Renters: The End of Free Months

admit it's the message that offends you 67.....

btw, I am not a "borker", so I'm not sure who's the real "stupid" one here iz. Also itz "personally OFFENDZ me", not "personally OFFENDS me".. come on, stay in character now, you can do it westie-boy...LMFAO..LMFAO..LMFAO..

"The Real Estate Group of New York's latest Manhattan Rental Market Report went live on Tuesday morning, and it shows rents in July ticking up."

LMFAO.
This shouldn't affect W67thStreet because he lives with his 80 year old parents.

Once again W67th is correct, well not with the colorful words but the fact that free months are still here...spinning the demise of free rents isn't going to change the fact that you can still negotiate with LL's.

Also, if people cannot put up walls then they won't be able to rent a one bedroom at $3400 and have a roommate, sooo they are moving to queens...Case Closed

I think that proves it julia...Case Closed indeed.

I think you proved

-"the fact" that you can still negotiate with LL's
-"the fact" that free months are still here
-and there is a massive exodus to queens.

Case Closed

<< yes and queens will become the new manhattan, seriously does queens live in a vacuum from the island?

don't you think higher rents in queens will have an affect on manhattan? are you that dense??

of course this has been known since earlier this month..

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-08/manhattan-apartment-rentals-surge-as-local-employment-improves.html

but of course it's all broker shillzz LMFAOZ LMFAOZ brb DVR-ing carrot top!!

my comments were meant for julia, who thinks LIC will be the new MePa

also, STEVEJHX has been awfully quiet lately in these boards..

probly too busy collecting rent from the suckers off his website after talking the purchase side of the market down??

well played

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704723604575379463676740680.html

free months will be back

quote from sniper's article:

'To be sure, some housing markets show signs of healing. Home-sales activity in New York, Washington, D.C., and parts of California continue to improve'

yes, i read the article. that is called "a fake-out." i kinda recall the 1st dip...when everyone started with the "NY is different" stuff.

yes, yes, I know sniper, the end of the world is coming any day, week, month, year or decade now.

perhaps you should get a place at One Brooklyn Bridge - you'd feel spiritually at home

"a fake-out":

Function: transitive verb
Date: 1949

: when a market moves in the opposite direction of what I think it is going to move in.

Stepping back a bit, isn't it expected that "free months" and other gimmicks should disappear? The "free" month is a gambit for the LL to try to preserve the value of his existing renters. If he lowers asking rents by 20% publicly, everyone would push for that deal. Instead, the LL quietly offers to pay the broker, give a $500 move-in gift cards, then a free month, in the hope it's a short-term blip. All of last year, LL have kept existing tenants' rent the same or rolled back a bit. At some point, the asking rents are back in line with occupied units, or at least not so vastly different that people will move for a better deal, so you can dial back the gimmicks.

oy vey sniper..

A) that is a national story in wsj

B) within that story...

"Home-sales activity in New York, Washington, D.C., and parts of California continue to improve."

are you another headline whore?

too easy

i don't have the time, nor do i care to pull up all the posts from a year or two ago but people said the same exact things around the first dip: NY is different, that's only FLA, CA and Vegas, Buy now or be priced blah, blah, blah, etc.

I responded to that NY line in the article 4 posts before yours. It appears as if you are the headline whore...and just for the record, I am not altogether against whores.

people will ALWAYS say things snipey..some will be right, some wrong.. all you have is today, not something from 3 years ago.. i responded to that specific article.

if i knew what the market would do tomorrow or even next month, i wouldn't be posting here. i'd be with my concubines sharing them with you.

"Stepping back a bit, isn't it expected that "free months" and other gimmicks should disappear?"

But I thought I read right here on SE that rents are only expected to go down and free months and gimmicks only go up because no one wants to live in Manhattan anymore, and even of they did want to they can't afford to because everyone in Manhattan lost their job. I also read that evidence of gimmicks declining is a mirage and that the world is going to start ending again very soon. So we have that going for us, which is nice.

in terms of volume of leases, I wonder how many people who signed 2-year leases in the summer of 2008 are moving this year to get 2010 pricing.

could increase the volume significantly, but wouldn't affect the number of units occupied significantly.

in terms of vacancy reports, I have yet to see one that seems remotely accurate in statistical methodology.

sniper, they're always dissing the working girls.

yes, people will always say things and the only way to know is to look back. i think the double dip comes (and more free months of rent) but we won't know for sure until we can look back at it in a while.

hole - are you a prospective buyer? seller? renter?

i resigned in 2/10 and the LL lowered my rent by $375.

