ATTN: stevejhx -- POST HERE

Bottom, since you are so smart, why don't you explain how you can have an opportunity cost on a million dollars whether you pay all cash or lever 100% of it. That is what steve is saying, interested to hear your perspective on that.

Opportunity cost is hardly the same as out of pocket cost.

steve, if this is the way you run the numbers, you should definitely rent. You are way under qualified to give anyone else advice however.

"1) On your mortgage you owe $2,158,381.89, less $6,000 = $2,152,381.89, over the next 30 years."

completely irrelevant

"2) To pay off the bank you'd normally call the bank to find out, but let's say $999,000, since you paid of $1,000 in principal."

correct

"3) You're left with -$6,000; that is, $6,000 less than what you started with."

Wrong. If you sell the place for $1,000,000 and pay $999,000 to the bank, what are you left with? $1,000. $1,000 + -$6,000 = $5,000. Total cost for the month = $5,000. What happened to the $1,000 in principal that you identified in #2?

"4) If we assume the alternate investment would make 10% per year, versus the 6% you're paying on your mortgage, then the opportunity cost of not investing that $1,000,000 in another asset is $8,333.33 ($1 million @ 10% per year for 1 month) - $5,000.00 (your cost of funds @ 6% ) = $3,333.33."

10% is wrong, you yourself have posted many formulas that use the risk free rate for opportunity cost of equity, but that doesn't matter. You are the only person in the world that calculates the opportunity cost on borrowed capital. Wouldn't it be great if I could borrow money from a bank to invest in the stock market?

"Then, if the market rent for that unit is actually $4,000.00, then the entire cost to you would be $4,000.00 + $5,333.33 = $9,333.33."

So now you are adding the cost to rent to the cost to own assuming that you are living in both apartments at the same time

Ladies and gentleman, this has to be the worst pile of shit I have EVER seen on this site. I don't know what's worse, steve writing it or Wbottom lapping it up.

Where is Wbottom? Can you explain to all of us how you calculate opportunity cost on borrowed capital? We are all waiting for your response.

steve, who has a history of laughable mistake-filled analysis, strikes again with a moronic post.

He is a sad man.

AR - "the house upstate is irrelevant in my decision, at this point. a mere bauble."
It's not irrelevant in a lender's decision of how much to lend to you.
Even when you own it free and clear, a lender on your primary residence cares about what your costs of ownership of that second home are. Likewise with steve - if he has a mortgage, a lender on his hypothetical primary residence factors in his FI mortgage payments; if he's free and clear, they will still factor in his expenses of owning that place when looking at what they feel steve can afford. Both of you would have more options without your already-owned residences.

no lowery, the house is meaningless because i have no interest in buying generally, and if i were to buy i would never buy anywhere near what the bank would be willing to give us.

x=amount of loan bank would give, y=mortgage on house
1/2x=more than the amount i would need to buy what i might possibly want
1/2x+y

somehow 1/2x+y

the symbols aren't working, anyway the total of 1/2x+y is less than x

1) completely irrelevant

Wrong. You asked how much is owed, and that is how much is owed.

Somehow, in your mind, interest isn't owed.

Great for borrowers, not so great for lenders.

2) Wrong.

I might concede on that.

3) 10% is wrong.

Wrong. 10% is right. Only a fool would consider a home risk-free. You use the risk-free rate as the base rate, and then adjust it for the perceived risk of the investment. Basic CAPM Juicy: "We can do this by using the "Capital Asset Pricing Model" (CAPM). This model says that equity shareholders demand a minimum rate of return equal to the return from a risk-free investment plus a return for bearing extra risk."

http://www.expectationsinvesting.com/tutorial8.shtml

"You are the only person in the world that calculates the opportunity cost on borrowed capital."

Wrong. You are the only person who DOESN'T calculate the opportunity cost on borrowed capital.

And LICCdope:

http://www.noble.org/ag/Economics/OperatingLeverage/index.html

http://www.uwcc.wisc.edu/info/yic/22fin.html

Part II:

http://www.comcom.govt.nz/assets/Pan-Industry/Cost-of-Capital/Submissions-on-CoC-Workshop/Unison-CRA-Leverage-and-the-Cost-of-Capital.pdf

I could go on and on. There is a cost and a risk in borrowing capital. Financial leverage, operating leverage, any type of leverage is a decision with alternatives: do I invest that leverage in a home, a new factory, a new car, a concubine, what?

