Cost of Owning

approximately between 100k and 100million

The first thing to understand is the difference between a co-op and a condo.

There are a few more "hidden" costs with a condo because, for example, you really need a homeowner's insurance policy. Most people do not need this with a co-op apartment, in my opinion--but there are exceptions.

Your monthly charge is your main concern. Then, add whatever utilities are not included.

Then there's repairs. Buy a place in good shape and repairs are few and far between. But if the toilet runs, one way another you have to pay.

The other thing that is a major expense in a full service building is gratuities for the staff in December. These are really not optional, and they are $50-$100 per worker in a middle-class apartment.

{Manhattan real estate agent}

Yes do let the $2k per yr Xmas bonus determine your buying decision. Just plz don't ask about the Guaranteed $300k leveraged equity loss deter you from giving me my fair share of the purchase price. Cause thatz how iz roll, beyyttttcccccheeessssss.

hahahaha

"The other thing that is a major expense in a full service building is gratuities for the staff in December. These are really not optional"

not optional? are they included in the contract in fine print?

"The other thing that is a major expense in a full service building is gratuities for the staff in December. These are really not optional, and they are $50-$100 per worker in a middle-class apartment."

Oh is that so????

Again, in case you missed that ...

"gratuities for the staff ... are really not optional."

So that means ... "gratuities" are MANDATORY.

One if the hidden costs is interest on your downpayment. Use the mortgage rate to keep it simple, not your savings account rate, because you are taking much more risk.

The other hidden cost is the opportunity cost of waiting for the market to fall another 30% or more.

Compared to renting, the owner has certain repair and maintenance expenses to consider: like painting (every five to ten years to taste), repairs (seven years) or replacement (ten to fifteen years) of appliances, annual maintenance or replacement (twenty years) of A/C units. Marble needs to be polished occasionally, and bathrooms re-grouted or re-calked. On the other hand, an owner doesn't need to pay for or endure the cost of frequent moves or rent increases.

One of the hidden benefits of owning is, if you own long enough and your out of pocket costs are less than comparable rent, that tangible benefit is "income" that accrues to you tax-free.

By saying frequent moves you imply that the choice is either to buy now or rent forever. That is a distortion. The choice is to buy now, or buy in two or three years. Renting over the next 2-3 yrs makes all the sense in the world.

Right, that income right now is about 3.5% cash on cash....yippie...against a mortgage rate of 6%+.

Rhino, no, I know an owner who could have bought in the 90s, but waited until 2007. There have owners who sold in 2003 to rent and wait for property prices to become more reasonable. You don't need to renter "forever" for it to be a costly mistake.

Anyone who could have but didn't buy in the 1990s has a problem understanding the math. You tell me what about the current conditions bear any mathematical similarity to the 1990s. You tell me what can happen in the next few years to make it costly not to have bought.

Hi Fluter,

I work in high net worth personal insurance in Manhattan. Your comment above regarding insurance isn't accurate, it's a very common misnomer and I can't fault anyone, there's lots of bad advice out there, however, if you get it wrong, it can set you back $1,000's of dollars in a claim. From a personal insurance perspective, a condo and coop are identical, in terms of the personal insurance policy you should procure. Every builidng has a master policy purchased by the condo or coop association, however, if you have damage to the interior of your unit and you believe the master policy is going to compensate you adequately, you'll be in for a big surprise. The master policy will cover the common areas, and will rebuild the shell of the building. Let's assume you go out, gas explosion at your bldg (fault isn't that important) and the building is rubble. The master policy will rebuild the shell of the building, however, when your unit is delivered to you, you'll see the wood studs in the exterior walls, no interior walls, cement floor, electrical cords hanging everywhere, and the bathrooms will just be large standpipes. We say your responsbile from the "studs in". Much like a full and total gut renovation. Reconstruction costs for very basic apartments run $250 to $300 per square foot in Manhattan, and I would put it closer the $300 for entry level. Regardless of what the contract says, when dealing with a commerical insurance master policy, good luck having them repair a $25,000 water loss. Remember, with your loss, your not dealing with your re broker, condo mgmt or condo board, your up against a multi million dollar commerical isurance policy with a high deductible. Granted there will be an exception here and there, but 9 out 10, it's your own dime insuring the interior.

