This aint terrible: Sale at 40 East 88th Street #3F ($1.087mm)

Steve, the true part of Segs statement is if it were really a 1400 sqft apartment we might be stepping up in class of rental into a much rarer area.

Haha...you are sick you squatting sonufagun.

Maybe rarefied, Rhino, but looking at the comps I posted not so much. The Claridge units I posted are big, as are some (always overpriced) Related Rentals.

On which note, in some of their non-prime buildings (Westport, etc.) even Related is now offering 1 free month's rent. Anything not to lower the price.

$12,800 seems a little steep for rent, eh?

Sure, those units are as big as this unit...but isnt the issue whether or not this unit is as big as you say it is? Haha. 1100-1200 sqft rentals are a lot more common than 1400+ units.

Yeah I cant imagine $13k in rent.... But I guess if the ask is so high the cap rate is 3%, then I would rather rent. I am not versed in rentals of that caliber, but my gut says I can do better than 1600 feet in the Lucida if I am willing to write that check.

The biggest issue in the world is how big I think apartments are. How can I ever forgive myself?

Where's spunky?

“Juice, never, I mean never, pretend that you and I agree on anything.”

I would never pretend something like that. You couldn’t carry my bag, but your quotes below not only prove that you and I agree, but that your BFF steve was wrong again.

“If that apartment was really 1400 sqft the rent wouldnt been 5500 it would be more.”

“Yes if the rent changes, the ex post facto cap rate calculation changes.”

“I blocked Juicy again. I hate to get in the mind of a Juicy, but I think he was trying to win the point that if we were wrong about the square footage, we might be wrong about the rent, and therefore the cap rate we calculated for the transaction would be wrong....Which is a truism of course.”

The best thing about these quotes is that Rhino continues to agree with me over and over and over again and he isn't smart enough to even realize it.

“Seg, be careful getting in bed with Juicy. He's a known idiot.”

Seg can form his own opinions based on the absurdness of this discussion. Everyone knows that steve and Rhino are laughingstocks

steve has shat a lot of words but has yet to prove what I said is wrong. How typical.

"steve has shat a lot of words but has yet to prove what I said is wrong."

What did you say, Juicy? Nothing coherent. You used to be reasonably reasonable. Now, just another LICC.

Oh wait - you said that the size of an apartment affects its cap rate. I gave you an example to calculate it for us all, and that example is as yet unanswered.

Because you can't calculate a cap rate based on an apartment size.

Of course if you do what you do - give examples that equate to "If 2 + 1 = 3, then 1 + 2 = 3," and expect us to applaud for you.

Good job, Juicy, good job!

Let me rephrase what you said: Apt. X1 cost $Y and rents for $Z. $Z/$Y = Q1. Q1 = cap rate. Apt. X2 costs $Y and rents for $Z*2. $Z*2/$Y = Q2. Therefore, Q2 > Q1.

Good job, Juicy, good job!

But of course NO - because, as you see, the square footage does not enter into the equation.

i think people also have to remember this building requires 50% down payment this definitely limits the buying pool a little

"Because you can't calculate a cap rate based on an apartment size."

Never said that steve, you know it and I know it. Does it entertain you to be so completely full of it? Even your BFF admitted I was right and since 99% of the time you guys agree, there is a good chance you agree. Have you figured out that this apartment was sold? You may want to start from the beginning steve, I think you have confused yourself.

"But of course NO - because, as you see, the square footage does not enter into the equation."

steve thinks that sqft doesn't impact rents, do I need to say more?

JuiceMan: "steve, wouldn't Rhino's cap rate change if it was 1400 sqft?"

JuiceMan: "Never said that steve, you know it and I know it"

Steve: "the square footage does not enter into the [cap rate] equation."

JuiceMan: "steve thinks that sqft doesn't impact rents"

Who said that? Square feet may or may not impact rents. A large apartment facing a brick wall might go for far less than a much smaller one facing the Hudson. As I said before: yet the cap rates might be the same.

Do I need say more?

Poor steve, still can't grasp the simplicity of it all. He is arguing something that was never argued because he doesn't understand the simple formula in the OP. I wonder what steve thinks about these comments from Rhino from this thread?

