It's Still A Lot Cheaper To Rent Chapter 2

not enuff

1 br fair mkt rent 4000$+??
in an 1100 psf bldg??
no way
that it was "listed" at $4000+ means nothing

800/month cc + taxes ?? the listing shows 1618$

now account for the opportunity cost of the down payment

your filanal word was a FAIL

Opportunity cost of downpayment, also account for change in financial position where you have to sell within the next couple of years. Good chance you lose your downpayment, at least a chunk of it with transaction costs alone. Interest rates are absurdly low, which makes the rent or own ratio less out of whack. This is fine as long as you plan on staying in the new place for 10 years. Because if you need to sell in 3 years and interest rates have almost doubled, do not expect to get your equity back

Lowery, excellent analysis. Dcorreale's point amounts to "real estate is not a short-term purchase," which should be filed under, "duh."

I agree, enough already. This stupid argument has been going on and on for the three years I've been on this board, and it just gets more and more relentlessly obnoxious.

We are glad we didn't buy, not we are looking at leaving Manhattan for some more space but the hassle if we had to first try to sell the place probably would be too much that we'd be stuck here.

key to lowery's fail and the absurdity of evnyc slurping all over him, is that his "analysis" assume cc/re taxes to be 800/month when the listing clearly indicates more than double

the other components to lowery's fail and evnyc's sloppy slurp compromise further--whatever...the analysis is shot

slurp away, moron

real estate is almost never a 10 year hold for anyone in this day and age---duh

Do we again fail to realize the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic ratios? The 12x to 15x ratio intrinsically accounts for the "tax benefit" and the "opportunity cost" and everything else. It's simply a comparison between the annual rent and property price. The property price already takes into account the effect of the tax benefit - get rid of the tax benefit, and the price falls. Therefore, if you account for it - or the opportunity cost - separately, you're counting it twice.

In this particular ratio.

Use imputed rent - that's a different animal. But you can't count benefits and costs TWICE, which is what LICC always tries to do.

After all, there's no other way to justify wasting your money on a flat in Long Island City.

Evnyc, the point is much larger than that. And in fact, a real estate purchase does not have to be for the long-term, just look at this decade, some very smart people made some very smart investments and cashed in on a boat load of money. However, you better know what you are doing if you do want to flip, as most of those very smart people would realize now is not the time to purchase real estate for an investment unless you are buy a bulk discount.

But my real point is for those who do want to make it a long-term purchase. Your opportunity cost on your down payment has to be larger than what some people suggest here, whether it is the 8% S&P or the risk free rate. Because, unless you have a lot of wealth or huge job security, it is very very risky. Most people are levered 80/20, and use a good portion, if not all of their savings on the down payment. If your income changes at some point over the first few years and you cannot comfortably make your mortgage payments, you probably just lost all of your equity

steve still doesn't have the brains to understand the rent ratio, even after all these years of people trying to explain it to him.

You have a monthly rental cost compared to a monthly ownership cost. If you do not take into account the tax deduction you receive by owning- a tangible dollar amount- then you are overstating the monthly ownership costs. steve can't fathom that this makes his analysis look stupid, so he tries to argue that the overstated cost already takes into account the tax deductions, even though it does not.

steve- how is that 900sf rental in that dumpy building on 8th Avenue?

LICC - sad. Sad, sad, sad.

Pop quiz: in 10,000 words or less, explain the difference between "intrinsic" and "extrinsic."

Go!

"After all, there's no other way to justify wasting your money on a flat in Long Island City."

... at least it's a hot-water flat.

so what happens when the deduction for mtg interest disappears for those with incomes $250k and higher?

the deductability of the debt on vacation homes is the 1st to go imho.

... he's in hot water for buying it.

LICC contends that fair market value for prospective homeowners should be calculated on the assumption that buyers are willing to pay a price such that their after-tax monthly cost, assuming 80% financing, is equal to rental value. That is, he contends that buyers are willing to pay sellers the entire value of the handout the buyer expects to receive from the IRS.

Thus, on LICC's model, at equilibrium the mortgage deduction gives no benefit at all to homebuyers, but is simply a government entitlement or welfare payment to land owners, builders and/or sellers.

It follows that LICC's model holds that homes are worth more in the hands of owner-occupants who can itemize than landlords (who do not benefit from the tax subsidy on personal mortgage debt).