People buy for reasons other than "math". The person who waited a long time was waiting to find the right companion first. Ironically, that didn't happen. I completely agree that the "math" doesn't work today, but that doesn't mean that selling makes sense either. There are high transaction costs and taxes to be paid by sellers, and if you are an owner in a perfect apartment, what are your chances of getting lucky again at a good price? I think this is probably a "sell" period if you are not in an ideal apartment, or a "hold" period if you are.

Selling is not what I am talking about. There are a lot of considerations there.
I am talking about not buying your first place right now.

rhino, I agree with you, but just to play devil's advocate, I can see how it might make sense for someone in the following situation, especially someone who still considers owning as the ultimate sign of success.

Now:
- can only afford a small downpayment (3.5%)
- get a low mortgage rate of about 5 to 5.5%
- found something that's truly priced below current market.
- if didn't purchase now, likely to invest the down payment in a mutual fund hoping to increase down payment

vs.
Three years from Now:
- fha increased downpayment requirement and fees/insurance (which is passed down to borrower)
- mortgage interest rate increased by 3%
- lost some money in the mutual fund
- housing priced down 15-20% from current level (only positive point)

For instance, I think my inlaws should sell. They pay $3500 in maintenance for a 5-room apartment. They dont need the space they have and they have a large summer house. They should sell and rent something smaller. Shit for $6000 they could get something the same size. However, they are sentimental about it. So they carry a large mortgage on the summer house while they pay $3500 a month in maintenance charges for the Manhattan apartment.

If mortgage rates go up 300 bps, I think your 15-20% down is scary optimistic.
The stock market doesnt need to be attractive to make not-buying an apartment
smart. Your three year scenario actually sounds like a fanastic time to buy.
If DP reqs go up and mortgage rates rise, values will get destroyed.

Rhino, interest rate and downpayment can shoot up really fast, but prices don't necessarily come down just as fast, though # of sales could fall very fast.

downpayment requirement that is

It doesnt need to happen fast. Once those things happen, sit tight and wait. As a matter of fact, sit tight and wait right now and wait for those things to happen. Its amazing how distant the memory of prolonged bad real estate markets is...that people get on this site and literally fight tooth and nail to say how sound buying always is.

I would be buying in the 4th year in that scenario.

I guess you just shed your devils advocate stance. The hardest part here is
having the discipline to wait four years to buy when everything about the last
fifteen years says the way to build wealth is to own your own...You know, just
like everything from the fifteen years prior to 1999 said stocks were the way.

Own your home.

"Renting over the next 2-3 yrs makes all the sense in the world."

Rhino, for some yes, for others not. There are so many variables involved in a rent versus own scenario and you and many others on this board only make the assessment based on their own situation.

What if a property is already extremely competively priced such that the future decline would probably be in the 5-10% range? What if the line of units in the building you want is almost sold out and won't be available in 3 years?

Most importantly, what if interest rates do go up 3% over the next 3 years? On a $800,000 mortgage that would be a additional $580,000 in interest over 30 years which provides a lot of insulation by means of saved interest against future price decline as respects an apartment currently priced at $1 million.

And this theory of the lost opportunity cost of the down payment just mystifies me. Put it in a CD and earn 2.25% currently. Or invest it in anything else and put the money at risk. That down payment stands a good chance of appreciating in the home purchase over time as well.

There are many reasons to buy and many reasons to rent. Renting is definitely the best decision for many right now, but buying is right choice for many as well. The one size fits all answer to question is just useless.

Gator. What is useless is to not put in an *.

* plz note this information is only useful during 'standard' financial downturns. Ie when prices of NYC re did no appreciate from $300psf to $2000 psf in the span of 10 yrs. Otherwise 2010 is the greatest period to rent while 'homeowners' take it in the jimmies.

Only two types of ppl should buy now. 1) ppl that like to lose $ on a leveraged basis and 2) James Cameron. That dude needs the $1mm mortgage tax shield.

Yawn same old misconconceptions rehashed. Gator who has the time to set you straight? You hit all the
bad ones.