Leverage = Risk.

"Wouldn't it be great if I could borrow money from a bank to invest in the stock market?"

Of course you can, Juicy. Just the stock won't be the collateral. You can take a cash advance on your credit card, a HELOC, an unnecessary mortgage, etc. There are any number of ways you can do it.

I haven't counted anything twice. You've counted it nunce. Nunce rhymes with dunce.

It's very simple, Juicy:

1) Market rent = $4,000, you pay $6,000. You've overpaid versus market rents by $2,000 a month. You have locked in this stream of amortization payments. If the going rate for chewing gum is $1 a box, and you pay $2, you have overpaid by $1.

That is, wasted capital. I'm not "adding the cost to rent to the cost to own assuming that you are living in both apartments at the same time." I'm saying you foolishly paid $2 for a pack of gum that should have cost you $1.

2) If instead of choosing to spend that $1 million of borrowed cash on a capitalized stream of rent payments, you had chosen to invest it in securities paying 10% per year, assuming the same 6% borrowing cost, then you have an opportunity cost of $8,333.33 ($1 million @ 10% per year for 1 month) - $5,000.00 (your cost of funds @ 6% ) = $3,333.33.

Basically, Juicy, you've borrowed money to overpay for an expense, rather than borrowing money to invest it in an income-producing asset. You have to calculate it this way, else if you capitalize a stream of rental payments at BELOW market value, it would add no benefit to you.

For instance, market rates are $6,000, but you purchase the apartment and your costs are only $4,000 a month. Your opportunity cost then FALLS to $3,333.33 - $2,000.00 = $1,333.33. It still costs you $4,000 a month to live in, so your total cost is $5,333.33, but not that is not unreasonable given that you NEED a place to live, so capitalizing the stream of rent is a rational decision in this case, even though you lose some potential opportunity cost. That figure, naturally, will take on different values, depending on your assumptions.

Makes perfect economic sense. Too bad you and LICCdope aren't smart enough to figure it out.

I like this: "Ladies and gentleman, this has to be the worst pile of shit I have EVER seen on this site."

Come on, Juicy, when you and spunkster and malraux were all cheering on the overpacked open houses a few years back, insisting that nothing was wrong and there would never be a crash, CERTAINLY that was a bigger pile of shit than what I wrote.

And you can't rebut, because it's true. The costs of overpaying for a capitalized stream of rental payments are HUGE, both in terms of overpayment, and lost investment opportunities, a.k.a. opportunity cost.

Opportunity cost is the foregone alternative to a certain action.

In steve's bizarro world of imbeciles, the foregone alternative to buying a home is to take a cash advance on your credit card or otherwise borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars from a bank and investing that money in stocks for the rest of your life.

steve, do you not mind the fact that all your arrogant mindless drivel has made you a laughingstock on these boards?

"steve, do you not mind the fact that all your arrogant mindless drivel has made you a laughingstock on these boards?"

LICCdope, if you are the person who considers me to be a "laughingstock on these boards," then I wear it as a badge of honor, thank you very much.

"Opportunity cost is the foregone alternative to a certain action."

Right. And the foregone alternative to borrowing $1 million to invest in a home is to borrow $1 million to invest in something else. Unless you have no alternative to borrowing that $1 million.

Fool.

So Juicy, let's see your calculations answering my question - what about the instance where you pay $1 million in cash for a home that rents for $4,000 a month. What's the cost after 10 years, if you get your $1 million back when you sell it.

Net of those nasty transaction costs, of course!

steve, don't have time to point out all of your errors today but you should check the difference between the use of the risk free rate on invested equity vs. the risk of a real estate purchase. Your own white papers clearly delineate between the two. I agree there is risk to the purchase (good luck quantifying it when you can't even answer bjw's questions) but don't confuse that with risk of investing capital that would otherwise be used as a down payment. Open up the white papers that you yourself have posted on this board and read them again.

