and to the last they were wrong.

"That's not a reason not to try. The average time properties are held is 5-7 years in the US. Use that."

Why should I use something that's so general when it has nothing to do with my intentions? You often make the mistake of applying the general to the specific when it's ill-suited to do so. If we're trying to calculate my monthly nut, the "average" does nothing for me.

"The risk in renting is 1 month's rent, maybe two. The risk in owning is your down payment, and lack of liquidity. If I lose my job and have to move someplace fast, I can. You can't."

No, the risk in renting involves paying transaction fees as well (sorry, but only a very small percentage of people go through nybits, and you do have to pay to move every time you choose to do so), not to mention the fact that landlords may decide not to renew your lease, to move in, or to increase your rent (that's not the case for many people currently, I believe, though I recall that yours actually went up, no?). Second, if I lose my job and have to move someplace fast, I certainly can - what's stopping me from renting my place and finding a rental of my own?

"Actually, that's not true. In theory owning should cost less because a) it's riskier; and b) it is a hedge against future rent increases, so it should cost less than rents."

I think you're in the minority here. Ask most people - if cost is equal on a monthly basis (accounting for all your widgets and formulas, of course), would they choose to rent or own the same place? I strongly suggest you try this because I feel you might be surprised by the response: people would rather own; hence there will be a premium, though I'd definitely agree it should be much lower than it has been in the boom.

""but call it what you want.""

I call it what it is - a year later. Regardless, those figures represent averages or medians - there are obviously prices that were above and below them. But you want to pass judgment while having next to no info - not a good way to do business in my experience.

"Wanted to add, with the impending doom of commercial real estate around the corner, this will strain bank lending even further. Those without 50% or more deposits for residential are in for a very frustrating time."

50%? for sure the average will have to be higher than 20%, but 50% would be shocking to see given that almost everybody with spare cash got into the market during the bubble. it will be a lot of fun (for those on the sidelines) to see that happening at the same time as mortgage rates go higher thanks to high deficits and lower confidence in the dollar. men, there's a lot of stuff coming ahead. home builders are saying that banks will begin to write off their holdings of land at the end of 2010, that they can hold their breath for only so long. again, it's fun stuff to see for somebody on the sidelines.

No problem JuiceMan, appreciate the kind words.

bjw:

"Why should I use something that's so general when it has nothing to do with my intentions?"

To avoid avoiding the problem. Pick a number. Do multiple scenarios. Find a break even point. You just ignore a significant part of the cost of ownership, with impunity.

"the risk in renting involves paying transaction fees as well"

Some people do pay them, but they are a percentage of 1 months' rent, not of a purchase price. If you really, really, really want to engage me on the different transaction costs and risks in renting, I'd be glad to.

"what's stopping me from renting my place and finding a rental of my own?"

The co-op board, the condo bylaws, the market, and the fact that even if you do rent your place, you may not cover your costs. That is the case in Manhattan today, with the sole exception of what you claim your situation to be.

"I think you're in the minority here."

No. Historically purchasing has been cheaper than renting. Theoretically it must be. Only recently have people come to see owner-occupied residential real estate as a cash-cow.

It's not.

"But you want to pass judgment while having next to no info - not a good way to do business in my experience."

Then give us details.

"nyc10022, apologies for jumping on you. I mis-read your OP, you were opening it up for discussion and I misunderstood."

Apology accepted and appreciated.

"The height of the boom was fall '07 in my book and I closed nearly a year later."

Meaning you signed your contract well before, no?

Also, we've been over the stats and the height of the boom was not fall '07. Highest median price was 2Q 08.

Meaning its starting to sound like you were right smack in the middle of the boom...

stevejhx,

"You just ignore a significant part of the cost of ownership, with impunity."

I'm not ignoring it at all - I said above it's a perfectly fair point; it's just that you'll get a wide range of answers when you try to calculate it, so it's very difficult to find a concrete number to include in your monthly costs.

"If you really, really, really want to engage me on the different transaction costs and risks in renting, I'd be glad to."

I just did though; not sure what you mean?

"The co-op board, the condo bylaws, the market, and the fact that even if you do rent your place, you may not cover your costs. That is the case in Manhattan today, with the sole exception of what you claim your situation to be."

It's a condo, with no restrictions on subletting in the bylaws. I would cover my costs, and it's not the sole exception - there are surely thousands out there, though I'm sure most are cases of people who bought years ago or got a great price from someone who was forced to sell. Again, you make this out to be a crazy scenario when it's plainly not.