"Most importantly, what if interest rates do go up 3% over the next 3 years? On a $800,000 mortgage that would be a additional $580,000 in interest over 30 years which provides a lot of insulation by means of saved interest against future price decline as respects an apartment currently priced at $1 million."

That's assuming the home buyer foolishly went with an adjustable-rate mortgage.

Not everyone is so stupid, you know.

What if you can get a good one bedroom for 3k month carry and you have at least a five year time horizon?

"What if you can get a good one bedroom for 3k month carry and you have at least a five year time horizon?"

See, THAT is precisely the problem that got so many BUYERS into trouble in the first place.

Buying a home should be considered a PERMANENT decision. The "time horizon" is the length of your mortgage. If you honestly feel you'll be moving within five years, AND losing equity in your home is a realistic worry, then you should be RENTING.

The ONE thing obamie can do to never allow a RE bubble in his lifetime is to limit all mortgages that will be backed by the gov't to terms of 10 yrs, fully amortizing..... make all other mortgages "buyer" beware. NUff said.

"The ONE thing obamie can do to never allow a RE bubble in his lifetime is to limit all mortgages that will be backed by the gov't to terms of 10 yrs, fully amortizing."

Then you go back to pre-1934, where only about a quarter of all Americans could afford to buy anything.

Rhino, you spend so much time on this board, you definitely have the time to set me straight if you can. Keep in mind that I am by no means suggesting that everyone should buy now, just that buying now can make sense for quite a few people.

Matt, the $580,000 is the difference for two 30 year fixed mortages on a $1 million property with 20% done. The only difference is one purchased today with a 5.5% rate and one three years from now at 8.5%. I certainly agree with you though that way to many people look at a home purchase from a transitory perspective. Time frame is one of the most important factors in the rent versus buy equation. With a five year time horizon, buying makes sense in very few situations given today's (and probably any) economy.

w67th, would love to borrow that crystal ball of yours. Any position that unequivocal usually isn't worth listening to.

gatornyc: "What if a property is already extremely competively priced such that the future decline would probably be in the 5-10% range?"

Sounds like you don't need w67th's crystal ball.

With that said, I agree with you that buying now can make sense for 'quite a few' in some specific situations. The operative word being "few".

Sunday, my point is that it is almost impossible to pick the bottom of any market; it is far more luck than anything else. If we are 5-10% from the bottom of the market, and I think we probably are, and the buyer has a 8+ year time frame on the purchase, than buying may be a solid proposition.

And that is the market generally. There are certainly specific properties that are are more competitively priced than others. Some may have 15% to fall, some very little. Again, I just find this one size fits all approach maddening and misleading.

1+1=2.
W67. 'the f'n answer is 2, I'm a 100% sure!'
gator..... 'i disagree bc w67 is so so certain!!!!!'

Did you think the NASDAQ bottomed
at 4000 too?

Stocks are the way to get rich. Just ask
teachers about their pensions in 1999.

Gator. You mistake the NYC re wih an eff mkt.
1) look for 3 qtrs of firming rental rates and if you see this buy asap!!!!!
2) borkers touting rent/buy ratio to sell apts!!!!!!!
Hahhahahahahahahhaahjajajajaajaanaaaa. I jeez. I just peeed in my pants.

I agree it is almost impossible to pick the bottom. I personally rather buy when I have actually seen the bottom and when there are not so many unknowns left. In other words, when prices actually start moving up consistently based on pure fundamentals. Within the next couple of years, I think we will see the full effects of the shadow inventory, extended unemployment, option ARMs / interest rate resets, foreclosures, lower rental prices, higher interest rate and taxes, and less government support of the industry. That feels like the making of a perfect storm. I understand some of the unique differences between NYC and other cities, but it's definitely not immune to the troubles other have already experienced. You could be right that we're 10% from the bottom on average, but that would not be my guess. I'm personally looking for a sustained 20% to 30% decline from current levels. It could spike lower than that for a brief period (1 quarter) in certain segments. In either case, I'm holding on to my cash until I see how things play out. The risk is just too high with so many factors in play.