Your view on opportunity cost is downright laughable. There is no one in the world that would agree with you on this. I can't borrow $1M from a bank and invest it, you are just being foolish.

Where is the brilliant Wbottom? What can't he answer my questions?

"It's actually annoying - I don't know why I bother to answer you, even.
I can't answer a hypothetical question with a specific answer, without details, which you refuse to provide. I've answered you one case in which I would buy an apartment for the price of the rent, and another in which I wouldn't. I have details on those. I don't have details on what you want me to look at."

Steve, you're obviously never bashful about posting and naysaying others, but the facts are plain - when you're forced to answer a question from which you can't hide behind your pat little formulas, you develop some major shrinkage. As truthskr said, it's an easy question to answer, yet you refuse to. Given your propensity to lecture others on all things real estate, it's kind of pathetic. Kablooie.

Seems buyers have their justifyers, renters have their justifyers. Stevejhx is a renter but doesn't have any normal justifyer that anyone else can understand.

brilliant Wbottom reporting..a bit busy to engage with any detail (fortunately)
seems to me steve has answered in great detail juicy's inquiry--sreve's logic seems quite well-presented and inderstandable to me--if you differ, fine

what we haven't seen is juicy's explanation of his fabled ex-transaction-cost concept based on the million dollar purchase happening with all cash

nor have we heard any specifics on LICC's LIC property

ill check in later...hopefully you guys can produce something on this

bjw - I gave you specific answers to two specific cases. If you give me more specific cases, I will be glad to answer them.

However, I can't answer a question based on two figures that are taken completely out of all context.

Juicy - it's not "my" view of opportunity cost. It is the standard view of opportunity cost: borrowing money and investing it in one thing, versus borrowing money and investing it in another. To say otherwise is just foolish.

You poo-pooed the white papers, but they do use the risk-free rate as the base, and then adjust for the perceived increased risk of owning rather than renting.

You should answer your own question, and my question.

Only JuicMan would claim that there is no opportunity cost in buying a house on 100% leverage.

steve, even using your assumptions, you still miscalculate the difference in outcomes, by a huge margin. If you stand by that original $9,333.33 estimate, you truly have zero credibility. I give you a free pass to admit your miscalculations and come up with the correct number.

"If you give me more specific cases, I will be glad to answer them.
However, I can't answer a question based on two figures that are taken completely out of all context."

Steve, I gave you about as simple a case as can be given. And how are the figures out of context when I provided the figures and the context? Like I said, major shrinkage.

Risk of owning? Sorry, no. If you bought a house that you could afford, there's no risk to owning. That's a load of hooey if you ask me. In fact, whereas risk is considered to increase with duration, e.g. a 30 year bond has a higher rate than a treasury bill, in housing with standard mortgages, you have less and less borrowing over time, so the bank, who is the party at risk (vs. the owner) has less and less risk over time.

earth to h'burg!!!

jiuicy--wuttup with the all-cash sitch?

Is there a cliff notes version of this thread?

999 Adultfacebook me.

Typical steve. He makes an imbecilic comment (the opportunity cost to buying a $1million home is the foregone alternative of borrowing the $1million to invest in stocks), I and others call him on it and make him look foolish, he insults everyone, lies and says everyone else agrees with him, cites some paper that has nothing to do with his claim, and makes himself look even more foolish.

AR - "the house is meaningless because i have no interest in buying generally,"

Then why trace the comps on the way down here? Just a hobby? Sounds to me like you are VERY interested in the real estate market.

"and if i were to buy i would never buy anywhere near what the bank would be willing to give us."

Same here. I will freely admit, however, that that is a lifestyle choice and more conservative than most people's approach, and that were prices to crash to bottom-feeder levels, I would be very interested in buying, in order to make profits. But you have zero interest in buying? Oh, okay.

"x=amount of loan bank would give, y=mortgage on house
1/2x=more than the amount i would need to buy what i might possibly want
1/2x+y
y=irrelevant"

Roughly translated, that means something like "I'm exactly where I want to be, because it's where I want to be."

And I don't believe you.

