Done with being an owner

Yes you are.

> "no hassles"

> Again, what kind of "hassles" that you wouldn't encounter in a rental?

Matt, why do you keep ignoring the list posted above.

Because the list is not valid.

There isn't a single "hassle" one would encounter as a co-op owner that one wouldn't encounter as a renter.

> Now, do you have any insights to the other items I listed which you have not yet responded to?

My guess is... no.

"Making a long term commitment has paid off not only in terms of building equity, but also in terms of month to month cash savings verses the current cost of renting like property."

Of course, had you not given up all that cash you left on the table early on, and put that in the market at the same risk profile (5x leverage, perhaps) and let that compound, how would you be doing now?

Dow is up 5x in that time.

The dishwasher breaks, they replace it. The fridge breaks, they replace it.
One of them breaks and it screws up the floor, they replace that too.

"If you lived in a co-op, the owner WOULD take care of it -- because you're ALL "the owner" of the building. "

And THANK GOD we don't have that as renters. Needing permission of others to pay for things / not pay for things. Or be forced to pay for things I don't want!

"You may disagree with me, but I now see this fetish with homeownership in this country as a cultural thing. Propaganda if you will. "

Bingo. And its what screwwed American.

"Still, there is almost "hostility" on these threads to renters like they fail to have purpose until they own someplace. "

Yup. Mostly from folks trying to rationalize their own purchases.

" They say they are pissing away money and getting nothing back, and I say look at all the mortgage payments I've made that have similarly given me nothing back due to the fact that the market has dropped so much. It only works if the timing is right....and post-Lehman timing is not on owners sides. "

How come these geniuses think that taxes, maintenance are any less "thrown away". Or those hundreds of thousands in interest!

"Again, we're comparing co-ops with RENTALS -- in which case you'd generally be allowed to do NO major work, and even minor work would require the landlord's permission"

Hmmm.. lets see.... me being allowed to pay for work... or me having the landlord pay for it. Tough choice!

"This notion that renters are saving all this money by not buying and investing the difference in more lucrative vehicles is a canard"

This just sounds like petty jealousy (besides being wrong).

If forced savings is the best argument for buying, then wow, there isn't much of an argument for buying.

> human nature being what it is

Its the same human nature that has enabled folks to mistake the aparmtents they live in as "investments".

"most people generally will spend the maximum they can afford on housing, whether in the form of a combined mortgage and maintenance or rent"

Well, if that does happen, the folks who rent get more. Either way, those who bought didn't do so well.

Though, interesting, Matt has had to shift from the original argument.... I guess he knows he's wrong.

Overall, I LOVE the freedom renting brings.

"There isn't a single "hassle" one would encounter as a co-op owner that one wouldn't encounter as a renter."

You can keep repeating that but you'll STILL be wrong, Matt.

Seriously, are you so uncomfortable in your current position that you have to make things up to let yourself feel better about your decisions?

They block your view, tear up your street, change traffic patterns, have someone you can't stand move in next door. Or they decide to dismantle the BQE that you live under.

Not a hassle, right Matt? Keep telling yourself that.

pmg, as I have been much happier since I determined that renting is for me I guess I'm doing fine. with more capital could I have made more money off of real estate? sure. and you're right, that's just luck. but there has never been a time when I didn't utilize my assets wisely to provide what I felt was acceptable housing, except the time I stretched.

I know it's hard for many to fathom but I really like my housing situation. and it is hugely below what we could afford. I'm not bragging. these are just my priorities at this point in my life.

"Of course, had you not given up all that cash you left on the table early on, and put that in the market at the same risk profile (5x leverage, perhaps) and let that compound, how would you be doing now? Dow is up 5x in that time."

Red herring.

Most renters don't have a pile of cash to invest in the first place.

"They block your view, tear up your street, change traffic patterns, have someone you can't stand move in next door. Or they decide to dismantle the BQE that you live under."

What the hell are you talking about??

and pmg you do of course realize that huge numbers of owned apartments are in god-awful ugly buildings? I'll take pcv over a '70s white-brick building any day. but of course to each his own.

""most people generally will spend the maximum they can afford on housing, whether in the form of a combined mortgage and maintenance or rent"

Well, if that does happen, the folks who rent get more. Either way, those who bought didn't do so well."

***

In the short term ... and only before the owners get their annual income tax refunds, which puts their monthly housing outlay at LESS then the renters.

Oh yes, and in the end, the owners OWN their apartment. The renters "own" a stack of cancelled rent checks.