Rhino, no I didn't think the NASDAQ bottomed at 4000, but all bubbles don't burst the same way or to the same degree. A house and a stock are fundamentally different investments (i.e., a house is not a full fledged investment; you have to have a place to live, you don't have to own any stock). And I'm certainly not suggesting that buying a house right now will make you rich in the future, only that it can be a reasonable, and possiblity profitable decision, depending on the circumstances.

W67th, I set forth some of the reasons why I disagree with you. That I usually don't give much credence to someone's opinion that leaves no room for any other viewpoint or possibility is a caveat not the reason I disagree with you. And you are absolutely correct, a real estate market is not an efficient market, yet you are the one who treats it as if it is. Finally, I never said anyone should buy asap or that brokers advice is worth a damn. But you never actually respond to what people actually say . . . it would be too difficult.

Dead right. Buy in 1996 not 1993. Guesses when the first uptick is? 2013?

Gator. May I ask, did you just buy re in NYC in the last 6 years?

Sunday, I appreciate your point, but if you wait until you see the bottom (and how will you really know that it was the bottom as opposed to a head fake), you will have almost certainly have locked in much higher mortgage rates. Now depending on your time frame this may not make a huge difference (5 years), but if you intend to stay for a much longer time frame you will trade your purchase price savings for much higher interest costs which could very possibly be much more costly.

Head fakes are rare in real estate. It's not the stock market. It turns like an aircraft carrier.

w67, I bought a house on LI in 2004 and sold it in 1997 (not because I thought the real estate market was about to collapse, but for personal reasons). I have rented in NYC since 1997. You?

Rhino, easy to say buy in 1996 not 1993 now; hindsight is 20/20. You may be absolutely right that the first uptick won't occur until 2013. I agree that that is a very real possibility, but I don't see another 20-30% down from her. Rather, I think we're going to by fairly stuck where we are. Maybe another 5-10% down, but more of a backfilling scenario for the next few years. Which is why I think it makes a lot of sense -- again in the right circumstances -- to lock in historically low interest rates now.

Valuation is not 20 20. I see more downside than you see. Good luck.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding about rates and values. High rates create buying opportunities not vice versa.

Don't use stock jargon like backfiling.

rhino, that's a fair comment, but the seasonality of real estate can blur the trends. And the decline in the last year certainly shows that even a real estate market can move quickly...not stock market quick but more quickly than many had thought possible. What doesn't move like an aircraft carrier is interest rates. They can and I think will move quite quickly.

gatornyc, it's 'more likely' that I have seen the bottom if prices stay within a few percentage range for a few quarters and the factors I have mentioned had more time to play out. I understand that mortgage rate will certainly be higher, that's why I came up with the example earlier where I suggested that the lower price can be wiped out by the higher interest rate. However, I don't expect to need a large mortgage and would likely select an adjustable rate and pay it off within a few years.

Last year showed it can move down quickly. Markets take
stairs up and fall out of windows. Hahah.

Rhino, prices fall another 25% from here but mortgage rates go up 3.5%. If you are buying with a longer time horizon what did waiting do for you? The 25% decline is worth $250,000 while the increase in rates will cost you more than $600,000.

And you may not like jargon words like "backfilling" but that won't stop it from happening. Good luck to you as well.

if the price declines are nationwide then you wont see a rise in mortgage rates. govt wont let it happen. but most likely what will happen is that NYC will comtinue to deflate while the rest of the country stabilizes,but I dont think we'll see a significant rise in rates anyways.

How long a horizon are you assuming? Are you including interest deductions? All the great buying opps come with high rates. It's simple. 1990s. 1982. The cost of assets is inverse of cost of
money. You may be excluding fixed costs like taxes and maintenance.

Rhino, and the years from 2002 through 2007 showed us it can go up quickly also . . . too quickly. Hahah.

marco, my point exactly. Nationwide prices have declined much more and are now in the process of stabilizing even if there is some more room on the downside. If NYC continues to decline while the rest of the country stabilizes, Washington won't subsidize mortgage rates as they have been doing to save the NYC market. So in that scenario rates are in all probabilty much higher three years from now.

rhino, no one has been able to show me a chart correlating interest rates and home prices. As for time frame, except for very discrete circumstances, anyone intending to hold the home for less than 10 years should probably rent not buy. And no I didn't include interest deductions which would only serve to make the savings greater.