Thus, LICC's model suggests that most Manhattan housing is shadow inventory: most investor-owned property is worth more sold to owner-occupants than rented (unless it is so low quality that it cannot be sold to occupants making enough money to itemize, or so fancy that the target occupants have had their itemized deductions phased out).

LICC's model, in short, implies a vast overhang of inventory as investors sell off their holdings. On this model, equilibrium requires that all housing aimed at itemizing taxpayers be owner-occupied, not rented, and prices will decline until this is reached.

The model, then, is deeply bearish.

To be sure, LICC's model raises some interesting puzzles. First, if prices are so likely to go down, why would prospective homeowners be willing to take on equity risk without being paid for it? Second, the existing tax structure is close to a century old and for much of that time, tax rates were higher (so the tax deduction welfare payment was worth more than today) especially for higher incomes. Why haven't investors adjusted yet? Third, the model seems very similar to Lloyd George's argument that landlords in the end extract all the value in the economy; is it subject to the old critiques, and if not, does LICC also follow George in believing that this is a fatal argument against the capitalist system?

Thanks for all that, FG, but I'm just amazed he has hot water.

lowery, what about monthly principal paid? Don't think steve or LICC have accounted for this.

FG, you misstated my contention and your analysis is quite flawed. A home's value at any point in time is based on what the market is willing to pay, based on many complicated factors. If enough buyers who receive the tax deduction are in a market, it will affect overall home values. Most buyers are willing to pay an initial higher monthly cost to own compared to rent, given that over time rental costs and home prices rise, and that once the mortgage is fully paid the owner maintains a valuable asset.

Principal paid? That's just shoveling more funds into an illiquid depreciating asset given current point in credit cycle. WTF is so hard? Let me explain in liquid form. It's like bailing water at 10 gph when the boat is taking in 500 gph.

Sure your bankruptcy risk goes down the lower the leverage, but we are not talking about bk risk are we?, no we are asking can my liquid assets be better employed currently and in the future. The answer is f'ka yeah. Wait year buy 20% off ergo less bk risk. Same fking lic toxic swamp, just less capital risk.

"Principal paid? That's just shoveling more funds into an illiquid depreciating asset given current point in credit cycle. "

That is of course if it is a depreciating asset. You really struggle with this stuff don't you w67th?

w67: We homeowners should start acting like the sharks. Why pay my mortgage? Wait for 'em to come after me and modify the loan.

lol, nyc10023... while also asking bloomberg: "why aren't you building more homeless shelters? we need them now!"

Jm. Nyc re appreciating is a thing of the past... Unless ya wanna hold on for 20 yrs. On real basis you are walking backwards.

Don't laugh 10023, a big LL is strategically not paying mortgage to renegotiate with banks. Moral hazards everywhere.

what about having a home you can renovate and not have to be concerned how much the LL will raise the rent every time the lease expires...

Wbottom - I did not do any indepth analysis. Thank you for providing the correct cc+taxes. I said that even under the MOST OPTIMISTIC of scenarios, a hypothetical 4.25% mortgage and imaginary cc+taxes actually half of what they are, any 20% down buyer's monthly carrying charges are MORE than even the most optimistic rent asked for by the present condo owners of 45 Park. Actual fair market rental, who knows, but I wouldn't be surprised if it goes for $3,900/month. So I don't know why the "wrong, dummy!" pronouncements. Steve wins by excluding "tax benefit" hands down, and that's what I said.

On the other end of the scale, people can argue about what the carrying costs would be for a purchaser, and $7,000 is not out of the ballpark. So we have a condo on the market today in which you can rent for around $4,000 plus or minus a few or you can pay up to $7,000. This is exactly the type of contrast Steve has mentioned many times. There then follow the arguments over what is apples to apples. That's why I said start your argument by using one apartment which is both for sale and for rent. And by all means, use the most bubblistic recent new development for purposes of steve's arguments, not an all-cash coop, and certainly not comparing a luxury rental with a variety of coops and condos including walkups.

And LICC is also right: "Most buyers are willing to pay an initial higher monthly cost to own compared to rent, given that over time rental costs and home prices rise, and that once the mortgage is fully paid the owner maintains a valuable asset."

That is their entire argument. Now, about future developments in prices, this is where your issues become more relevant, as factors to consider today when weighing the pros and cons of tomorrow. Interest rates are unbelievably low. And rents for someone like steve who moved last year are a little lower than when 45 Park broke ground. The only predictions I feel secure in making are that the holder of the mortgage on #604 at 45 Park would never go for a short sale at the price point steve would deem perfect rent/buy equilibrium (probably about half the asking price today), and that steve's landlord will offer him a renewal lease north of $4,000 per month, and no more free months.