"Hmmm.. lets see.... me being allowed to pay for work... or me having the landlord pay for it. Tough choice!"

"Having" the landlord pay for it.

That is, if he WANTS to have the work done in the first place.

You might just have to live with those broken tiles in the bathtub, the crappy kitchen floor that never gets clean no matter how many times you scrub it, and the hideous amateurish woodwork.

"I'll take pcv over a '70s white-brick building any day."

"White brick" buildings are a product of the early '60s only.

You're welcome for the NYC architectural lesson.

Whatever

The dishwasher breaks, they replace it. The fridge breaks, they replace it.
-----------------------------------------------------------

If you own, you put in good appliances which for the most part last 10-15 years. If something occasionally breaks you fix it when you want and replace it if you want with a unit of your choosing.

If you rent you don't know exactly when it will be fixed and the unit may need to be replaced rather than repaired.

If you rent the 10-15 year life span of appliances does not necessarily hold. Prior renters may have abused the appliances, and the owner may not have put in top end units or be inclined to do so.

"Whatever"

Wow. Now there's an Ivy League argument strategy!

"Prior renters may have abused the appliances"

"May have"??

Of course they have. Again, it's human nature. Most people simply do not take as good care of things that are not theirs, as they have no vested interest in doing so.

Just look at how people treat rental cars ... even the high-end rental cars.

To compare Stuy Town Rentals to Condo or Coop is bad comparison. The former is low end housing project. Glenwood would be a better comparison.

"The dishwasher breaks, they replace it. The fridge breaks, they replace it."

Perhaps.

But not necessarily with something NEW.

Most landlords, before shelling out dollars for a brand-new appliance, will replace a broken one with either a used one from another one of their empty units, a spare that they're keeping in a basement somewhere, or a used one they got off of Craig's List.

> Red herring.
> Most renters don't have a pile of cash to invest in the first place.

Talk about a red herring!

We're talking about rent/buy. If you're talking about people without cash, you're talking about folks who couldn't put the down payment to buy either!

Not to mention, you COMPLETELY missed the point. Last few years, renters were paid to rent... and the poster I responded to noted that when he bought, it was ALSO cheaper to rent.

So the renters HAD that money.

Bad logic, matt.

She doth protest too much.

> "Or they decide to dismantle the BQE that you live under."
> What the hell are you talking about??

Wow, you really haven't heard. Ouch.

No hassles, right.

> In the short term ... and only before the owners get their annual income tax refunds, which puts
> their monthly housing outlay at LESS then the renters.

Nope. Still wrong, Matt. Why do you have to resort to lies?

> Oh yes, and in the end, the owners OWN their apartment. The renters "own" a stack of cancelled rent
> checks.

Moronic. This is like the guy who puts $10k for junk on his credit card to get the free toaster.

You own a fraction of an apartment, and you overpaid for it several times over. Does that really making owning a positive?

Sheesh, Matt, you really need to learn some math.

"Not to mention, you COMPLETELY missed the point. Last few years, renters were paid to rent... and the poster I responded to noted that when he bought, it was ALSO cheaper to rent."

Not when you factor in the mortgage interest deduction.

"Nope. Still wrong, Matt. Why do you have to resort to lies?"

Not a "lie". Do the math (if you can do math, that is).

> If you rent you don't know exactly when it will be fixed

Sure I do... within a few hours. Try that with a co-op.

> Prior renters may have abused the appliances

Oh jeez. If they aren't in fantastic shape, don't move in.
And who cares, you get a new one if it doesn't work immediately!

Seriously, now the logic is getting stupid. Sure, somebody may have kicked the walls, too. Or scuffed the floors.

But some of us get to live in NICE buildings.

Everything spankin' nice when I moved in. If it isn't, you don't stay. Try that with a co-op!

"You own a fraction of an apartment, and you overpaid for it several times over."

Says who? You have no idea what I paid for my apartment.

seriously, Matt, if you have to resort to just making things up, I figure you already know you lost the argument.

renting has some incredible benefits (and buying has different benefits).

But pretending it doesn't pretty clearly demonstrated to me you aren't comfortable with your situation.

> You might just have to live with those broken tiles in the bathtub, the crappy kitchen floor that
> never gets clean no matter how many times you scrub it, and the hideous amateurish woodwork.

Well, no, given you can afford a nicer place when you rent. If you can only afford to buy a crappy place like that, you might as well rent and get something better.