Also, regarding Fluter's post, every -- and I do mean every -- condo and co-op owner should have a homeowner's insurance policy or the equivalent. It protects not just against property damage, but also personal injury if someone is injured while in your home. As basic as life insurance if you have children.

Prices went up fast into a period of rising demand and rapidly declining interest rates off a low valuation relative to rents. Sound like now? Nah not really.

02 to 07.... That's your counter for my belief mkt is gonna tank to $500psf? Omfg. Gator.... You are a lemming. Sorry Marco.... If you do not know what volcker is all about, I would caution your optimism about 3% 30yr rates.

Gator.... Plz buy alll of manhattan.

Hey did you hear about how 'gator' is gonnna save us?

Another thing. There is only one group of 'truly' 10+ yr buyers, that would be the family in NYC in a great school zone with little kids. Everyone else.... Life happens really really quickly and usually at not of your choosing. This also goes for most of the NYC families with small kids.

rhino, I'm not suggesting that it does sound like now. Only responding to your point that real estate markets turn like aircraft carriers.

we still have sooo many foreclosures to work their way through the system, nationally. this is spreading to non-bubble areas, prime mortgages, due to unemployment, which is likely to remain persistently high. homeowners with ARMs that have not been able to refi will get hit if rates increase, leading to yet more foreclosures. there is little to no inflation present. i think there will be some talk and not too much action on controlling the deficit in the near term. i still don't see any room for that much-awaited 300 bps increase. and i still see room for fairly meaningful price drops nationally.

i think people should make their own choices based on what works for them. given that there is very little chance of rents or purchase prices going up anytime soon, though, i have to wonder why someone would want to tie themselves to such an illiquid asset if they only have such limited cash for a downpayment. these are trying times, and while one can't live just waiting for disaster to strike, recognizing that things are tenuous and taking a relatively defensive stance seems wise to me right now. now, if you have oodles of cash, that's different. if you have two salaries in one family, both seemingly secure and either capable of handling all debt, that may insulate you as well. but i don't think there are that many people who can be so categorized.

AR, that 300 bps increase will happen over a period of time; I think that 100 bps a year is very plausible. And the reason why someone would want to tie themself to property right now is that to avoid that spike in interest rates that will happen sooner rather than later. I personally hate renting, many don't, but I know many people who feel the same way. That being said I would continue to do so if it was likely to be a much better financial bet, but I feel that it doesn't in my circumstances.

I agree with much of what you said in the second paragraph of your post. My wife and I are in the process of purchasing, but we are buying a place in exactly the circumstances you describe. Either my salary or hers would be capable of handling all debt. We are putting down 20%; don't really understand why I would necessarily want put down more as it would, as you describe, tie up cash in an illiquid asset and the ocst of financing is at a historical low.

Gator, sorry. I was mixing up this thread with another I think, in which it was argued that the opportunity to buy with only 3.5 percent down while still available might be compelling. If the rates/price movement is a wash I'd always go for price. Rates can change, the price you paid will be with you forever.

I think mobility is underrated these days. But best of luck to you personally in your search.

Correctamundo. Rates and
price are always a wash because
average persons buy on payment
and payment alone.

Me, own 1bdrm coop on w67 w/ $100k cost basis ( last unit sold for $560k - crazy). Own commercial property, did most of m y deals in 1995 to 2001, goodz times. Rent 3 bdrm for fam. Looking to buy my dream c7.... At the right price. Sitting on tons of cash earning 2%. That hurts but beats being down $1mm on a lost flex 3 bid in 2007. Seriously, same unit is down $1mm from peak.

Again, who am I o argue with a billinaire spending $3mm, but if you gotta stretch (ie take a mortgage) id say the mkt is coming towards you really really quickly. Just wait this 'spring' season out at a min. The Obama fix means 0 sales in spring, a serious price adj. In summer, dagger in seller in fall.