> yes, yes, I know sniper, the end of the world is coming any day, week, month, year or decade now

Wow, printer, you're really out of the loop. Get a paper.... it already happened.

Longest/deepest recession since the depression. Biggest stock market crash in decades. Biggest housing bust since the depression. How much more right could the bears have been?

"because no one wants to live in Manhattan anymore, and even of they did want to they can't afford to because everyone in Manhattan lost their job"

why does every thread need to turn into the attack of the killer strawmen?

right... because folks need to call attention away from the fact that they missed that this was coming.

"in terms of volume of leases, I wonder how many people who signed 2-year leases in the summer of 2008 are moving this year to get 2010 pricing."

I suspect that the answer is "not enough to move the needle on overall pricing in the summer of 2010", but I'll acknowledge that no one really knows one way or the other (see, for example, the comment about useless nature of vacancy reports). But let me respond to your question with a question, "By when would you agree that we will have seen any impact from roll-off of summer 2008-vintage 2 year leases?" If we get to, say, October and there has not been a wave of people moving and/or repricing downward, can we agree that this latest purported phantom menace is just that, a phantom?

"but people said the same exact things around the first dip: NY is different, that's only FLA, CA and Vegas, Buy now or be priced blah, blah, blah, etc."

Well, look, I agree that those are somewhat ridiculous statements. I don't agree that anyone on this thread is making them.

"Wow, printer, you're really out of the loop. Get a paper.... it already happened."

Wait, the end of the world happened? Where am I typing this from then? No wonder it's been so hot recently...

"why does every thread need to turn into the attack of the killer strawmen?"

Because of all the mindless bear hyperbole and strawmen. Such as, for example, this gem, "Wow, printer, you're really out of the loop. Get a paper.... it already happened". You post responses similar to this over and over in response to posters who state a view that from today forward the world is not going to end. What happened between Sept 09 and sometime in mid-2010 is what it is. The fact that it happened doesn't say anything about what happens between today and some point in the future. That much is clear. What is not clear is whether you are simply disingenuous in obscuring the plain distinction between the concepts of level and trend (or, for that matter, past and future), or just so stupid that you don't actually understand the distinction.

Correction: ...between Sept 08 and mid-2009...

sls, I disagree. I would think that a large volume of leases that were signed at the peak of our market now coming due could have a great impact. I wonder what percentage of renters sign a one-year lease vs. two.

anyway, what phantom menace? I've always said that these things don't move in a linear fashion, are affected by seasonality, etc. if landlords are going to try and gain some traction it's obviously going to be in the summer.

as Pulaski pointed out in his post today, unemployment is almost virtually the same in NYC this year as it was last year. if there has been a drop off in the percentage of people in the labor market at all consistent with national trends, it's now worse than last year.

that bloomberg article says that manhattan rents have surged due to recent hiring, but i don't see proof of the hiring in either the article or the labor numbers.

ar, back to my question: when can we revisit this thread and agree that we have seen whatever is to be seen of the alleged 2 year lease rollover effect?

BTW, I believe a very high percentage of renters sign one year leases and that 2 years are very much the exception. What do you think - maybe 90% +/- as 1 year? I am fully prepared to be corrected on this if someone (maybe a broker who does rentals?) has some actual figures to override our speculation.

Many buildings refuse to even consider a two year lease. When I rented the managing agent refused to even discuss the lease until approximately two weeks before renewal further taking away from any negotiating power the renter might have. Honestly for this alone, renting is a horrible experience.

Renting in this city forces you to live like a gypsy.

You have to be ready to move at a moment's notice.

And you don't think that things have changed?

sme is fudging the truth again. He misstates facts or doesn't tell the whole story. One of the biggest stock market declines in decades was quickly followed by one of the biggest stock market upturn in decades too. And the late 70s-early 80s recession was worse than the current one.