I do think it's very smart to only want to pay much, much less than the going rate for NYC real estate. You are hereby lauded, though methinks the lady doth protest too much.

well, i might feel compelled to buy our current unit if PCV goes coop, but that would be gifted to our daughter eventually. (and the current talk is the units will go for an average of around $300 psf, so I'm OK with that).

"and i don't believe you"

not so friendly, there, sport. but as i have said repeatedly, we are getting on in years. while i'm not ready for the walker just yet, we are not that many years shy of retirement (or a flexible, work from anywhere sort of arrangement for my husband, who doesn't really want to retire ever). i really don't know what we'll wind up doing in 10 years, or even when our daughter goes to college as my husband firm has offices all over the place (but i am looking at other markets as well), so it doesn't make much sense to make a major commitment which will limit mobility. right now the current thinking is we'll eventually buy a two bedroom in Seattle or San Francisco and spend the gloomier months traveling. i'm not sure what we'll do with the upstate place, we may keep it if our daughter stays in the area and use it as a family compound, but if i had to i could take a complete loss there pretty easily (financially at least, emotionally it's never fun). and being in my seventh year here, i've both renovated the rental and come to terms with it. if i really wanted to use real estate to make money, i wouldn't necessarily be looking in this market. it makes very little sense for me to buy to improve my housing situation, unless it's to buy here.

as sick as it may seem, the comps are indeed a hobby, although now i do write about real estate on another site so it's a bit more than just a hobby.

You'll spend 12 months a year traveling?

and you may not be aware, but i almost became a borker right after college. going to open houses for sport doesn't appeal to all, but you'd be surprised at how many people do (although some go for the free nibbles).

Oh, LICCdope - just read the links to how opportunity cost is calculated using leverage. Give us your figs instead.

Where's Juicy's detailed rebuttal?

"what we haven't seen is juicy's explanation of his fabled ex-transaction-cost concept based on the million dollar purchase happening with all cash"

"jiuicy--wuttup with the all-cash sitch?"

For someone who doesn't answer any questions you sure do ask a lot. I told you already, I answered this question in this thread. Get off your ass and find it yourself.

"sreve's logic seems quite well-presented and inderstandable to me"

Wbottom, so you agree that opportunity cost is the same whether you pay a million cash for a place vs. leveraging 100% of it? Don't run behind your "busy little meetings". Just answer that simple question.

"I might concede on that."

Note that steve conceded on netting the principal returned with the cash outflows to come up with a net cost of owning. This was what this discussion was originally all about and it only took 300 posts for steve to finally admit he was wrong.

i said "gloomier" alan. yes there are gradations of gloom. and seattle is glorious during its good four months. it's just that february could kill a person. traveling October-March gets rid of most of the pain.

ar, I was in Seattle/Vancouver in June. It's lovely - I was impressed enough to actually consider moving there if I ever got tired of things here (unlikely, but still). But I'd have to investigate in February to be sure.

steve, you are the one who needs the education on opportunity costs. Although it seems like you wouldn't be able to understand it anyway.

Do you not realize how foolish you appear? Do you really not realize this?

The areas outside of seattle are gorgeous, and like all grayish places (british isles), the gray makes the sunshine all that much better. My overwhelming memory of the city, however, was the god awful traffic.

bjw - as a former Vancouver Islander, I can attest to the moniker, "home to the newly wed and nearly dead." While there are a select few outdoorsy, kayak packing, subaru driving, wet sock loving nature freaks (and many more wannabes) it takes a special kind of person to live in the Pacific northwest IMO. It's one of the reasons BC hydro does so well there.

spinny, i think seattle attracts a broader spectrum. bjw, just visiting in february will give you no sense of what it's like to live through october, november, december and january before hitting february, and then you still have march and often april to slog through. seattle is not actually the rainiest place, i believe boston even has more rainfall yearly.

seattle is grey and damp, like london. but it has the most beautiful summer. and people who put on shorts at the first sign of sunshine. and truly awesome food.

ar, fair enough. I may just stick with Paris in my older age anyway. But that's a ways away.

You're right, Seattle doesn't get much rain (we get much more here than almost anywhere in the country), but they have more rainy days than all but Cleveland (yikes).

http://www.currentresults.com/Weather-Extremes/US/wettest-cities.php

"and people who put on shorts at the first sign of sunshine. and truly awesome food."