"Theoretically it must be. Only recently have people come to see owner-occupied residential real estate as a cash-cow. It's not."

I certainly agree that owner-occupied residential real estate is by no means a cash-cow (though it's obviously worked out well for some people), but that doesn't mean that people wouldn't rather own. For all your "theories," part of the American dream is to own your own home, and as silly as that might seem to you, many, many people believe in that.

"Then give us details."

I've given you enough to work with - I won't give specifics on an internet message board for obvious reasons. If you want to dismiss what I've said outright, that's your issue, but I assure you it's accurate.

"Meaning you signed your contract well before, no?"

No, I was fortunate to close very quickly.

"Also, we've been over the stats and the height of the boom was not fall '07. Highest median price was 2Q 08.
Meaning its starting to sound like you were right smack in the middle of the boom..."

Again, no, despite your wishful-thinking/schadenfreude. Look at the charts:
http://www.millersamuel.com/charts/gallery-view.php?ViewNode=1226031010OLRIY&Record=2
http://www.millersamuel.com/charts/gallery-view.php?ViewNode=1215689621JgbFs&Record=0

Now that's interesting, bjw - you're in Brooklyn!

Completely different market, though $3,500 seems a pretty high rent for way out there, when them's (expensive) 1-bedroom rentals in prime Manhattan.

stevejhx, I thought you knew that. I wouldn't say it's a completely different market, especially if you're telling JuiceMan "Where New Rochelle goes..." It has differences but is closely related. Also, we're talking about a 2/2 here, not a 1-bed.

> Again, no, despite your wishful-thinking/schadenfreude. Look at the charts:

ROTFL.

Yes, I'm not surprised you picked a different chart then the one everyone was looking it... the CPI-adjusted one. Ironic how you suddenly stopped using the one you were paying attention to for the years before.

Can't say I'm surprised.... you seem to be very good at changing what the "right" chart to look at is depending on whether or not you like what it says.

I'm sure you complained about this chart when it first showed the decline.

Hillarious.

"Completely different market, though $3,500 seems a pretty high rent for way out there, when them's (expensive) 1-bedroom rentals in prime Manhattan."

Agreed... folks conveniently come up with super high rental estimates when they "compare" their own places.

Some friends just moved from Tribeca to DUMBO, and got a place with partial water view and 1260 square feet for under $3500.... and thats a much more expensive neighborhood than WB.

No I didn't know it was Brooklyn - I can't comment on Brooklyn so I retract everything I said. To you, not to JuiceMan. My apologies.

"Yes, I'm not surprised you picked a different chart then the one everyone was looking it... the CPI-adjusted one. Ironic how you suddenly stopped using the one you were paying attention to for the years before.
Can't say I'm surprised.... you seem to be very good at changing what the "right" chart to look at is depending on whether or not you like what it says.
I'm sure you complained about this chart when it first showed the decline."

Pardon the ad-hominem, but you're being a blatant idiot here. I posted BOTH the adjusted and unadjusted. Guess what the unadjusted pinpoints as peak - 3Q 07. And do explain what's so terribly wrong the adjusted chart before we move so quickly to dismiss it (though again, I posted both). And show me where I complained about this chart, otherwise, again, eat crow.

"Agreed... folks conveniently come up with super high rental estimates when they "compare" their own places."

It's not "super high." A broker told me $4,200 - THAT was ridiculous. $3,500 is a reasonable estimate and I've certainly seen higher asking rents.

"No I didn't know it was Brooklyn - I can't comment on Brooklyn so I retract everything I said. To you, not to JuiceMan. My apologies."

It's no problem, Steve, apologies accepted. I really don't mind and even appreciate your passion about this; it just troubles me when people are so quick to judge an individual property in the context of the overall market when info is limited. Even if I disagree with you at times, you seem to be a good egg, unlike our friend with the zip code in his name here, but you can't win 'em all, can you?

No, you can't win them all. I sure as hell try, but sometimes I don't succeed. :*(

Now - if JuiceMan would admit that he has ever been wrong then the world would be a happier place. Instead of his claim of 415:0.