Another thing omitted from all these arguments over rent-buy of the past three years is self-employed person using a room of the apartment as a home office. Steve sounds like he pays self employment tax. He also sounds like he deducts the rent and utilities and furnishings of one room of his rentals.

The most important factor omitted from all these threads is mutual respect of human beings and their legitimate differences of perspective.

Find the flaw in this argument:

"Most buyers are willing to pay an initial higher monthly cost to own compared to rent"

Completely untrue. In fact, the opposite is true.

"given that over time rental costs and home prices rise"

Certainly if you pick your own start and end dates that's true, but overall rents and home prices change in tandem.

"and that once the mortgage is fully paid the owner maintains a valuable asset."

The average homeowner owns a home for 7 years, and so does not pay off the mortgage. If your total stream of rental payments is less than your total mortgage / tax / maintenance / insurance payments / increased home value over time, then it's still better to rent regardless of the "residual value" of the property (which you will still have to pay taxes on and maintain, at your own dime).

"The average homeowner owns a home for 7 years, and so does not pay off the mortgage. If your total stream of rental payments is less than your total mortgage / tax / maintenance / insurance payments / increased home value over time, then it's still better to rent"

It is a good idea to look at it over 7 years steve. Bravo to you for finally looking at this question as a comparison of cash flows over a given time period. However, if you assume an increase in home value then you need to deduct the principal from your total mortgage payments for your calculation above to be correct. I personally would also deduct all of the tax benefits over the 7 years, but that's ok if you don't want to. It is real $$ to me. I would also add all of the transaction costs for the buy and sell as a cost of purchase.

JuiceMan, thank you for congratulating me for saying what I've always said. I really appreciate that.

Maybe I should switch it around: congratulations for finally understanding what I've been saying for years! Purchasing a home is capitalizing a future stream of expenses. It's effectively a discounted negative cash flow.

"However, if you assume an increase in home value then you need to deduct the principal from your total mortgage payments for your calculation above to be correct."

I don't assume an increase or a decrease; it makes no difference until the end. But your theory is wrong. If you "deduct the principal from your total mortgage payments" then all you're left with is interest. If what you purport to do is discount the value of interest payments and compare it to the discounted value of rent payments, that is just plain nonsensical, and demonstrates why you went to dental school instead of having studied business.

You purchase a place to live: that cost is what you have capitalized in lieu of rent. If you pay $100,000 for a place to live and plan to live there for 10 years, then you have capitalized an annual rent of $10,000. The interest you pay on the $100,000 each year is the cost of capitalizing that rent, and is therefore part of it. To do it otherwise would be to count the principal twice: once when you ignore it as part of your negative cash flow, and again when you pay off the mortgage.

Nothing like reaping that benefit twice to really spruce up your numbers. Unfortunately, it makes no sense.

And yes, you also have to amortize all the transaction costs (buy sell) over the period you own the place for, and account for the increased risk of owning versus renting, and the opportunity cost of owning property - which represents negative cash flow - versus owning another investment - which is (or should be) positive cash flow.

steve likes to count all those projections, but not count tax deductions, price appreciation and increasing rental costs. How convenient for him. It makes his analysis inaccurate and useless, but at least it is convenient for him.

W67: I'm tired of following the rules. I've been doing some reconnoitering in Bk for deals. As an outsider, it looks like you have to have an in. Plenty 'o people making $ with very little equity, if they can buy property at the right price with no transparency or competition. How do I do that? I'm not talking about buying 1965 4beds at 500/sqft.

""Most buyers are willing to pay an initial higher monthly cost to own compared to rent"
Completely untrue. In fact, the opposite is true."

I've said it before, but it bears (pun intended) repeating: most people would pay more overall to own the exact same place, rather than rent it. There's a premium for ownership - it's not 100%, but it's not 0 either. You would think this should be obvious. Sadly, no.

this all depends on whether or not the individual believes there is an upside down the road. if you don't, why in god's name would you pay more monthly to own than to rent the exact same place?

"JuiceMan, thank you for congratulating me for saying what I've always said."

LMAO. You don't even know what you have "always said". You have confused yourself.

