tight market conditions!

shhh, simma, that type of talk ain't allowed hehh now

as a happy, content, can sleep at night, Manhatta homeowner, i have no problem with other people wanting to rent.

what i do find confusing from these supposedly 'smart' market-timers is that if everyone else wants to rent at this time, wouldn't econ 101 tell you that rents will rise in the next coming years??

unless you have a rental website on the side that you're trying to promote by being a home-buying bear on sites like this.. in that case, pimp on playaa.

except hol4 not everyone wants to rent. and you conveniently ignore new inventory and demographics.

other than that your analysis is spot on.

what i do find confusing from these supposedly 'smart' market-timers is that if everyone else wants to rent at this time, wouldn't econ 101 tell you that rents will rise in the next coming years??

BINGO!

Binghole!!!! Oh and you forgot housing formations that were juiced by the bubble. You know a family of 4 owning 8 houses and 4 condos amongst themselves. And don't forget all the realthwhores who stuffed themselves silly and got flatfooted. Flmao. Believe hole/riversider, believe, the bubble never occurred, the bubble never popped your 'home' is safe. Flmao. Oh my fng god I can't stand how ppl are such deniers. But you two believe in alien kidnappings, right?

I may not particularly like that WSJ story - but it does reflect some early reports that I have been hearing from the front as well.

It is what it is. A surprise to me.

'It is what it is'
yellow journalism
If Rupert is anything...he's fair and balanced!

Remember the Maine!

Maybe in the high end market but I'm still hearing and seeing rent reductions...two brownstone bldgs across from my apart. blddg have signs apts for rent which in the 1 1/2 years i'm living here I never saw.

Eqity Residential is reporting higher rents. Maybe people can't see the forest for the trees, or there is selective vision.

Tight?, like octomom is tight?

OMG. That story is so well written. It was better the first time I heard it in the bathroom at Avenue. ;)

So, these two aces, Ms. Spadaro and Ms. Schneiderman, look at **50** freaking apartments, and one of them is taken -- and we're supposed to take this as evidence that the market is tight. One in fifty?

And, really, I don't even believe the story. The only rental on Morton Street that I can find that even comes close to being $7500 is this one for $7500:
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/rental/648103-condo-1-morton-square-west-village-new-york

It appears to still be on the market. Would anyone like to confirm this? It is from our favorite building of fake anecdotes that are used in real estate "journalism" -- Morton Square. Would anyone like to suggest an alternative apartment for Ms Spadaro?

And, even if that one is taken, there are two other 2 beds available in the same building. I wouldn't exactly call this evidence of a tight market.

Rupert is also saying the oil spill in the Gulf is no biggie .......

Oops. I made a mistake. My apologies.

I think the one that rented was this one:
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/rental/635532-rental-1-morton-sq-west-village-new-york

Still, one of the 50 apartments they looked at was rented. How is this a tight market?

Is this the definition of a tight market? I don't know. I do know that renters have less leveraged and owners more than they did a year ago.

The vacancy rate in Manhattan, where most of the housing stock is rentals, is already declining. It came in at 1.38% in March, below February's 1.54% and down from 2.46% a year ago..

It's a tight market!!! YEAH, and BP is cleaning up that oil spill lickety-split! Suckered by Rupert again, numb nutz!!!

SkinnyNsweet
about 3 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse OMG. That story is so well written. It was better the first time I heard it in the bathroom at Avenue. ;)

So, these two aces, Ms. Spadaro and Ms. Schneiderman, look at **50** freaking apartments, and one of them is taken -- and we're supposed to take this as evidence that the market is tight. One in fifty?

And, really, I don't even believe the story. The only rental on Morton Street that I can find that even comes close to being $7500 is this one for $7500:
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/rental/648103-condo-1-morton-square-west-village-new-york

It appears to still be on the market. Would anyone like to confirm this? It is from our favorite building of fake anecdotes that are used in real estate "journalism" -- Morton Square. Would anyone like to suggest an alternative apartment for Ms Spadaro?

And, even if that one is taken, there are two other 2 beds available in the same building. I wouldn't exactly call this evidence of a tight market.

Sounds like a lot of folks with denial. I won't go on with the anectdotal evidence. the proof is piling up. have fun ponying up more for less. it's become fun again watching people clamor over each other for their third choice apartment.

Perhaps this one:

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/rental/650293-townhouse-54-morton-street-west-village-new-york

you could try and find the right one, it doesn't matter. the point is that the stupid cow thought it better to think about it for a weekend, as opposed to listening to someone knowledgable. people always want to blame the brokers. it is simple supply and demand

I'd guess that someone knowledgeable would know a difference between a rental and a coop building lolz.

darkbird
about 1 hour ago
ignore this person
report abuse I'd guess that someone knowledgeable would know a difference between a rental and a coop building lolz.

i know the difference. you obviously don't know that people can rent directly from the property manager, EVEN IN A COOP BUILDING! they are called sponsor apartments.

It actually makes a pretty big difference which one it was. The one at Morton Square was on the market for 50 days before it was rented. Hot stuff. It was also just purchased end of March. So not a sponsor unit, in fact, but probably an investor.

Oh and those were sponsors apartments, one of them on the market for over a year. COOOOOOOL tight market. How's your slut wife, is she tight?

"what i do find confusing from these supposedly 'smart' market-timers is that if everyone else wants to rent at this time, wouldn't econ 101 tell you that rents will rise in the next coming years??

unless you have a rental website on the side that you're trying to promote by being a home-buying bear on sites like this.. in that case, pimp on playaa."

Increased demand for rental space certainly implies upward pressure on rental prices, all else equal. But increased demand for rentals does not necessarily translate into increased home values. I lived in a bubble city in 2006 (think Phoenix/Miami/Las Vegas etc) and rental rates started to rise because NO ONE wanted to buy. Many ppl new what was coming re: sales prices, and no one wanted to be holding the bag.

That's not to say that's whats happening now in Manhattan, just to say that increased demand for rentals is not inconsistent with being bearish on home sales prices.

"But increased demand for rentals does not necessarily translate into increased home values."

True, but it does narrow the rent to buy spread which makes buying more attractive over time.

"So, these two aces, Ms. Spadaro and Ms. Schneiderman, look at **50** freaking apartments, and one of them is taken -- and we're supposed to take this as evidence that the market is tight. One in fifty?"

LOL. broker morons.

Rent argument misses one big point. Cash out lay risk is more uncertain than owning. Over the next five years the risk of a 10% rise in rents is certainly possible. In the early 90s the market was very weak, but just a few years out, double digit rents were not unheard of. A single year with 10%+ rent increases may not be the most likely event but its not impossible, and if it happens one year, it's way more likely the following year...

Risk of a 10% increase over the next 5 years? Do you ever bother to internalize any of that crap you read? A 10% rent increase is the expected case, if not more.

You do realize that rents are currently at 2000 levels, right? 30% below where they "should" be despite everything...

You would not think so reading the posts on this site...

Fair enough, point taken.

The funny thing about the title of the article given the redness of the map. Shouldn't the title be - "Rents Rise in Tribeca/Soho, Bucking Citywide Downtrend"?

Wow I just read the article. The message here is rents stopped falling and we saw a statistically insignificant rise in Feb vs. Jan.

Actually, it's asking rents. Feb vs March, into spring season. Statistically insignificant rise, at best in line with inflation.

Its a silly title. The only part of this that makes sense as a bull case for buying is whether or not 2000 level rents can persist. Really this all seems to boil down to the future of the finance industry.