"and subtract the opportunity cost"

And what if he lost 40% of this money in the market in late 2008 instead of buying his apartment? Too often it is assumed that the downpayment money will be invetsed and lead to huge returns. Many people lose money investing.

waverly

Of course but for argument sake, you have to at least consider a 10 year, 20 year, 30 year CD or TBill for the opportunity cost.
You have to assign some value to it. 5% is fair.

"And what if he lost 40% of this money in the market in late 2008 instead of buying his apartment? Too often it is assumed that the downpayment money will be invetsed and lead to huge returns. Many people lose money investing."

waverly, definitely true, though to be honest, I had it all in a CD. Not much risk there (and though the rates were good when I opened it, they were terrible by the time I closed it, and still are).

truthskr, stop reading my mind as I'm typing please :)

truthskr - I agree with you, but many assign a much higher number to it.

BJW - Good for you! Yeah, the rates are not so good now, huh?

:) just a faster typer I guess.

Um rates are awful. Some fair tax free products out there. Still for me I'd rather wait out the next couple months and pay less for an apartment. Can live with the paltry 2% rate now for the double digit saving in purchase later.

waverly - they are awful. I parked a fair chunk of cash in another one recently: 2.1%.

truthskr, good luck on your search. Sounds like you've got the right mix of aggressiveness and caution in your approach.

bjw2103, thanks.
But you know, if this health care plan passes I may move my business to florida.

That would be ironic huh....Obama sending some 10,000 New Yorkers (and prob republicans) to Florida just in time for next election. What's ac ouple hanging chads when you have 9,000 more red votes. ;)

truthskr, you'd better check out FL before you move. Not so cheap - I lived there. Factor in hurricane insurance, property taxes much higher than NYC and you have to pay them whether you make money or not, and - yes - very high health care costs, + the need for a car, & Manhattan is actually cheaper than Palm Beach, Broward, or Dade Counties.

The property taxes are higher than NYC? I wouldn't have guessed that...interesting.

Steve - how long did you live in Florida?

"Now - if JuiceMan would admit that he has ever been wrong then the world would be a happier place. Instead of his claim of 415:0"

That's fair steve it should probably be more like this:

JuiceMan: 419
stevejhx: -42

Your calls have been so bad we have started deducting points. We'll just call you Mr. Arrears for now on.

stevejhx

I hear you brother, but you know, my sister moved down, my parents moved down.
The property taxes are the same as long island but no state income tax. health costs same as I am paying in NY. And car, I don't know, between the garage at $450 per and tolls.

For my particular case, most things would even up with the difference being state income tax Im paying in NY.

"truthskr, you'd better check out FL before you move."

100% agree. what about texas? i'd hate to live in a place where the distribution of income is bad and the public educ system makes it even worse (kind of the whole country but pushed to the limit). have some family members in dallas, they seem to like it.

I think, JuiceMan, you should just score yourself infinity, and keep on repeating this:

"Manhattan has already fallen 10% and we don't expect it to fall more than another 10%"
"Manhattan has already fallen 10% and we don't expect it to fall more than another 10%"

That's for the 30% it's already fallen.

"Manhattan has already fallen 10% and we don't expect it to fall more than another 10%"
"Manhattan has already fallen 10% and we don't expect it to fall more than another 10%"
"Manhattan has already fallen 10% and we don't expect it to fall more than another 10%"

And that's for what's left to go.

"how long did you live in Florida?"

Too long.

Florida is the kind of place that I wished I liked, but I don't.

admin, sorry didn't see your earlier response;

"50%? for sure the average will have to be higher than 20%, but 50% would be shocking to see given that almost everybody with spare cash got into the market during the bubble. it will be a lot of fun (for those on the sidelines) to see that happening at the same time as mortgage rates go higher thanks to high deficits and lower confidence in the dollar. men, there's a lot of stuff coming ahead. home builders are saying that banks will begin to write off their holdings of land at the end of 2010, that they can hold their breath for only so long. again, it's fun stuff to see for somebody on the sidelines."

As I said "Wanted to add, with the impending doom of commercial real estate around the corner, this will strain bank lending even further. Those without 50% or more deposits for residential are in for a very frustrating time. "

My meaning is current conditions are that. If your putting 50% down or more, your probably getting a trouble free mortgage. Otherwise, your in for a frustrating time, whether it's a bank not committing,or even pulling out. And if the commercial goes the way it's going, it will prolong this scenario for another 6 to 9 months minimum.

JuiceMan: "Cognitive Dissonance"

Look it up.

In between chants.