JuiceMan's Gloating Thread

Dude you are like waiting for the aids test and gloating over scoring with 10 methheads.

Speaking of lemming, welcome to the party w67th. You should headline the show.

Where is stevejhx, BSex, Malthus, nyc10022, happy renter, etc?

JM, I think whoever wrote that about the correlations goofed. The correlation of 1-year returns in NYXR to SE CMI is 0.66 while the same for S&P 500 to SE CMI is 0.25.

Who said anything about one year returns? What year?

>> Who said anything about one year returns? What year?

For anyone who is paying attention, just file that one away. They always think they're makin money.

-- The Rent Is Too Damn High

I've always said that Case-Shiller does not cover Manhattan, Juicy, because it covers only single-family homes. So I have no idea what you're talking about.

Did you forget about this steve?

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/13206-discuss-trulia-says-manhattan-down-447-avg-price-psf?page=2

This is where your were trying to prove correlation between the MSA and Manhattan.

Ooops! LMAO

the rent IS too damn high

no...prices are too high..rents are relatively very cheap

the rent IS too damn high!

BUT, what's with the beard in the shape of two balls resting on your chin?

Well first, JuiceMan, you said Case Shiller, not Trulia. Or did I misread your post.

Second, I stand by what I said - do a stepwise regression rather than a straightforward regression, and you get highly correlated markets, with a time shift. Perfectly acceptable statistics.

They don't teach you statistics in dental school, do they? You gotta know how to count up to 32, & you're done.

"You said Case Shiller, not Trulia"

Doesn't matter what article, check the data set

"Second, I stand by what I said - do a stepwise regression rather than a straightforward regression, and you get highly correlated markets, with a time shift. Perfectly acceptable statistics."

So you are saying the CMI is wrong?

Did you ever notice that every thread steve is on turns into a stevejhx gloating thread?

stevejhx is a stand-up comic.
( Is this the steve ( not that other steve, the steve
who is trying to outpace somewhereelse? Good luck to that that steve.)

Wbottom
no...prices are too high..rents are relatively very cheap

Listen, my stomach is growling... RENT IS TOO HIGH

"So you are saying the CMI is wrong?"

Never said that. I said that the data provided by trulia indicate a very high correlation if a one-year lag time is included in the correlation. CMI's data could be correct; their statistical methodology could be wrong.

changing statistical metrics to achieve desired results is a slippery slope.

"changing statistical metrics to achieve desired results is a slippery slope."

Wrong again, marco. The more you know about the population and factor that into your statistics, the more accurate the outcome. Ask any pollster: if a random sample of 1000 voters is taken all in the South, you'll get an outcome far different from what the actual election will yield. That was the brilliant insight of George Gallup, and why his polls were more accurate.

adding lags is different than changing a population size. increasing a population size is generally a good thing. changing lags to find correlation can be biased.

steve is the person who said that if your bonus is paid to you in 2011, it counts as your 2010 income. The man lives in the bizarro land of the delusional. Why would anyone listen to anything he has to say?

I can personnaly attest to the fact that comp paid in 2010 for 2009 work will be on my tax return for 2010.

steve's exact quote: "hofo, even if tax rates go up or down, if you're paid in 2011 for a 2010 bonus, it's taxable in 2010 even though you don't have it yet.

Sorry."

The best part is steve states this with such conviction and arrogance while at the same time being completely incorrect. Pretty much like everything else he posts.

Wrong again, LICC: See USC Sec. 1.461(h)(4) for the IRS's regulations on when taxes are deductible and payable on bonuses. The IRS uses a 4-part test, the crux of the issue being that a company can deduct as an expense - and therefore the employee must pay tax on - a bonus PAID within 2 1/2 months after year-end, if the economic event that gave rise to the bonus occurred in the prior year (subject to some other tests, as well).

That is for accrual-based taxpayers, which is just about everybody (except me!). Constructive receipt of a payment of a bonus does not change when the payment is due. Marco, check again when the tax was withheld from your bonus, and whether it met the IRS's tests - if it did, you might be in for a surprise.

LICC wrong again.

That is for the payor, not the earner. Very common on Wall Street that bonuses are paid January or February, the company deducts the expense for the prior year. The employee's tax hit comes out of the bonus paycheck as paid, in the period it is paid. Otherwise the earner would be having to pay a tax by April on the bonus received in January and February and then the next year when the next tax return is done making a reversal on the amounts deducted from the paycheck, and in the mean time they'd be out an extra tax payment for 12 months until this is resolved. A little common sense please.

Let me also point out that I predicted that steve would come up with all sorts of distortions and inaccuracies to try to claim that his incorrect statement is actually correct.

but lets not forget that you are the master of the circumcision.