Glad you made some coin in 04 to 07 trade, just don't blow it too soon. Me thinks for ppl like yourself and myself (and ar), it'll be like kids in a candy store in mexico, with a 500peso to dollar ex. Hahaahahhaha.
Rico suave.

payment matters
With 5% down assumable FHA, 4.5% 30 year rate, 15 yr tax abatement I end up with a monthly payment below my current rent (not counting tax deductions) for a 3br/2ba
Price stays with you forever -- yes -- but the exposure is the 5%
rate you are at 111 year historic low
the first house I bought was with 0 down assuming a 11.5% VA loan when the market was at 18%

Gator, your absolutely right about liability, I didn't mention that in my post, it's like putting your seatbelt on, you just do it. I think Fluter was talking about getting a renters insurance policy and putting it on a co-op, which is a common fallacy, as that will only protect your personal contents, and not the physical structure of the inside of your unit. When you protect the interior physical structure of your unit, it's commonly referred as "Additions and Alterations".

Let's say I have $1mm cash today. Rates spike to 15% us guaranteed. Id earn $150k/yr or a little more than $13k/month. Due to mkt forces rents on 3bdrms continues down.... Hmmmmm, I'd rather be in cash than a Leveraged illliquid depreciating asset. Thnak you.

Joe, you do know after the first 10 yrs the tax shield for the mortgage start to disappear at an accelerating rate..... Which means I would not 'pay' to assume your mortgage. Matter of fact, you'd have to pay me to assume a non tax shield mortgage.

Do these costs get added to renting?
1) Nuisance fees of disconnecting and reconnecting utilities(ever year or two)
2) Moving trucks(see above)
3) Personal time packing, unpacking and supervising movers
4) Furniture in the event the old stuff is damaged or does not fit

Maybe this doesn't bother some people, but I hated it.

AR, typically I would agree with you regarding rate versus price. Rates change so usually you can refinance into a more attractive rate within a reasonable time. But considering the historically low rates we now have, the situation is different. When are rates ever going to be this low again? In view of a variety of economic factors, likely (and in some respects hopefully) never (or at least in any relevant time frame). So given how far the market has dropped already, with a longer time horizon, I'm now favoring rate. Best of luck to you as well!

w67th, we don't disagree as much as it may appear. I have been one happy renter for that past 3 years, preserving and accumulating cash all along. Between the price on my purchase and my time horizon, purchasing now makes the most sense to me given the likely interest environment.

Rhino, payment is the most important metric, but I don't agree that rates and price is always a wash. I can't find any historical data to support that proposition. That being said, I tend to agree that rates will pressure pricing but not so much so that it will offset the advantage of locking in historically low rates given my time horizon.

riversider, all of those bother the hell out of me and are among the reasons why we cannot view real estate as we would most other investments.

Flmao. I know the kinds of homes you guyz have. It's the kind of place where I walk in and go 'goddamnit' it'll take your children 2 years to throw out all this crap! When you drop dead Kinda homes. Me I believes in traveling light and living lighter. Me.com Acct,scanned in all my pics docs, one watch, one Porsche, one wife, two kids... Keep em skinny so I can move like greased lightening.

w67th, you're with me on the mobility issue, i sense.

Oh at these prices to income ratios, NYC re is far from being a 'home'. Think of it like a huge leveraged 401k plan that you can Put a mattress in.

For ALOT ALOT of nycers, itz their only 401k plan.

w67th, not mine. I hate clutter! I would actually enjoy that show "Clean House" if the hosts weren't so damned annoying. The mess is horrifying, but to see the end result in a pristine, decluttered state satisfies my OCD.

Don't understand ppl with so much 'stuff'. If I lost all my 'stuff' id be pissed if I lost my pictures, nothing else. It'd take me one day and my platinum card to replace everything else, and it'd be fun. Wife has spent a solid month moving stuff to ahutterfly. Now let our bandha ache happen. Id be set up in ne digs in 5 days, new iMac, new clothes for kids, new Dino collection, wouldn't miss a beat.

Gator :)

Tallisman, thanks very much for this information. This issue just came up in a showing today.