If you can only rent a crappy place, then you can only afford to buy an even crappier place.

Your logic is nonsensical.

If you rent you don't know exactly when it will be fixed

Sure I do... within a few hours. Try that with a co-op.

Wrong! In a condo you call the repair company or the engineer in your building and it gets done. Small problem it gets fixed by the bulding's engineer, larger problem you call a repair company and they send someone over in a few days. If you are dealing with an intermediary the likelihood of that successful outcome diminishes.

Total b.s response if you think in a rental a broken appliance is fixed in a few hours. Never happens.

Somewhere, Don't get me wrong. I'm an advocate of renting for those with short term horizons and/or lack of resources for buying. But absent that owning is superior from a life-style stand point. The only item missing is whether the price paid justifies the benefits.

especially for you, Matt

depends on the rental and depends on the coop

I lived in two rentals where all I had to do was speak to the concierge at the front desk and an employee was at my door in minutes to do minor repairs that I should have been able to do myself. I lived in a coop where the live-in super did very little for the common areas and absolutely nothing for my unit, regardless of whose financial responsibility it was. I've been in a coop where every problem will be solved, but some of them may be fixed by building employees but paid for myself.

Good point.

Renting is generally good for people who need things "done" for them.

Owning is good for people who are responsible and self-reliant.

Fair enough.

"Owning is good for people who are responsible and self-reliant." Survivalists in eastern Idaho, for example.

I would say have the financial resources and the required time frame to make it work....

people are confusing those who bought to own and those who bought to flip for a quick buck - shouldn't confuse...

no comment on which is smart

for rent vs buy, it ALWAYS depends

if you can afford to own then do so - no need to knock owners for wanting to allocate money to home ownership

some may want to challenge this factoid BUT i am certain that there are many rather smart yet frugal people that own (just not in Vegas)

Well anyone who bought with the horizon to sell in a short term period, was speculating. Totally separate issue and the economics of doing this going forward are not good. That said, some of the best rental deals, may be from desperate 'stuck' flippers who need to minimize their cost of carry.

Yes, without question those will be some of the best rental deals ... and the United States of America currently has a record 19.2 million vacant homes.

"If you rent you don't know exactly when it will be fixed

Sure I do... within a few hours. Try that with a co-op."

Reall? Even on a weekend? Even on a holiday? Call up the lanldord on Memorial day and tell me how long it takes for them to repair something. I guarantee it's not a "few hours."

"Or they decide to dismantle the BQE that you live under."

You live under the BQE? Oh my. You heard it here first. somewhereelse lives under a frekin HIGHWAY!

I have rented for several years in an upscale community owned by Avalon Bay. Here are my experiences:

1. The sewage pipe froze in the winter and my neighbor had sewage for all 4 floors back up into his apt.

2. When I turned the AC on in June, the heat went on and I could not shut it off. After repeatedly calling Avalon HQ in Virginia since it was after business shours, it took someone about 5 hours to come and fix the problem.

Agree with the "always depends" for rent v. buy.

Some of the best rental deals may be from "stuck" flippers, but are they going to try to jack up the rent the second year? Put the property on the market immediately after you sign the lease and have people traipsing through your apartment every day? Refuse even the slightest modifications? Not provide the same amenities that owners get?

We looked at several of these "deals" last year, all of which seemed too good to be true. And they all were. If you're considering one of these, factor in the potential cost of having to move twice in a tight time period. And if you are still willing to consider it, see if you can write into the lease some kind of restriction on when the apartment can be shown.

We were close to moving to one condo rental, accepting that in one year we were either going to have to move or potentially buy the unit, until they wanted carte blanche permission to show the unit at any time and refused to provide the washer/dryer that all sale units were getting. They were also obsessive about nail holes in the wall and painting (even going from white to off-white) was a firm no, even if we agreed to paint it back.

At least that one was willing to give us a year lease; another condo wanted a 30-day vacate provision because it was going on the market. Um, no thanks. Not going to spend thousands of dollars in moving costs for a lease that might be 30 days long if the place sells right away.

Some of the best rental deals may be from "stuck" flippers, but are they going to try to jack up the rent the second year? Put the property on the market immediately after you sign the lease and have people traipsing through your apartment every day? Refuse even the slightest modifications? Not provide the same amenities that owners get?

Will they sell the unit. Absolutely if they can , but you are protected via your lease. You don't have to move out until then. It's a contract. And there is always a downside. On Amenities you are off base....