LICComment
about 5 months ago
ignore this person
report abuse

The claim that renters have saved a lot of money from renting is highly circumspect. As matt pointed out, it seems unlikely that a renter would pay less to rent than they could afford to pay, either to rent or to own.

Common sense and steve parted ways a long, long time ago.

While we're on the topic of steve being 180 degrees around from reality, how about this one: "That is for accrual-based taxpayers, which is just about everybody."

In fact most individuals are cash basis taxpayers, although I believe they can elect to be treated as accrual based with IRS permission (could be wrong on that). Re: constructive receipt, the usual fact pattern is that people are told a bonus number early in the New Year, with payment shortly thereafter. Even if they are told the number in Dec, it can still be changed prior to payment, including, for example, being changed to zero in the event that the employee no longer works there on the payment date in Jan or Feb. The simple fact is that in almost all Wall Street bonus circumstances the test for constructive receipt is not met until the payment is actually made.

The scope and grandeur of steve's ignorance is truly breathtaking to behold.

i'm very confused. when have i ever opined on the use of regional data in discussions of manhattan real estate?

bizarre that you would refer to me as a "lemming" on an issue on which i have never commented.

"their statistical methodology could be wrong"

steve dislikes the CMI because it goes against everything he has said for the last three years. Even when confronted with facts that prove him wrong, he continues to argue his case. Amazing.

Wrong again:

http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title26/26-6.0.1.1.1.0.5.24.html

Taxes on bonuses are treated like taxes on dividends - if a dividend is declared in 2009 but not paid until 2010, it is taxable in 2009. As long as you have your bonus by March 15, and it was declared and set aside in the prior year, it is taxable in the prior year. If you receive it after March 15, it is not taxable in the prior year. If it was not set aside by your company in the prior year then it is not taxable in the prior year.

It doesn't matter what the taxpayer's status is - it matters what the company's status is: cash or accrual. If you don't do it that way then the company takes a tax credit for the bonus reserve but the recipient doesn't receive the bonus or pay taxes for the next 2 months, the IRS thinks it's getting the short end of the deal, as it is.

nothing amazing about it, juice- steve has a pathological inability to admit when he is wrong - we've seen in time and again. even now, he sticks to his absurd insistence that employee's who receive a bonus in January are taxed on it for the prior year, which has zero basis in the reality the rest of us occupy.

steve, dude, do you read? Seriously. Let's start with the first couple of sentences from the link you posted:

"Income although not actually reduced to a taxpayer's possession is constructively received by him in the taxable year during which it is credited to his account, set apart for him, or otherwise made available so that he may draw upon it at any time, or so that he could have drawn upon it during the taxable year if notice of intention to withdraw had been given. However, income is not constructively received if the taxpayer's control of its receipt is subject to substantial limitations or restrictions."

None of these predicates for constructive receipt exist in the case of Wall Street bonuses - except where the actual payment happens before year end, of course. I think you're hung up on some book accounting matching concept - matching the bonus to the year in which the service in rendered, etc. - that doesn't apply here. No banks are putting people's bonus money in an account before year end and saying, "Feel free to pick it up whenever you feel like it. This calendar year or next - up to you." That is basically the standard for constructive receipt. The company having accrued a compensation expense is not the same as "set aside for him."

Or maybe we have to make this simpler - do you think that a) you're right and every investment bank that puts bonus money on the W-2s of thousands of employees every year and reports the income and withholding as an employer is committing tax fraud on a massive scale, or b) the investment banks are getting it right?

Is there anyone on the thread who could translate IRC 1-451-2 (the Code section that steve linked to) into Spanish? English clearly isn't working.

happyrenter, this was from the GS thread:

"how can you say that nothing in the article supports a 50% decline in manhattan when the article itself clearly states a very realistic scenario for a 60% decline? you may think the article is wrong, but the analysis provided very certainly does support the possibility of a 50% decline."

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/7464-gs-take-on-nyc-re

My point was the article was nonsense based on the data GS used for the analysis. After re-reading the debate in the thread, it is clear that you would have believed anything that said 50% down in Manhattan, regardless of what data was used to make the claim, and you are not alone.

Steve, have you ever received a bonus, or had a friend or family member who received a bonus?

This is another steve intellectual meltdown. I find them so amusing at this point. And the fact that he cannot admit he is wrong (and realize just how ridiculous he comes across by insisting his mistake is actually correct, and the whole rest of the world just doesn't get it) just adds to craziness.

Sorry to quibble over words here, but in order to have an intellectual meltdown wouldn't one actually have to have some intellect in the first place?

Steve is wrong, plain and simple. Most banks/HFs don't fulfil the conditions for constructive receipt. This ain't rocket science.