That's true Matt - after moving to Rivergate last year I thought I would live there for years but when I got offered peter cooper to save $700 a month I had to jump again - not that it was any fun to move - it sucked but every month when I get my rent bill and no electric bill I smile a little and say it was worth it

"sme is fudging the truth again"'

So it sounds like you're going with "simply disingenuous". I was leaning toward "just so stupid" myself, but I certainly could be wrong.

Why does LICcomm consistently abbreviate "somewhereelse" as "sme"? Is it an inside joke, or merely another education problem?

sls, I'd say the two-year anniversary of the financial implosion, but sorry I didn't answer. silly me, I thought that would be obvious.

and I have no idea how many sign two-year leases. I know some landlords don't offer two-year leases for the first rental term but I believe many do for renewals. and to the extent that such leases were signed, I'd suggest that many of those people might be inclined to move. anyone recall pmg's thread on how often we move? not everyone will move for $700 a month, but plenty will. how many non-rs leases get signed every year? 5000 apartments is a drop in the manhattan bucket. yes, it's a lot more than last year, but I haven't seen anything showing that it is the result of new employment or household formation which is what would be needed for sustainable growth.

rs, I get my lease renewal info six to eight weeks before the lease is up. Matt, I've been here longer in this rental than the last three places I owned. too many people select apartments that are too close to the limits of their affordability. if you are fairly conservative in your expenditures there really isn't much risk of having to move suddenly or live like a gypsy.

sideline, LICComm can be disingenuous at times, so I think your initial conclusion was correct.

bjw, I'm shocked at your conclusion. I've never been disingenous. Opinionated, yes. Smug, sometimes. But disingenous, no.

sls- maybe. sme's comments aren't the most intelligent, but he also can be very careless with the truth.

Hey someone is censuring my ability to speak of penises and mouths, WTF?

anyway I am personally offended by the OP bc if you read the article it concludes:

"Mr. Waite said he doesn't expect rents ... to go up. He predicts they'll remain fairly constant for the rest of the summer. Which means you have a few more leisurely weeks to pick out a place before school starts—or doesn't—in the fall."

Finally class, this is WHY it sucks for rents to go down (for owners at least)... it by definition lowers the "imputed" rent that an "owner" is paying, making their 2003-2010 purchase a lemminier decision for every drop in rent.... which IMNotSOHUMBLE opinion has only one way to go.

THE FACT that new LLs have to compete with the likes of ppl who bought in 1997 means MC=MR of the lowest priced producer.... as the "unlimited tenancy" listing below points to:
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/rental/647503-condo-1965-broadway-lincoln-square-new-york

oh yeah some ninny bought the exact same unit for $2.2MM or $15K/month carry versus an unlimited tenancy at $5,400/month... but I'm sure the LL will NEGOTIATE the FEE and BASE Rent.... ONLY IN A CONTINUING DEFLATING BUBBLE can examples like these exist, what is MORE amazing is that there are nimrods who think the WORST is OVER! FLMAOzzzzzzzzzzzz ooopss ... i fell asleep... too many zzzzzzzz

Sorry, LICComm, that post was more tongue-in-cheek. No harm meant.

"sme is fudging the truth again. He misstates facts or doesn't tell the whole story."

Nope, sorry, nothing is fudged, you are just... uh... wrong.

> And the late 70s-early 80s recession was worse than the current one."

Economic Policy Instutite - "the current recession is the longest and deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression"

> One of the biggest stock market declines in decades was quickly followed by one of the biggest stock market
> upturn in decades too.

We're about 30% down off peak, over a year later. '87 ended UP for the year.

And, regardless, its a red herring. You're off the point. That we will recover from something doesn't mean you can pretend it doesn't exist.

But, hey, I know you're not one much for accuracy.

> > And the late 70s-early 80s recession was worse than the current one."

"Economic Policy Instutite - "the current recession is the longest and deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression""

can I get a... WHOOOOOPS

sme- wrong again:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/worse-than-1982/

"While the job losses, foreclosures, stock declines and other casualties of the current recession have been very painful, substantially more bad economic news is needed to make this recession worse than the downturns of 1980-’82, at least in G.D.P. terms."

sme, just face it that you have been wrong. Many bears on this board called for the end of the world for NYC real estate, and those predictions just haven't happened.