This discussion seems like a really long way to say it's cheaper to rent from 1) a monthly cost standpoint and 2) an ongoing maintenance cost standpoint, unless 1) rents increase drastically (unlikely in this environment) or 2) the value of the apartment increase substantially from these levels (14% is your break-even with taxes and commissions, and an additional 2-3% of the value of the apartment/year tacked on for what you lose by not having rented (in a flat market).

"Of course, had you not given up all that cash you left on the table early on, and put that in the market at the same risk profile (5x leverage, perhaps) and let that compound, how would you be doing now?"

If you bought when AR bought in 1995, the DOW did okay in the late 90s (NASDAQ really did well) then crashed in 2000. Did well from 2003 through early 2008, then really cratered. Did well in late 2009. All in all the returns have not only been very risky, but they have not been outstanding. The last decade has been sideways at best. Meanwhile, even without the benefit of leverage, NYC property has returned three or four times since 1995. There has been no comparison to which has been a better place. That is why so many people rightfully are skeptical of investing in NYC property now. Stocks have had there lost decade, why not NYC property? I couldn't agree more.

"Whatever"

Point taken

NYCMatt, are you nuts? If you own, and something breaks, you have to pay to fix it. If you rent, the owners pays. How is that difficult to understand?

The cost to repair a broken dishwasher is de minimus in the context of several thousand dollars a month rent. Get off it.

I guess perhaps maybe it's possible that in Matt's well-run coop, the vice president of the board of directors violates the coop's provisions that the shareholder is responsible for everything from the common walls inward.

Riversider, or tens of thousands a month mortgage and maintenance.

f you bought when AR bought in 1995, the DOW did okay in the late 90s
Please that's like saying you made 1/10 the returns of people long the biggest bull market in real estate this past century. Worst example of market timing I've ever heard

or tens of thousands a month mortgage and maintenance.
I only count the cost of renting money. If you paid cash not an issue.

Maintenance and/or common charges IS cheaper than RENT

Tell that to desperate owners who bought in 2006 and can't sell. I don't think so.

Or go buy something now and try to rent it out right away. 80% financing.

Tell that to desperate owners who bought in 2006 and can't sell. I don't think so.
Its not the maintenance that is killing them , but the leverage. They borrowed too much.
There was no way that transaction would ever work short of 25% HPA!

If you own, fixing things is as you wish and on your terms. Once, my stove needed a new electronic controller, and I paid my super a tip for a spare part he had lying around. At the time, I was feeling pinched, and I couldn't bear to pay GE for a service call and part, let alone a new stove, and I was really grateful for his help. At another time, I decided on a kitchen renovation where I was ready for a new stove, and was able to choose every option according to my budget and my taste.

Or go buy something now and try to rent it out right away. 80% financing.
Again, anyone buying with 80% financing with the goal of renting out, is daft.

"NYCMatt, are you nuts? If you own, and something breaks, you have to pay to fix it. If you rent, the owners pays. How is that difficult to understand?"

No, your nuts because your over-analyzing the issue. There is not much that can break inside of an apt. It's not like a house where you are responsible for the furance, roof, foundation, etc. What you have in a co-op are cheap appliances (and I say cheap since the average co-op owner does not have a Wolf stove and Subzero refridge), floors, walls, and bathroom fixtures. Now, except for your appliances and faucets, virtually eveything inside of your apt. will out-live you. Your ceiling is not going to cave in. Your bathtub is not going to spring a leak. Get a grip!

So Riversider, are you suggesting that a comparison between owning and renting should compare rent ONLY with maintenance/CC? Not the cost of actually buying the home, or renting it from the bank? RE taxes?

"Again, anyone buying with 80% financing with the goal of renting out, is daft." ... so basically you're saying it's better to rent than to own.

Measuring the opportunity cost of a down payment by the Dow Jones is dumb. They are two completely different investments.

Look at the disingenuous statements and contortions renters are trying to use to defend their arguments here.

Buying now, and securing 30 year money at 5 or 5.5% might be the opportunity of a lifetime. Say we have continued credit crisis and interest rates trend higher for a generation? Imagine if you will a world where wealthy landlords consolidate their power and pay cash for apartments when tenants can not afford to borrow for a home purchase. Home values don't crash, they just become owned by fewer owner occupiers. What we are experiencing could be, conceivably, the last great opportunity to buy a NYC home. If your savings are yielding 8 or 10 percent, paying that five percent mortgage will be a blessing.