“If that apartment was really 1400 sqft the rent wouldnt been 5500 it would be more.”

“Yes if the rent changes, the ex post facto cap rate calculation changes.”

“I blocked Juicy again. I hate to get in the mind of a Juicy, but I think he was trying to win the point that if we were wrong about the square footage, we might be wrong about the rent, and therefore the cap rate we calculated for the transaction would be wrong....Which is a truism of course.”

What do you think of these quotes steve? Is Rhino wrong? Since you two agree on 99% of things is this the thread where you do not?

“If that apartment was really 1400 sqft the rent wouldnt been 5500 it would be more.”

Perhaps, perhaps not.

“Yes if the rent changes, the ex post facto cap rate calculation changes.”

Absolutely. But your argument, Juicy, from the beginning, is that the square footage changes the cap rate. It does not. The rent can, but doesn't necessarily, change the cap rate, and the size can, but doesn't necessarily, change the rent.

Rhino is right - you are wrong. Rhino himself said so when he blocked you, yet you insist on quoting him in your defense.

Really, Juicy, just come out and say it: THE SIZE OF AN APARTMENT DOES NOT CHANGE THE CAP RATE.

That's all you need to do.

All you have to do, Juicy, is say yes or no: DOES THE SIZE OF AN APARTMENT CHANGE THE CAP RATE?

Yes or no?

Perhaps not? At that address in that condition? Come on.

"“Yes if the rent changes, the ex post facto cap rate calculation changes.”

"Absolutely."

Thanks steve. That was my point throughout this thread and you now agree. It only took 118 posts for you to do it but it means, you were wrong once again.

"DOES THE SIZE OF AN APARTMENT CHANGE THE CAP RATE?"

The size of THIS apartment would impact the cost of rental (in reference to the OP). With a fixed sales price (since in the OP said it was sold), an increased rental cost would impact the cap rate. WHY CAN"T YOU GET IT STEVE? HOW MANY POSTS WITH THE SAME INFORMATION DOES IT TAKE FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND?

You can try to twist my words all you want steve. It is all right here and it is very clear what my position is. Can you not read?

"Rhino himself said so when he blocked you, yet you insist on quoting him in your defense."

Your BFF Rhino is an idiot. He continued to agree with me throughout this thread and then blocked me because he was frustrated that I was correct. I can't help it if Rhino can't understand his own posts.

Still can't do it, Juicy, can you? Still pathologically averse to admitting that the size of an apartment does NOT change the cap rate.

This kills me: "Yes if the rent changes, the ex post facto cap rate calculation changes. [...] That was my point throughout this thread."

So you are now claiming that if the RENT changes, the cap rate changes. And how do you make that point? By saying "steve, wouldn't Rhino's cap rate change if it was 1400 sqft? [...] I can't help it if Rhino can't understand his own posts."

OMG. Juicy, Juicy, Juicy. It's getting pathological with you, certainly indicative of an Axis II disturbance. Just admit it: Unlike what you first said - "Rhino's cap rate change if it was 1400 sqft?" - the cap rate does not change if the apartment (miraculously) grows.

This has gotten ridiculous. I will admit, as JM's advocate, that the size of an apartment does NOT change the cap rate. As everyone knows, the size of the apartment is not an input in the cap rate formula. I don't think anyone was suggesting otherwise. This isn't the point.

The point is -- there are 3 inputs required -- in this example, we had 2 of them, the price and the maintenance. We did not have the rent, so we had to make an educated guess as to what this apartment would rent for.

Steve, like it or not, size DOES change the rent. Take 2 different 2-BR apartments. Same building, same condition, same effective view/elevation. One of them is 1,200sqft, the other is 1,400sqft.

Are you HONESTLY telling us that you would pay the same rent for these 2 apartments? No way. The 1,400sqft apartment would command a higher rent than the other.

So, for the purposes of this analysis, it DOES make a difference whether you believe the apartment is 1,200 or 1,400 sqft. Because the assumed size will have an impact on your assessment of the appropriate rent. Clearly you understand this concept. The fact that you continue to torment JM over semantics is pointless.