It was below 60 and windy as hell, and Vancouverites were in shorts. Stunning. But strangely charming.

Sorry LICCdope & Juicy aren't able to contradict anything I say.

Juicy - what's the answer with a 100% cash payment?

I hear that banks in Seattle will let you borrow as much as you want to invest in the stock market.

WaMu anyone?

the smart set borrows from the credit unions.

Stevie kablooie, what the answer to my question?

"You've got an apartment that costs $4000 per month in carrying costs to own and $3999 per month to rent. Which do you choose? And if you choose to buy, how low does the rent have to go before you change your mind?"

sorry, JM, just helping the thread hit 1000.

ar, it's a Steve thread. We'll blow past 1000 no problem. Without getting any answers from him, natch. There will be lots of formulas though. And shrinkage.

AR, thanks for the effort, but probably not needed.

"Sorry LICCdope & Juicy aren't able to contradict anything I say."

No need, you were a contradiction from conception

steve still hasn't corrected his blatantly false math. it's unreal. and i'm ignoring all the other craziness b/c he'll just contort himself in circles on that one. but he can't even admit that in one scenario he has you owning one apartment and renting another at the same time, which is ludicrous.

I heard that too JM, and in Seattle if you get paid your bonus in 2011, you report it on your 2010 income tax return.

Another steve gem.

Gem or tulip?

lICcomm, I'm glad you've finally come to understand how taxation works under IRS regulations.

Hmm, so alan is just as idiotic as steve when it comes to personal tax reporting.

"Without getting any answers from him, natch."

I already told you - show me two specific properties you want me to opine on, & I will.

LICCdope: I'm sorry you don't like to adhere to the tax code, but such it is.

"you were a contradiction from conception"

Thank you. Where's your math, Juicy?

And the links, and the evidence, and all other manner of some such stuff?

There isn't any, because there isn't any.

HAHAHAHAHA!

steve, it's the same exact property that you're considering either buying or renting. I've never seen someone be so evasive about answering a question. And I've watched enough politics on tv.

whoa now..evasion??

where are juicy's numbers for the 1 mm $ all cash purchase? seems simple enough. youve all launched at steve's answers. why can't juicy provide his own simple answer?

nowhere

and LIC, why do you avoid offering anything re your personal numbers for your real estate--that would be much more meaningful than whatever imagined situation juice-brains has conjured up--we know you chose to own and live in LIC--as of when?--cost psf? let's all dig up some rental comps--why the shame of you personal, real, circumstances?

and juice why not toss in some numbers on your real world--i think you boutght in 08 or 09 no? nice timing--what of the rest of it?

ive already described my real estate circumstances--steve has too--who's evading who?

"it's the same exact property that you're considering either buying or renting."

Show it to me, & I'll tell you. I've already told you that there are some apartments that I would rent under extreme market conditions (my place at 21 Chelsea, viz.) but not rent them if another place becomes available, and certainly never consider to buy. So show me two apartments & I'll make a decision. Maybe I'd rent one for $3,000 but not buy it for the same price b/c I wouldn't consider buying it at any price, such as if it were in Long Island City....

HAHAHAHA!

and bj, didnt you buy in that big building over by the bqe on the belt or whatever it is over across from bklyn heights? if not, where do you own/rent--let's all come clean--at least to some extent

and LIC ---your blathering on with insult after insult of steve, referencing the same tired points is really, like i said before, obsessive---to let steve control such a large piece of your limited intellectual real estate is pathetic

now come on, tell us about your real real estate..just a little

"So show me two apartments & I'll make a decision."

You don't even understand the question, do you? Here it is, spelled out yet again:

You've got an apartment that costs $4000 per month in carrying costs to own or $3999 per month to rent. Which do you choose? And if you choose to buy, how low does the rent have to go before you change your mind? You expect all costs to stay flat.

Wbottom, no, I bought in a relatively small building in Williamsburg.

"Where's your math, Juicy?"

I would be worried about your own math steve. It's horrific.