LICC.... this recession ain't over yet.. and the EPI will re-jigger the GDP numbers (i forget the exact intervals) 2 qtrs, 4 qtrs and then annually for several years as a post analysis as part of its "betterment" of future GDP numbers going forward. ALOT ALOT of the data on GDP is guesstimates and projections... when all is said and done, this recession IMHO will be alot alot worse than even Bernie would like to admit..... and IT AIN'T OVER YET...... talk to me when Unemployment hits 5% again for 3 months in a row...

"And the late 70s-early 80s recession was worse than the current one."

This is actually correct. Unemployment in December 1982 was 10.8%. The highest it has went in the current recession was 10.2%.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/147596/why_the_us_is_so_badly_equipped_to_deal_with_unemployment

> sme, just face it that you have been wrong.

You keep repeating yourself, and then continue to be wrong!

> Many bears on this board called for the end of the world for NYC real estate, and those predictions just
> haven't happened.

Uh, I wasn't wrong. Yet you keep lumping me in with "all bears" and "most bears".

I'm wrong because I was right and someone else was wrong?

WOW, talk about disingenuous!

> sme- wrong again:

Uh, you get that the article is a year old, right???

And, even if it stopped right there, your quote says "to make this recession worse than the downturns of 1980-’82, "

Notice how even your YEAR OLD news DOES NOT back up your claim.

> And the late 70s-early 80s recession was worse than the current one

whoops!

oh, poor alpo... still doesn't get that we're STILL losing jobs.

Alpo, if you want to help someone, last thing you want to do is make supporting posts! You just make it worse for them!

> LICC.... this recession ain't over yet.. and the EPI will re-jigger the GDP numbers

Shhh... don't tell LICC. He's still pointing at year-old articles!

talk about disinguous!

btw, the funniest part is, LICC is comparing it to TWO RECESSIONS. The article shows that this one was clearly the steeper of them all, but he's adding TWO DIFFERENT RECESSIONS together!

sme, you need to learn about economics and reading economic data before trying to comment on these things.

This economy may tumble again, especially considering the policies coming out of the White House and Congress. But we are talking about present day, not your future predictions, which history shows are not reliable at all.

"if swe has not posted 4x in a row w/o anyone else responding your not trying hard enough."

Amazingly prescient.

It never ceases to amaze me when people on this board try to support their own arguments by linking to stuff that undercuts them. Reading is fundamental.

So your too dumb to realize that 10.8% is larger than 10.2%?

No. I'm too smart to pull one figure out without reading what else the author has to say. Such as:

"The unemployment seen in this recession is already as bad as in the worst previous post-war recession, and it is almost certain to linger much longer. In the 1981-82 recession, unemployment in the US peaked at 10.8 percent in December 1982. However, the economy turned sharply upward at the beginning of 1983, and the unemployment rate fell back quickly...

There is little prospect for a similar turnaround in this downturn. While the unemployment rate has edged down slightly since its October peak, most forecasts show the rate remaining nearly constant or just falling modestly over the next year and a half. Most official projections show the unemployment rate remaining well above its normal level until 2015 or 2016."

and this:

"on an age-adjusted basis the unemployment rate in this recession has already been much worse than during the recession that had prior claim to being the worst in the post-World War II era."

How about this gem Prez: "if we adjust for both age composition and declining coverage rates, the current unemployment rate would be comparable to an 11 percent measured unemployment rate in 1981-82."

But thanks for the link. Very strong bear case.

"It never ceases to amaze me when people on this board try to support their own arguments by linking to stuff that undercuts them. Reading is fundamental."

lol.

yeah, LIC and alpo not so good with the reading...

"not your future predictions, which history shows are not reliable at all."

well, when LICC thinks he can make up what I said, and then judge its accuracy.

lol

sorry, LIC, wrong again!

> But thanks for the link. Very strong bear case.

Agreed!

Got to love the not-so-smart bulls who make the best bear cases of them all!

how many f'ng times do I need to post this graph?

licc, you really do know better, I believe. disingenuous indeed.

http://calculatedriskimages.blogspot.com/2010/07/employment-recessions-june-2010.html

can I get a........ WHOOPS!