Good point sideline.

juiceman,

what you are talking about is a difference of opinion on the direction of manhattan real estate, which we obviously did have. but let's be clear: i never--ever--thought that it was obvious that manhattan real estate prices would decline 50% or 60% or 75%. i thought that those declines were realistic possibilities. for various reasons the decline from peak to trough (so far) was more like 20% to 40% depending on the type of property.

as for the idea that i am some sort of ideological lemming, perhaps you didn't notice that i bought an apartment at the beginning of the year--went into contract almost exactly a year ago.

And it was apartment around 35% off the peak price for comps.

"This ain't rocket science."

This feels like piling it on, but I should point out that Steve very likely doesn't know much about rocket science either.

"This feels like piling it on..."

That's probably because it is. Well done.

"as for the idea that i am some sort of ideological lemming, perhaps you didn't notice that i bought an apartment at the beginning of the year--went into contract almost exactly a year ago. "

Fair point happyrenter, I lumped you into a cast of characters that you didn't belong in. I take it back and apologize.

"Steve very likely doesn't know much about rocket science either"

He did lead a team at a Big 5 firm that were expert data mappers. That's pretty complex isn't it?

Juice, you're starting to sound like steve again. I know thats harsh, but you're getting ever closer.

I'm still waiting, weeks later, for you to show me just one of the "many examples" you claimed of me saying the market would go down another 40%. You said that several times, and I'm still wondering when I said it.

Also, you seem to keep missing the data. Studios and one bedrooms continue to fall even last quarter. Three and four bedrooms are down 38% and 50% off peak respectively.

All of this is the miller samuel data I posted several times (median sales price)... on the "data causing the screams" thread.

btw, just so its handy... studio median price fell 8.5% Q3 over Q2.... and one bedrooms 4.5%.

Those are pretty significant stats to miss.

Never did data mapping, Mr. J.

And yes, the tax on bonuses is payable as part of this year's wages:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/nyregion/04bonus.html

That's why the state is so interested in it. Not if it's in restricted stock, as the link says. Cash bonuses are taxed like dividends.

I wonder if steve really does believe the ridiculously incorrect statements he makes, or if he just says them to annoy people. But I've concluded that he really does lack the basic comprehension to understand the things he says.

He still believes he is correct in his boneheaded claim that bonuses paid in 2011 are taxable as 2010 income.

Hilarious.

Steve, if one of your clients has a question about one of the sentences you translated into Brazilian Portuguese, do you provide a link to a German dictionary and make a statement about how Fujimori was actually president of Peru despite his deceptive last name?

"I'm still waiting, weeks later, for you to show me just one of the "many examples" you claimed of me saying the market would go down another 40%."

Not sure I made that accusation swe. In fact, I think I'm on record as saying that you were probably the closest (I remember 15-20% was your prediction, am I right?) What I have accused you of is piling on to doom and gloom scenarios based on these silly articles filled with crap data. For a long time, you were the first to post them, but you seem to be dating better looking data these days.

"Three and four bedrooms are down 38% and 50% off peak respectively."

There's no doubt all segments have taken hits, but these two (and especially the latter) reek of SSS.

"Three and four bedrooms are down 38% and 50% off peak respectively"

Not in the UWS. Have a look at a couple listings yourself swe, I'm happy to acknowledge if you can find some.

> Not sure I made that accusation swe.

You did 2 weeks ago, Juice...

> In fact, I think I'm on record
Well, you are now. ;-)

> as saying that you were probably the closest (I remember 15-20% was your
> prediction, am I right?)

15-20% decline was my pre bear pre lehman things still looking "rosy" prediction. When hell broke loose (market in free fall), I don't remember exactly, but I said I thought I had understated.... I think I probably said something in the 20-25% or potentially 20-30% range.

the medians by size look like this so far... 24.8% 23.3% 24.2% 37.6% 50.0%

so I think the reassessment was closer to reality.

> What I have accused you of is piling on to doom and gloom scenarios based on these silly articles filled
> with crap data.

Yes, like the Deutsche bank article. You definitely went after me on that one...
Of course that was after I said I didn't really buy it.... but you still went after me.

> For a long time, you were the first to post them, but you seem to be dating
> better looking data these days.

Well, because someone finally pointed me at the actual data, so I started doing the calculations myself.

> Not in the UWS. Have a look at a couple listings yourself swe, I'm happy to acknowledge if you can find some.

Juice, you're sounding like Steve again. You want to do this block by block. Great, uws, investment of the century. But that means the rest of Manhattan would have had to have gone down more... so, not sure what your angle is here.

So if 3+ bedrooms are not down 50% in the UWS, or the Village, or Chelsea, Or Soho, or, or, or... When do you look at the data you are using and scratch your head? Also, since the CMI is using a figure of 20%, when do you start using that?

And swe, stop calling me steve. You are pissing me off. We can have an intelligent debate without the slander.

It would be libel, JuiceMan, not slander.

And I'm none too happy about it, either.