SE a ghost town when economic news is good

INON: well i think my 7 year stretch between 2002 and 2007 is a more reliable average than your 2 year stretch, particularly when we are talking about an illiquid asset such as RE(even though there was plenty of RE flipping going on). RE was just beginning it's bubble run in 2000 as people were looking for a safer asset and the FED was accomodating with plenty of cheap money.
At this point in the cycle, with the stock market having made a historic run and plenty of room to move higher and a global recovery underway, employment should improve and drag the housing market along with it. just simple economics here. V-shaped recovery like the stock market? I doubt it but a recovery nonetheless.

LOL i mean 5 year stretch. late tequila night

"INON: well i think my [5] year stretch between 2002 and 2007 is a more reliable average than your 2 year stretch"

Except I didn't give a just 2-year stretch, I just pointed out that you left the 2 years that didn't match your thesis. I think you are cherry-picking you're data, but you think you can interpreted the differences. So be it.

"and drag the housing market along with it. just simple economics here. V-shaped recovery like the stock market? I doubt it but a recovery nonetheless."

IMO, if that's an optimist's view of an asset, then "We've got a problem, Houston". What sets off my sentiment spidey-sense is the fact that the most bullish sentiment we see for NYC RE is "muddle around for a few years, then up moderately". Nobody sees huge upside, nobody sees an opportunity of a lifetime, not even people who are putting their money in. At best, "we'll be OK and make a fair profit" and "we'll be dragged up by the trade winds". Really scary thought for an illiquid asset that you pretty much have to hold for a decade, IMO. When you put up capital at that level of risk, the ardent supporters should have expectations of outsized returns. Without that, you're setting yourself up to get a nice spanking IMO.

Here's my question for you. Say a decade passes and you sell this place for exactly what you paid. How will you account that from a P&L perspective?

Inonada. I'm coming around to the 'close your eyes' and ignore the loss on an inflation adjusted or next best alternative investment basis. Amazing the human's mind to be so brutally dishonest with oneself when it comes to $.

But I still think they'll be some movement in NYC re in the short term. I'm seeing plenty of ratio compression btwn 3-2-1 bdrms. It's hilarious. Lemmings live amongst us.

Dar be lemmings, aye, all around. Maybe there will be some movement as you say, but I surely ain't planning around it. Never think you can predict the direction of the herd for it might trample you, best to snatch the prey from the sides. Okay, even I don't understand the exact analogy to RE on that one, but given that it's past noon, you're probably already on your third drink, and it'll make perfect sense to you.

INON:yes stocks have gone nowhere this past decade if you're a buy and holder. my point was the bulk of the RE rise followed the rise in the stock market. the facts speak for themselves. they are linked especially in NYC. any buyer of NYC RE is probably not expecting another bubble. but regaining the 20% lost over the next 2-3 years is not unreasonable. a more traditional 3% year rise after that is probably in the offing as well. someone buying an apartment can expect to do quite well.

and as far as lemmings, they already went over the cliff. just us prairie dogs sticking are heads out of the burrows and buying early.

"they are linked especially in NYC."

Actually, even in NYC they are completely uncorrelated. Even Jonathan Miller admits that.

WB, let's say prices just rise 3% a year from here on out and you hold on for a decade and then sell. Are you up, down, or flat, and by how much?

Gee inonada. Thatz a loaded question, but if I can sell at current prices and rent a similar or even better place for less than my carry, plus be liquid in an rising interest rate environment where 7% on chking might be the norm and stocks must default to 12% returns, so I'm earning $240k on my $2mm 2 bdrm on westside highway versus slogging away paying 40% of piti to say I own and barely keeping up with starbucks inflation......

But lemmings would never get beyond 'ya can paint it any color ya wantz' -shrug- so what's the question again? Flmao.

Yes that thought process is so complex how could anyone follow it?
the real piti(y) is your incessant reliance on Flmao...
lemmings,Flmao...Flmao lemmings

Lmao. Happy?

after the '87 market crash, NYC RE fell and bottomed in '92-arguably the year the tech bubble began to inflate. W67: that's some inflation and interest rate prediction. based on what? nothing but conjecture i imagine.

inon:here is a link for a free online calculator: http://www.calculateforfree.com/

you do the math

Actually. Bottomed and stayed that way till 1996/7. Big differEnce.

3% historical norm (structural inflation built into fed's model) addl 2% to account for us economy coming out of depression, addl 100 bps for further credit/risk yet to be dealt with and 100bps bc w67 said so. There 7% chking. You are welcome.

Depression ie all the fed's liquidity that needs to be wrung out of this economy.

W67: I agree with you. If one can sell and rent for less similar in this market, do it. But Manhattan is full of 700k-1m buyers of loft-like alcove studios.

cfranch: "you do the math"

How the hell does that help? I already know how I'd do the math, what I don't know how WB would do the math.

hey inonada, don't be angry