CC: I think you've answered your own question. Some people prefer to be "upside down." After all, Jesus said that it is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to pass into heaven. Apparently some people can think of no better way to join the meek who shall inherit the earth than to give their money to the current proprietary tenant of an overpriced RE unit in NYC.

I'd have thought they could find better objects of their charity, but to each his own.

financeguy, there's really no need to get snarky here. A piece of real estate in this city is a future source of income once that mortgage is paid off (assuming RE taxes don't get completely out of control). If that's something that you can pass onto your children, I can think of worse ways to spend your money. This, of course, completely ignores the benefits to long-term security of owning your own place, as well as renovating as you see fit. Nowhere did I claim that's worth hundreds of thousands extra dollars, but it certainly has a not-insignificant value to many people. If you fail to recognize that, you're just not dealing in reality, IMHO.

LICC, how boring you are: "steve likes to count all those projections, but not count tax deductions, price appreciation and increasing rental costs"

I count it all - and 15x annual rent is overpaying. Of course you must agree with this, LICC, because you say: "If enough buyers who receive the tax deduction are in a market, it will affect overall home values."

So, the only conclusion you can draw is that the price of the home intrinsically affects the market price of the home. Right? Those are your own words.

Good. Because the corollary to what you say is that if enough people don't get the tax deduction it won't be included in the price of the home.

In which case you don't count it.

You really should think through what you say, LICC - as for the most part, you make no sense.

"You have confused yourself."

Nope. Extremely consistent, and consistently cite sources. For instance, I know the difference between "Economists use" and "LICC says"; the former is valuable, the latter, worthless.

"A piece of real estate in this city is a future source of income once that mortgage is paid off"

Wrong. Unless you rent it out. Mind your debits & credits, bjw.

This is what I get for not editing: "price of the home intrinsically affects the market price"

Wrong! "The tax deduction is intrinsic to the market price."

Thank you!

"Wrong. Unless you rent it out."

Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry, should have been clearer.

Ok steve, in your bizarro world where there are no tax deductions, home prices would be lower. But in the real world, the tax code provides for a deduction for mortgage interest, therefore the tax deduction is a factor in home prices.

I agree that steve confuses himself quite often.

"therefore the tax deduction is a factor in home prices."

Exactly, LICC! I'm glad you finally agree! The effect of the tax deduction on mortgage interest is to INCREASE the price of housing, precisely to the point where the overall cost - tax benefit included - equals the price of rent.

That's why you don't count it twice when using the price to rent ratio: the tax benefit is already implied in the price.

Well put, LICC! Well put!

I'm so glad the two of you worked this out and agree.

Meanwhile, in the real world, I've been looking at houses in Brooklyn. I can rent one for $4,500 to $8,000, depending on the size or neighborhood, which would cost me between $1.6 to $2.5M to buy. Since I have never been able to project more than 4/5 years ahead, how could it ever make sense to buy? You guys are arguing about how many angels can fit on a pinhead.

One of steve's tricks when he has been made to look like a fool is to talk in circles to try to confuse people into seeing his mistake. According to steve, since the tax deduction affects home prices, you should not count it when analyzing your ownership costs, since that would be "counting it twice". Maybe in steve's bizarro land where mathematics does not apply like in the real world, that would be the case, but here on Earth steve is as wrong as ever.

"One of steve's tricks when he has been made to look like a fool is to talk in circles to try to confuse people into seeing his mistake."

Which is steve's tactic when talking about principal. According to steve, when you pay your mortgage every month a portion of your payment goes to mortgage interest and a portion vanishes into thin air never to be seen or heard from again.

My my my! What interesting twists on me!

"According to steve, since the tax deduction affects home prices, you should not count it when analyzing your ownership costs"

Absolutely the opposite of what I said, LICC! (As usual!) I said that because the tax deduction affects home prices, it is included in the 15x ratio that began this thread. And you agreed, until you realized that it threw your other theories of the cost of real estate out the window.

"Which is steve's tactic when talking about principal."

It is? Really? I said that when comparing rents to property prices, you should take into account both principal and interest, as they are both integral parts of the costs you are capitalizing. You said that you should only take into account the principal - and therefore that "portion vanishes into thin air never to be seen or heard from again."

But it doesn't.

How foolish the both of you! No wonder you're the last two people left on this board who think the way you do: your strange and bizarro worlds MAKE NO SENSE!

"You said that you should only take into account the principal" = "You said that you should only take into account the interest"

Oops!