The other one is a little trickier as it involves graphs, which can be challenging and as SWE points out it is actually comparing our one recession to two recesssions. Now try this at home -- plot a new graph with 3 lines where the baseline 100 is 3 quarters prior to the lowpoint of each of the three recessions. Of course, you are going to have to change the numbers on the left since the 2009 recession would blow through the bottom.

yes, but if you put the other line on a separate axis, and change the scale and start point, you can make it be higher, lower, or anything you want!

(just ask Juice)

From the economic times, this month:

This crisis has often been referred to as the worst crisis since the Great Depression, the worst since the World War-II in economic terms at least. From whatever I know about history and whatever I have seen in other markets, I was there in East Asia at the time of the meltdown there, this never felt as bad. To me, this crisis was a bit exaggerated. It was a big crisis undoubtedly, but if you look at what happened in the 1970s even in the US, long lines across gas stations, protest, a cultural decline, I did not get the sense that was the case this time. It is because of the accumulated wealth after 20-30 years of very strong expansion.

Similarly for emerging markets, this crisis in terms of market, felt very bad and for the fourth quarter of 2008, the intensity was there to be seen, but it never felt anywhere near the crisis that we have seen in emerging markets in either the late 1990s in East Asia, Russia or in Latin America in the 1980s. The intensity never quite felt that bad.

So, to be somewhat a bit careful in this characterisation about this being the worst crisis since the Great Depression, I do not think that the decline was quite as big as people made it out to be. Just to put in perspective, the US economy contracted on a peak to trough basis by 4%, which is about the worst recession in the post-war history but in the Great Depression, this contraction was 25%. So, the magnitude here is very different. In the 1970s, what made it so bad was that inflation was really a huge issue and petrol prices were up, there were conflicts in the Middle East and there was a lot of social tension as well. So, in that regard, this was not as bad as that.

Make the pie higher!

If the assertion is that the average American today is better off than the average Indonesian in 1998, that is something I can get behind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_riots_of_May_1998

Right. licc, interest rates went sky high, manufacturing went on the skids and then interest rates declined and everything went forward.

If it doesn't seem so bad this time you can thank the keynsian countercyclical spending you love so much.

"So, in that regard, this was not as bad as that."

Tell that to the 15 million people who still don't have jobs.

so, LIC's "facts" get laughed out the door, the graphs prove his assertion clueless... so his last gasp is....

an essay on "how it feels"! literally. its about FEEL. The guy uses the word over and over again.

rotfl!

> "So, in that regard, this was not as bad as that."
> Tell that to the 15 million people who still don't have jobs.

And, in the end, isn't this all just misdirection from the former bulls? Because they're referencing other major declines, we're supposed to forget that they said this one wouldn't happen?

I am a landlord and generally a bear. By a wide margin, most tenants sign one year leases, especially younger tenants. Under rent stabilization, a tenant must be offered a 1 and 2 year lease. The rental market in Manhattan has definitely firmed up. In my buildings Rents are 15% less than at top but we have virtually no vacancies. I am totally mystified by the market's strength.

Do you think it will last?

Matt, the unemployment rate was even higher in 1981. Do you even know what you are arguing? Don't devolve down to somewhereelse's debate level please.

lic, did you pull up my chart? 10.8 a relatively short period vs. 8.5-10.2 for a few years? not to mention people leaving the workforce, young people not even trying to enter it, and older people not moving on to make room for the young. we have a terrible f'ng problem if the young are disenfranchised for more than a year or two.

once again, I'm fairly certain you know better. disingenuous.

People who compare unemployment rates forget thtat they have fallen hook, line, and sinker for a political trick. The very way we measure unemployment has been chnged so that the numbers won't appear so bad. That is why we have the various measures. Today's "unemployment" does not measure the same thing as prior "unemployment"s. U6 (the broadest measure of unemployment) is over 17% now and has never been that high since the Great Depression. And the unemployments have never lasted this long with this little prospect of recovery.

Unemployment was high in the late 1970s too, it peaked at 10.8.

We are in a bad recession, but to try to portray it as unprecedented since the Great Depression is disingenous (par for the course with aboutready and somewhereelse). I am worried because this administration and Congress are doing all they can to make things worse, unlike in the early 1980s.