Wealthy owners are going to use their cash to buy a whole bunch of scattered apartments? Most of which are coops that require owner-occupancy ... ?

No, the high interest rates will drive the purchase price down to the ground, and there it will stay until rates come back down. Great if you can weather that storm and don't care, but not so smart to jump in right now if you can't afford other effects of high interest rates, like high unemployment. Have a good union job, as Matt does, if that's your strategy.

bottom line is that if you bought within the last 3 years you are underwater and it may be a long time before you see light. If you are getting ready to buy today, then you are at least closer to the bottom than to the top. I'm close to pulling the trigger, but Im just waiting to get some more light on a few macro events that are going on and then Ill roll the dice.

Renting is a temporary convenience. One that landlords charge for.

It is hard to make an argument that large institutional landlords are foolish investors. And if they are the shrewd ones in the deal, how are the renters coming out ahead? The answer is, they aren't. But more important, renting just isn't for families. Even in NYC it is hard to find a family renting for the long-term unless they are part of the government regulated rent control or rent stabilization or voucher and project markets.

DaBulls...how sad is it that your only arguement now is based on your opinion that renting is bad for families...I guess the economics got to you huh. guess what sport..its only gettin worse

Did you misread or just ignore my posting?

Yes, the performance of large institutional residential landlords has been just colossal lately: ST/PCV, that big mess up in Harlem, etc. etc.

I guess what we can agree on is that in Hammond, it's better to own than to rent.

it doesnt even matter anymore..markets headed lower with or without us

tischman speyer clearly did all thier homework. boy they sure are smart

The last owner of Stuyvesant Town / Peter Cooper village made a killing. The new purchaser's hubris about the ability to fight the state government is what lead to a poor decision. Government regulation of rents distorts markets. A better example to support your case would be to find a large institutional landlord who owns an apartment the it is able to lease at wholly market rates.

DaBulls and Matt should go off to Foxwoods together and have a hot couple of nights ....... Then the rest of us would get a few minutes rest from their voluminous asininity ......

LICC - if there is a place that you can buy cheaper than you can rent it for, by all means grab it. Clearly we are looking at the value, the risk and the starting assumptions differently, BUT it sounds that we can agree that if renting is cheaper, then renting is better course of action, but if buying is cheaper, buying is better course of action.

Matt - so are you dismissing the idea of renting instead of buying when renting is cheaper, because drawing that conclusion (apparently in your mind) implies that the tax credit must not have been incorporated into the analysis? Are you for real? You sound like you are in denial and don't want to hear anything contrary to the assumptions you hold as "givens".

...and to pile on: "no we aren't" / in fact, I'll even turn this around on you - have you looked at the rent v buy decision in the event politicians decide they want to scale back that mortgage deduction subsidy? Or do you think this $500B reduction in annual tax revenues is going to continue to be sacred as politicians scramble for cash as shortfalls mount? There may be some haircut on this mortgage deduction subsidy sometime in our futures....

Nada - I had not thought of this rent/buy from the perspective that you raise. Some definite food for thought.

AR - with so many grasshoppers out there, it is good to see that there are some ants still among us!!

That was a helpful post Dogismy.

Aren't you presently an owner?

hmmmm..if PCV still cant rent apartments at the lower rates, how would they be doing at the higher rates that tischman speyer wanted?? perhaps they completely misread the market and thier greed has completely destroyed them. next up to bat...Extell....hahahahah

I'm not here to defend the purchasers of the government regulated projects at Peter Cooper Village. They were making a bet on either government deregulation of the projects or on their ability to accelerate certain provisions within the government stabilization laws. That is a different investment than normal institutional real estate investors make.

So Riversider, are you suggesting that a comparison between owning and renting should compare rent ONLY with maintenance/CC? Not the cost of actually buying the home, or renting it from the bank? RE taxes?

I guess on some level I am. You can rent an apartment or rent money.

I'm not here to defend the purchasers of the government regulated projects at Peter Cooper Village.

The model for subsidized housing in this country does not work. In many cases it's not necessary. To the extent that it is necessary, the affected home owner, not home provider should get the subsidy, but that is another topic...

Unfortunately we have a huge mass of ugly Soviet era style apartments that serve as subsidized housing to a group of people who on average do not need it.