The price to rent ratio is not a 15x ratio- the equilibrium number is whatever the current conditions lead it to be. It varies over time depending on interest rates, tax rates, rental costs, etc.

steve tries to understate the number by ignoring the tax deduction and saying he is including the tax deduction because it is "included in the price". This is so dumb that it is laughable.

But ANYWAY Trulia - a real estate website - clearly DOES know about all of the above and they nonetheless say Manhattan is a place where its cheaper to rent than buy.

Trulia???? Why don't you just take two comparable apartments and analyze the numbers yourself? I've done that on these boards in the past and made steve look even sillier than usual.

You are a complete tard. You did not even read the article. Here is what they said, numbnuts:

"
Methodology

Trulia calculates the price-to-rent ratio for the 50 largest U.S. cities using the average list price compared with the average rent on two-bedroom apartments, condos, townhomes and co-ops listed on Trulia.com. This Index considers both the total cost of home ownership against the total costs of renting (examples of costs for both home ownership and renting outlined below).

Sample Price-to-Rent Ratio Calculation:

Average List Price: $90,445.60

Average Rent: $936.30

Price-to-rent ratio: $90,445.60 ÷ ($936.30 x 12) = 8.05

Definitions:
Total costs of home ownership include mortgage principal and interest, property taxes, hazard insurance, closing costs at time of purchase and ongoing HOA dues and private mortgage insurance, where applicable. Total costs of homeownership include an offset for the tax advantages of homeownership, including mortgage interest, property tax and closing cost deductions.

Total costs of renting include rent and renter’s insurance."

"But ANYWAY Trulia - a real estate website - clearly DOES know about all of the above and they nonetheless say Manhattan is a place where its cheaper to rent than buy."

That's a joke right? Trulia is a San Francisco based real estate content aggregator that knows jack squat about the Manhattan real estate market. They make money by publishing stupid "research" (e.g. comparing a $3,700 rental with a $1.7M purchase) hoping to get fools on their site to click on their ads. Here are the markets they cover, what do you think they actually know about these markets?

San Francisco real estate | New York real estate | Los Angeles real estate | Orlando real estate | Miami real estate | Philadelphia real estate | Phoenix real estate | San Diego real estate | San Jose real estate | Chicago real estate | Arizona real estate | California real estate | Florida real estate | Illinois real estate | Massachusetts real estate | New Jersey real estate | Pennsylvania real estate | Texas real estate | Other local real estate | California apartments | New York apartments | Texas apartments

jason's big response was . . . Trulia. And he thinks that made him appear intelligent.

Thanks for basically admitting that you are too slow to compare the numbers yourself.

"steve tries to understate the number by ignoring the tax deduction and saying he is including the tax deduction because it is "included in the price". This is so dumb that it is laughable."

But LICC, it's what you yourself said: "If enough buyers who receive the tax deduction are in a market, it will affect overall home values."

Thank you.

JuiceMan doesn't like trulia. The truth is, JuiceMan doesn't like anything that doesn't give him the answer he wants.

Which is everything.

How about people rent if they think renting is cheaper than buying, and others buy if they feel that is more economical?

You people are truly sad. What a waste of brainpower.

what a waste.
Renting would actually be advantageous/ buying in the fllowing scenario: buying cach on a gold standard.
The truth is the vast majority of american's net worth is the equity in their house: why? because they never paid for it: they took a mortgage (80/20 ltv) an d inflation destroyed the value of the mortgage.
if you want to accumulate wealth just BUY (not rent ) but with a mortgage.
Btw I have quite a few renters paying me inflation indexed rents: I just LOOOOOVE them. they make me rich.(and NEVER undestand why)

steve loves Trulia. That explains a lot.

steve loves Trulia

columbiacounty and julialg don't love Truth

That explains a lot.

It is hard to argue that today carrying costs of rental and ownership are equivalent. Rental is lower today. however, ultimately this boils down to what you think of what you think will happen to inflation and capital appreciation over time. There are two very real possibilities which will make ownership the clear winner 1) inflation returns - given the level of govt borrowing this feels inevitable. the morgage is fixed, rental costs is not 2) the economy picks up - if the economy picks up rental costs will rise as will the capital value. Again ownership will win. so if you believe we are in for a long extended period of low interest and weak economy rent. If you think either inflation picks up or the economy picks up buy. I know where I am betting

I have no opinion on trulia, JuiceMan - data are data. Time for you and LICC to fess up: you never had any data to support your novel "theories," never will.