So LICcomm, you're comparing the 10.8% unemployment in the late 1970s, caused by the Nixon administration, with over 17% unemployment today caused by the Bush administration, and you think they're at par with one another?

Talk about disingenuous!!! And what a slap in the face of Richard Milhous Nixon.

from calculated risk's comments on the june employment report. btw, licc, you forgot the u in disingenuous. since it describes you so well you ought to perfect spelling it. that chart again, licc? how long were those 10.8% unemployed? a year, two years, and counting?

"For the current employment recession, employment peaked in December 2007, and this recession is by far the worst recession since WWII in percentage terms, and 2nd worst in terms of the unemployment rate (only early '80s recession with a peak of 10.8 percent was worse).

The decrease in the unemployment rate was because of a decline in the participation rate - and that is not good news. Although better than May, this is still a weak report. I'll have much more soon ..."

when i was looking back over the first handful of comments on this post i got very excited because i thought se FINALLY did something and disable 67's account because, as most of you know, he is incapable of posting here without attacking someone. too bad they only chose to censure this comment, and not get rid of him entirely, as they have columbiacounty.

julia
about 23 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse Once again W67th is correct, well not with the colorful words but the fact that free months are still here...spinning the demise of free rents isn't going to change the fact that you can still negotiate with LL's

Julia, right now, ll's are just as likely to laugh at you than consider any "offer" for anything less than full rent. new construction aside perhaps. certainly not in a desireable hood. you're wrong

wrong again tonto.

ar, what is your point? Do you have a point? Or are you still just wishing for more bad news so you don't have to admit that you are wrong about the markets?

Interesting how liberls conveniently forget how awful Jimmy Carter was as President.

Sielinesitter is correct, not too many 2yr leases. LL's didn't want to write them at the bottom of the market.

Jimmy Carter was awesome, LICcomm -- he laid the groundwork for the end of the inflation that Ford was completely unable to do anything about, and he successfully negotiated the release of the Iran hostages.

Too bad he lusted in his heart, and therefore lost his re-election, LICcomm.

That is a nice deluded fantasy version of history alan. If that makes you feel better in your own mind, go right ahead and keep believing it.

how insulting licc. keep up with the personal insults. you're so classy.

speaking of delusional thinking, maybe i'll go bring up some of your prognostications from a couple of years back. let's compare results, shall we?

ar- you seem to have the idea that every statement is about your personal situation. I already told you, I don't care about you or your personal situation. I am commenting on your statements and opinions.

@Jim_hones: "Julia, right now, ll's are just as likely to laugh at you than consider any "offer" for anything less than full rent. new construction aside perhaps. certainly not in a desireable hood. you're wrong."

This is (one of the reasons) why nobody takes you seriously. I just negotiated a lower rent in Tribeca. And I'm not the only one. There is a whole thread on where people are renewing. Some flat, some up, many down.

well, licc, then maybe you should quit talking about my personal situation. i guess you didn't write the following:

Or are you still just wishing for more bad news so you don't have to admit that you are wrong about the markets?

you're the king of disingenuous. keep those insults and lies coming, licc. classy.

show me where i opined that i wish for disaster so that i can be proven correct about the markets. go ahead. you're not talking about my statements and/or opinions in the slightest. you're being a fucktard.

Exactly, LICcomm. And show me where I present a "nice deluded fantasy version of history."

Disingenuous through and through, LICcomm.

So now the tactic of the bears an liberals, when their arguments fail or are shown to be deficient, is to call the other person "disingenuous". Unless you agree with them, you are disingenuous.

I hope they don't believe they have any credibility.

ar- you need to try to think this through. I commented on your statements and opinions. I did not comment on any part of your personal life. Nice try though.

Thanks for the cursing and swearing, I knew that would come from you sooner or later.

What's the difference between cursing and swearing?

"So now the tactic of the bears an liberals, when their arguments fail or are shown to be deficient, is to call the other person "disingenuous". Unless you agree with them, you are disingenuous."

No, when you're disingenuous, you're disingeuous. And when you are disingeuous consistently, there is a good chance that you are LICC.