I'm on hold with my broker, about to execute a major trade with the million my bank just sent me. Planned to buy a house with it but just had them wire it to my personal account instead. They were very understanding, actually got a half point off my rate because I told them I would be investing in a gold ETF.

JuiceMan, why would you buy gold? Gold is in a bubble, identical to the bubble for perishable tulips 350 years ago on another continent that has never been replicated. If I were you, I'd hedge by shorting the tulip ETF (TUL) and sending your tulip watch to Cash4Tulips or Tulipline for cold hard cash.

Does anyone else think wbottom is steve? No one else actually tries to defend the mistakes, twisted logic, and overall idiotic comments that steve consistently makes.

steve has shown a complete lack of understanding and knowledge of simple things like:

the rent-buy ratio
marginal v. effective tax rates
reporting your income for the year you are paid it
opportunity costs
managing a bond fund v. trading a single bond
measuring square feet in a floorplan
and on and on . . .

thx lic for more obsessive blather--lengthy this time--but same old same old

ok now bj--you bouhgt in a small building in wburg--how bout like, when? for starters

and juicy--wuttup with the cash purchase?? shrinkage, as your people say??
if the juice is of the roid strain, might actually be some shrinkage--lotta flex but no junk

urfna--you should buy gold from goldline because glenn beck says so

Wbottom, sorry, are you just gathering info to rip my decision to buy? That sounds fun. But it has nothing to do with the questions Steve still won't answer. I bought late 08.

Wbottom sounds a lot like w67th

Really, dudes, you're going to have to come up with something better to refute what I said above.

Anything, in fact, would be a start.

How pathetic you are.

steve, when you can't own up to the most basic math errors, it impossible to refute anything you have said.

steve doesn't even realize he has been soundly refuted, many times over.

by whom? you LIC...youre kidding, right? cutpasty me one post from you that refutes anything, with any facts and/or logic

and then provide your specifics for discussion as steve and i have--

and bj, im going to leave your purchase alone--im actually a nice guy and your timing seems to have been a bit unlucky

You don't REALLY expect Juicy or LICCdope to provide any support for what they say, do you WB?

Old dogs, new tricks. Won't happen.

What specifics have you posted Wbottom?

This is a serious question steve, is this fun for you?

I'm just waiting for you answers, Juicy:

1) Net of transaction costs, how much does it cost you per month if you buy a house for $1 million, live in it for 10 years, then sell it again after 10 years for that same $1 million?

2) What specifically do you find wrong with my detailed answer to your 100% finance question, and what do you support it on?

Seems easy to me.

Both of those questions have been asked and answered on this thread steve. Feel free to read. You obviously get a kick out of circular conversations, so enjoy yourself.

JuiceMan
about 2 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse
Wbottom sounds a lot like w67t

Wbottom sounds a lot more like apt23. Acluism anyone? Call the police and falsely report a crime by your husband?

wbottom, learn how to read and comprehend. There are numerous comments on this thread alone that have refuted steve's ridiculous claims.

"Feel free to read"

I did, I can't find it. Cut and paste - it's not tough.

"There are numerous comments on this thread alone that have refuted steve's ridiculous claims."

Yes there are, and they all come from LICCdope. He's not a good loser.

w67thstreet
about 10 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse
Is there a cliff notes version of this thread?
999 Adultfacebook me.

Who do you think you are kidding? You want Under18facebook

aboutready - buying where you are if it goes coop is probably a good idea, actually - Seattle is not cheap either, but cheaper than NYC - I think its overcast days can be beautiful in their own way, though yes, those clear sunny August days are glorious, unlike anything anywhere - oops..... listen to me, "there's no place like it"!!! Oh, NOoooooooooooooooooo

Figures no answer yet from Juicy.

I'm busy steve. Got lots of money to invest from bank loan proceeds.

"I'm just waiting for you answers, Juicy"

I'm just waiting for your answers, Stevie.

bj - I told you: give me a property that rents for $3,000 and has owner's carrying costs of $3,000, and I'll tell you which decision I'll make. I can't make that decision except by deciding on a specific property - I never claimed that I could.

