forbes says more fiscally prudent to rent in NYC

As I've been saying all along.

Perhaps Juicy or LICC want to weigh in with their sagacious thoughts, too?

OMG, do you have any kind of reading comprehension skills?

The article stated that New York is the city that's "best for renters", not that "it's best to rent (versus buy) in New York City".

Do you not see the enormous distinction?

Who takes financial advice from Forbes? Do you want a flat tax?? Of course not - because it makes no fiscal sense (unless you are, say, a billionaire heir to a publishing fortune). The magazine is fun, the celebrity lists are lots of fun, I'd look elsewhere for economic data.

scoots, i don't listen to forbes, i just found it funny.

OMG, matt, can you read?

The publication ranked the top cities to rent in the U.S. based, not on value, but on whether it's more fiscally prudent to buy or rent in that location. New York City took the number two spot on the list

Well, in Matt's defense, he can watch TV. [I'm Mister Silver Lining, ever since I got back from vacation.]

"Could be that's because the Forbes best rental markets list isn't based on how expensive rents are, it's based on whether it makes more financial sense to buy or rent in a market.

Using the capitalization rate, which essentially determines the value of an income-producing property like a home, Forbes uncovered these six markets where it makes more financial sense to rent."

Looks like the list was designed using a buy vs rent formula.

ar - our household got hit two weeks ago. not fun! hope you feel better soon!

Probably best to read the original article in Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/29/real-estate-advisor-personal-finance-high-end-rentals.html

I'm not so sure that "retail" residential cap rates should be so different from "commercial" residential cap rates. But perhaps I just don't understand the economics.

Gosh, LA is #1, beating out NYC. Interesting. Though, I know absolutely NOTHING about LA or LA real estate, seems like you get much more for your money out there (this of course, is based on watching various Bravo TV shows :). Rental prices out there would probably make me drool.

Anybody notice the "buyers" markets are not very desirable places to live, while the "renters" markets are?

uwsmom, thanks. this too shall pass. ironically her school just received notice from the gov't that the vaccine should be available next week. sigh.

there goes matt again--the article specifically states that it's better to rent than buy..and cites cap rates as key to its conclusionm--quite specificlly reinforces an ongoing point of stevejhx's

matt you dont suffer fools like yourself well, now, do you??

db!

Clearly with rent 50% less than buying in NYC, anyone who wants to pay 50% MORE go ahead. But the articule is right - its more FISCALLY PRUDENT to rent than buy in NYC. We are not looking at EMOTIONS here - just fiscal prudence. There really is no argument along those lines.

"Of course not - because it makes no fiscal sense (unless you are, say, a billionaire heir to a publishing fortune)."

This is nonsensical. Fiscal factors only depend on how high or how low the tax is. The concept itself is irrelevant in this sense.

If you want to argue on other merits, sure, but this one is a clunker.

On other merits, just the savings in compliance cost would be incredible... as would a hint of a shot at being fairer.

"OMG, do you have any kind of reading comprehension skills?"

(chuckle)

pot, meet kettle...

EddieWilson can be replicated by one of those online computer automated customer service people.

His responses are so predictable.

Pot meet kettle
wow
wowza
hall monitor
... and on and on

That's why it was so easy to see he changed his name within one day of him doing it.

Not to mention the arguments which make you wonder why he needs to make the same point hour after hour, now for what, 2 years? 3?

Tell us again what the boundary is for Park Slope.

Explain to us how your investment strategy is so smart, how you sold high, bought low, and remain diversified.

"Gosh, LA is #1, beating out NYC. Interesting. Though, I know absolutely NOTHING about LA or LA real estate, seems like you get much more for your money out there (this of course, is based on watching various Bravo TV shows :). Rental prices out there would probably make me drool."

From what I've seen out in LA, it's simply a matter space (land wise, not house/apartment wise). Since just about everyone travels anywhere they go by car, the types of things which often make differences in pricing in NYC aren't weighted the same way out there. For example, there's a good number of "nice" apartments on Shore Road near the Verrazzano bridge. But the commute to midtown is a bit of a trek. Out in LA the difference in prices between 2 neighborhoods like Brooklyn Heights and Bay Ridge for similar units would be nearly the same as they are here.

ooops I forgot.... "because there is no 'there' there".