Could you please tell me exactly what the policy/package is called that one should investigate to cover one's apartment structure in the event of a total loss? Is it still called "homeowner's insurance"?

I don't care about contents, just the structure. Thanks in advance.

"It'd take me one day and my platinum card to replace everything else, and it'd be fun."

Good for you.

Most people don't have a quarter of a million dollars sitting around to replace *everything* in one day.

w67 is high class, not middle class

"w67 is high class, not middle class"

Even a "middle class" household would have to spend six figures to replace *everything*.

how now? on a 5 fig income, they'd have 6 figs worth of stuff? i do have dreams of having to move and getting rid of everything esp. plastic toys - clean white apt with minimalist furniture - no unicorns or mutant purple ponies

and with the right homeowner's policy, the shopping could be fun.

10023, you give up the unicorns you give up the soul.

"how now? on a 5 fig income, they'd have 6 figs worth of stuff?"

It's amazing how much stuff you can buy and accumulate over the course of earning $500,000 (over ten years).

Matt my wife is a firm believer in craigslist. Every stroller we ever owned has been 'recraigycled'. Car= insurance. My wife t ring = insurance. What is left but some furniture, cooking ut, clothes and kids toys? Look at the stuff in your home. You can't replicate for $50k?, $75k,$100k? Really....

An avg 1bdrm was $1mm, shldnt you have $150k in reserve? Or am I just ultra-conservatouraus. Or am I to believe I am extinct due to the bubble asteroid that hit 7 years ago?

Well, it you buy everything at Crate and Barrel, Pottery Barn, DWR, and Pier 1 - Sure.

Some of us like things that are a little more individual, harder to find (but lots of fun finding it), and probably costs a little more.

i have a few things i'd regret losing, but not so much that i've put them away for safekeeping. i have some first edition dickens (one signed) that i'd not like to lose, given to me from the BB IBr i used to live with. and some great original art that i picked up over the years, for not that much money, while travelling.

other than these items, and a few pictures (and most are now archived digitally), there's little that i'd miss. and there's plenty of opportunity to travel and pick up more. an excuse to buy, even.

murray, kind of funny. you don't need a special rider for your insurance policy for your hifalutin furniture tastes. but my rare books?

everyone should have insurance, renters and owners. it's not that expensive, assuming you're not in a flood area, etc.

AR - actually, a separate rider for antiques and art is less expensive (ratewise) than the regular policy covering construction, improvement, and regular furniture replacement

And for your rare books (and important documents) - get a good safe.

well, it's all just additional, no? you have to have the policy to start, and then you add on if you choose. but i get your point, at least in terms of rate.

but in terms of my books, oh good lord no. i love them, and i like to see them. would i miss them in a disaster, absolutely. but the joy they give me in the meantime will make up for such potential losses in the future (and maybe that's pretentious, but i happen to like old books, and loooove dickens, so). hey, maybe i understand why people buy. but, no, my odds of loss are extremely low.

If you make 50k/year, you shouldn't have stuff worth six-figures. Very poor use of your cash, unless you are into collectibles that appreciate or have inherited antiques.

Hi Fluter. Here's the data your looking for. If you need a renters policy, the inside insurance term is an HO4, for a house an H03 is a homeowner's policy for a standalone strucure, or a brownstone, if you own the bldg. If you have a coop or condo owner, it's an H06. You can just call it a condo insurance when speaking to an insurance broker. Most times these policies have a minimum limit for contents, maybe like $15,000. Depends which company you work with. For everyone else speculating how much contents they own, you got 1,000 square feet in Manhattan, minimum you want is $150,000. Think about, every fork, knife, spoon, the holders they go in, evey cookbook, shoe, sock, pocketbook and belt your wife/signficant other has. My wife shops at Annne Klein/Anne Taylor I know for a fact she has over $2,000 in just alterations of her clothes, and guess what, I can't even see alterations, when adding up everything we own. I think it would cost $1,000 just to replace every hairbrush, soap bottle, vitamin bottle etc in the bathroom/medecine cabinet. We don't live in college dorms anymore where milk crates sub as bookshelves. To buy r.e at $1,000 psf and they kid yourself it's gonna $25K to replace your contents is foolish.