Seg, read what I wrote: size MAY change the rent. Unquestionably. It doesn't need to, but it may. There may be a 1,200 ft2 apartment in a building with a Central Park view, however, and an 1,800 ft2 apartment in the same building with an interior courtyard view, where the former commands a better rent than the latter.

"the size of an apartment does NOT change the cap rate."

That's all Juicy has to say. Not backpedal, not demure, just "the size of an apartment does NOT change the cap rate."

Juicy?

Someone is debating that size does not impact rent? What's doesn't impact rent is the decision to include interior walls in sqft calc haha. So anyways how bout the fact that maintenances have probably gone up more in dollar terms than the market rents of the same apartments in the last 10 years. Pretty bullish!

Steve your example is dumb.

When one says size impacts rent 'all else being equal' is understood.

Rhino, what's really bullish on real estate is the fact that it costs twice as much to own it as to rent it, minimum. When I look at some (unabated) condos & co-ops I see that the common charges / taxes and/or maintenance is as much as a comparable rental. Meaning that, theoretically, they should give you the apartment for free if you agree to pay the overhead charges, in lieu of renting.

"Steve your example is dumb."

Rhino, it's directed at a particular audience, with whom nothing is taken for granted.

Haha. Well steve it seems to me you are confusing the idea that many factors go into the value of an apartment with the truism that size is one of those factors. To your credit, I can't be sure whether or not you are doing it on purpose to drive juicy to a watery grave in the east river.

I have an amazing view of the Hudson from my $3,600 a month rental. If he must go down in water, I'd prefer it be there - I'm paying for this view!

Are you? Discuss.

Direct debit.

juicy?!

Juicy?!

Juicy!?

Juicy?

Juicy?

steve doesn't want me to drown in the water. Who would keep him honest?

"that the size of an apartment does NOT change the cap rate. As everyone knows, the size of the apartment is not an input in the cap rate formula. I don't think anyone was suggesting otherwise. This isn't the point."

No it isn't the point and never was. I never said that size impacted the cap rate (even though steve wants to spin it that way). In the OP the price was fixed and if size changed - rent changed and would impact the cap rate. I've now said it 15 times in this thread and steve still doesn't get it.

steve, read all of my posts again (and repeat if needed) and then you may be ready to admit you were wrong. Otherwise, continue to talk to yourself and dig deeper into that hole. I don't really care.

"Haha. Well steve it seems to me you are confusing the idea that many factors go into the value of an apartment with the truism that size is one of those factors. To your credit, I can't be sure whether or not you are doing it on purpose to drive juicy to a watery grave in the east river."

Even Rhino thinks steve's examples are laughable. Of course steve is doing it on purpose, he gets his jolly's being obtuse, confrontational, distracting, and most importantly, wrong. I've never seen such universal dedication to arguing the wrong side of an argument, so vehemently, and for such a long period of time. Half of the posts on this board over the last two years are steve's blather - arguing for argument sake. Methinks he is insecure and possibly lonely. Meknows he is usually wrong.

JuiceMan: "steve, wouldn't Rhino's cap rate change if it was 1400 sqft?"

JuiceMan: "I never said that size impacted the cap rate (even though steve wants to spin it that way)."

Hmm. Delusions.

Denial is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.

Do you guys (gals?) have jobs? Or any life beyond baiting and bashing each other on this site? As for the apartment, really like it and kind of jealous it's not mine.

Both.

"Hmm. Delusions."

Nice try steve, context is a wonderful thing. Try it sometime. Even your BFF Rhino could comprehend what I said AND he agreed with me. He also laughed at your statement that sqft doesn't impact rent. Come to think of it you also agreed with me.

Time to bow out gracefully steve, you have no more cards to play.

"context is a wonderful thing."

Well that surely is the pot calling the kettle.

Alas, Juicy, your ENTIRE POST was: "steve, wouldn't Rhino's cap rate change if it was 1400 sqft?"

Go back and look.

"He also laughed at your statement that sqft doesn't impact rent."

Who ever said that? T'wasn't I. I said that size MAY impact rent. Time to stop changing what I - write, Juicy - it's a classic technique of yours and LICC's - and just admit it: square feet do not change the cap rate.

Why is that so hard?