DaBulls ---- Yes, I'm an owner. OK, it's good for the tax write-offs. Still, I'm going to rent my sucker and move to a rental in a 'hood that works better for me. I'd sell my sucker but (hello!) it's not exactly a seller's market.
Matt is full of caca --- so he owns a place upstate Manhattan and is on the board ---- and he has to spend 10,000 minutes on the subway to get to decent places to eat or have tea or coffee ....
Most of us are in a bit of a Rubik's cube as to what to do next ...........
So let's quit trying to dumb it down (I'm talking to you, Matt and Dabulls ..... and Riversider).

I think most people would prefer to own vs rent. In my mind the question is one of renting money vs renting the apartment and which of the two options is better for them. With a mortgage you pay principal back to yourself, so interest rate on the borrowed funds is material along with cost of carry. I own, I enjoy owning and would not like to go back to renting. It feels different, its not yours.

And I'm an owner, and as far as I can tell everyone on this thread who's trying to make it clear that it's better to rent than to own is also an owner. So what, rufus?

"So Riversider, are you suggesting that a comparison between owning and renting should compare rent ONLY with maintenance/CC? Not the cost of actually buying the home, or renting it from the bank? RE taxes?"

I'll answer this one.

No.

A comparison between renting and owning should compare rent with combined mortgage and maintenance AND allow for the substantial tax deduction.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Everything else being equal (particularly my income not changing), when I was a renter I was paying $1700/month. For a bigger apartment (and much nicer, given it was a gut renovation), my combined mortgage and monthly maintenance is $2000/month. However, my annual income tax refund as a renter -- which hovered around $2,000 -- as an owner is now around $14,000, bringing the TRUE monthly cost of my co-op apartment down to around $1000/month.

Rent: $1700/month (with absolutely nothing to show for it when I leave)
Buy: $1000/month (and I own the place).

No brainer.

*****

"bottom line is that if you bought within the last 3 years you are underwater and it may be a long time before you see light."

Wrong. I bought in 2006 and I'm not underwater.

Good numbers, Matt. Congrats.

matt, i wouldn't and couldn't live in any place that had your numbers. maybe that's the difference.

pmg, if you think that today is the buying opportunity of a lifetime, well, for me the discussion is over.

AR I said it may be the borrowing opportunity of a lifetime--who knows if long term fixed rate mortgages will always be available, and at these rates. I think a lot of finance types would agree. Property prices will depend on the direction of interest rates, yes, but also, rents. No one knows what will happen to rents in five years.

I prefer to live with few debts, but if I could take out a mortgage at 5 percent as an option for a few years, I would certainly be worth it. Imagine the buying power down the road if you could finance it today.

A comparison between renting and owning should compare rent with combined mortgage and maintenance AND allow for the substantial tax deduction.

Mortgages interest is deductible, and municipal bond interest is not taxable.....
So you can remove taxes from the equation.

pmg, my problem lies with the nature of the investment. if this is the last good buying opportunity, credit wise, what does that imply for the liquidity of the investment down the road?

"Mortgages interest is deductible, and municipal bond interest is not taxable..... "

HOUSING money is not INVESTMENT money.

If you're paying $2,000 in rent versus $2,000 for mortgage/maintenance, there is no money "left over" for the renter to invest in munis (although, as I explained, as an OWNER there is a substantial tax refund).

You are confusing ROI & Cost of Carry. Clearly in your case the cost of carry is an issue.

rs, what is your point regarding muni bond interest?

LIC, I'll give you a simple example Let's assume 30 year mortgage is 5.83% and I can fully claim interest deduction. Let's also assume I can invest in a AAA tax free bond paying 3.5%(Federal State and local tax free and there is no AMT). The after tax cost of the mortgage is 5.83(0.6) or 3.5%(same as the muni).

NYC Matt wrote:

> "bottom line is that if you bought within the last 3 years you are underwater and it may be a long time before you see light."
>
> Wrong. I bought in 2006 and I'm not underwater.

It's worth noting that 2006 is not in the last three years.

"matt, i wouldn't and couldn't live in any place that had your numbers. maybe that's the difference."

Maybe the difference is that you can do math. You supposedly pay $2000 and get $1000 in tax benefits? Uhhh, OK.

There's another flaw in Matt's analysis. Assuming Manhattan real estate is down 20% since 2004-2006. That's also four/six years of cost savings versus rent(assuming no mortgage for simplicity) which offsets a big part of that 20%.

There's another flaw in Matt's analysis. He moved from a porky prime Manhattan neighborhood to Ohio.

Conceptually, anyway.

nada it's simple. Matt gets a $12000 tax refund. of course he's been overpaying no matter how you look at it, but he also chooses to assume that it's all due to his real estate transactions.