>inflation destroyed the value of the mortgage.

You could invest in S&P 500 and get better results. The stock market is getting ready to jump again, would be a waste to pay that downpayment now :-)

Of course if the value of the property falls down more, it make sense at some point to buy - it isn't now.

"it could make sense".... damn why can't i edit my posts.

UWS, I agree with everything you said except the part about current rental costs being lower than ownership costs. I'm not sure why you think that is so clear.

steve's support for all his shoddy, mistake-ridden analysis and invalid theories- "data are data."

darkbird- Bad comparison; not many people will buy the S&P at 5x leverage for a 30-year investment.

"steve's support for all his shoddy, mistake-ridden analysis and invalid theories- "data are data.""

HAHAHAHA!

I quote LICC's own words, and he tries to squirm his way out of it. HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Inflation is the reason to buy overpriced RE??

We are in the middle of a recession caused by lack of demand -- after a generation without a pay increase, the middle class can't buy or borrow any more. Since businesses can't sell, they can't invest or hire.

An enormous housing bubble elevating the price of housing far above actual costs, patent monopolies for drugs and a medical care system rigged in favor of insurance companies, the government's abandonment of its responsibilities to higher education, and a generation-long legal war on the unions resulting in their near demise in the private sector, has further impoverished the middle class, which has to spend so much for housing, medical care and education that it has little left for anything else.

Usually, the short term solution to mass unemployment would be for government to pick up the slack, but in today's astonishing political culture, one party and its media echo chamber are calling for even more reduction in government services, while the other considers maintaining the status quo a major victory.

Usually, the long term solution would be to increase the bargaining power of the middle class, build the transportation and energy and R&D and regulatory infrastructure necessary to make markets work, and to beef up the regulators and police necessary to force corporate malfeasors to act in socially useful ways. But the party of hope offers minor fixes conditioned on large handouts to the banks and insurance companies, while the opposition wants to expand crony capitalism corruption still more with larger handouts to all parts of the upper class and corporations, cutting taxes on the rich, permitting still more freedom of action to the skimmers and thieves in our major economic institutions, and reducing our already inadequate government services even more.

Absent a New New Deal with huge Federal spending directly and to support the states -- which isn't even being discussed -- we face years of excess capacity and unemployment.

This is a recipe for nineteenth century style deflation, not inflation.

Paying bubble prices for RE because you expect prices to rise even further above fundamentals is even more foolish than voting Republican because you think that tax cuts for the rich and fewer restrictions on corporate scam artists will return us to the days when productivity increases led to prosperity for all.

"Usually, the short term solution to mass unemployment would be for government to pick up the slack"

Keynesian government spending has never solved a mass unemployment problem. It is an excuse for bigger, centralized government and a recipe for economic disaster.

what's your solution?

"Keynesian government spending has never solved a mass unemployment problem."

Except after the Great Depression.

"It is an excuse for bigger, centralized government"

You mean like the military?

"and a recipe for economic disaster"

The same Austrian economics and deregulation caused the Great Depression and the Great Recession.

Which is why it's Keynes's fault, right?

HAHAHAHAHA!

The saddest part is LICC actually believes his own nonsense.

The sad part is that steve thinks he understands economic theories.

Keynesian government spending didn't end the Great Depression. FDR's policies worsened and prolonged the Depression.

Who exactly blames Austrian economic theory for the Great Depression? That sounds like something steve just made up again.

other than criticizing steve, what would you do?

SIgh. Trulia's methodology is about the same as Case-schiller and others for determining price-rent ratios on a mass scale. Whether you do bottom up or top down, EVERY study on the topic you will find will say the same basic results - in NYC and Manhattan in particular it costs more to buy than rent.

Unless rents also plummet in 2010, here's some forecast really good news for the Manhattan buy/rent ratio:
http://www.housingpredictor.com/worst-2010.html

"FDR's policies worsened and prolonged the Depression."

Which ones?

This is what I like - the two worst economic crises of the last 100 years both started under Republican presidents after long-term Republican control of Congress & the presidency - Hoover & Bush II - and in both cases it was the fault of the Democrats.

Amazing.

It wasn't the democrats fault to begin with but maybe they are prolonging the agony or making it worse..

Nonsense, AH.

Dumb, Jason.

Real estate only ever goes UP in Manhattan, and gold is headed to 10,000 an ounce.

Mark my words.

Mebbe Tijuana Gold.

Finance guy, i couldn't have said it better!