Juicy's busy! HAHAHAHA! Planning a comeback with LICCdope.

steve, why do you need an actual listing? No imagination? You love the apartment and are going to live in it either way. If you want to use $3,000, fine (it doesn't matter in the slightest). It costs $3,000 a month to own or $2,999 a month to rent. Which do you choose? And if you choose to buy, how low does the rent have to go to for you to change your mind? Assume all costs will be flat going forward. Now, stop avoiding the question.

Would you rather have $3000 of gold or $3000 of tulips?

so juice, youve discovered that you can in fact invest in securities and products other than real estate using leverage. Congrats. Trade em up, youre gonna be rich!!
let me guess, youre buying stock on margin, using stock loan. yay
or maybe youre buying gold futures with the 20:1 leverage available to any old joe with 6000 bux.
that you'd use a bank loan such as a home equity or a credit card advance to fund all this is interesting, but, hey...trade em up...of course you could use leverage/borrow money to buy more realestate instead, but seem you to prefer the opportunity to position securities instead

maybe you should sell your realestate, rent, and take the plunge into with all your leverage/borrowing power

wait...so that means you have a choice of where you use your levage/borrowing capacity?? but you still need shelter for your family i assume??

"im actually a nice guy and your timing seems to have been a bit unlucky"

I can see how it seems that way, but it's turned out quite well. Don't put too much stock in when someone purchased. It seems obvious, but the actual cost is much more important.

No imagination, bjw - sorry. Pick any apartment that rents & sells for up to $5,000 a month, & I'll look at it. I can't afford more than that right now.

WB - it's a waste of time. They've never shown any theory or evidence or anything to support their absurd positions. They even poo-poo stepwise regression.

What's an economist to do?

bjw, I thought steve did admit that if the ownership costs of his current apartment was $1 more than his current rent, he would buy it.

"I thought steve did admit that if the ownership costs of his current apartment was $1 more than his current rent"

I did, absolutely, for my CURRENT APARTMENT. That wasn't a general acceptance, as I said that I wouldn't purchase my last apartment for any amount of money, even if I would (and did) rent it. It's a case-by-case.

"Pick any apartment that rents & sells for up to $5,000 a month, & I'll look at it. I can't afford more than that right now."

Once again, it does not matter what the specific apartment is. The scenario is: you love the place, and will live in it either way. The choice is whether you rent or buy. The decision is presumably based on cost and whether you value rent or buy more, AOTBE. Within that is how much of a premium you place on your preference - ie, how low would the rent have to be for you to choose renting, if you initially preferred buying. This is not a case-by-case. But you're being evasive, and still no answer, days later.

"it does not matter what the specific apartment is."

It does to me, and I'm not being evasive. I've already given you two examples - you're the one who wants me to make a decision that I can't make.

It's like saying, "Which do you prefer, St. Petersburg or Moscow," when I've never been to either place.

So: show me the SPECIFIC decision you want me to make, & I'll make it.

Then explain to me why it makes any difference. The assumptions I've given you indicate that you love the apartment and will live in it regardless.

And I might love St. Petersburg and Moscow, but not want to live in Moscow because it doesn't have a beach.

Seems reasonable to me. Just show me the comps and I'll let you know.

You're just being an idiot at this point. It's a very simple question. You love this apartment and want to live in it. It's a set condition - you're merely arguing it to be evasive.

Sorry, I can't make that decision like that. For instance, it could be a grand apartment on the Grand Concourse that's cheaper to buy than to rent that I love, but I might choose to rent it rather than to buy it because I don't want to live my life on the Grand Concourse even though I'm a Yankee fan and it's close.

Conversely, it might be a house in Park Slope that I also love, but would never consider renting though I would consider buying.

It all depends on the property, and I've always said the same thing for the years I've been posting here: although generalizations can be made, every apartment, like every transaction, is unique, and has to be viewed as such.

That has always been my position, and it won't change.

Allow me to be of assistance ... Steve, the apartment has pistachio-painted walls. How about now?

This is just for s&g at this point (or s&m in a way) because you obviously are incapable of a response. To clarify the assumption: you love the apartment and the location. You want to live there and will not live anywhere else. Is you mind unable to process abstract thought (and calling this abstract thought is a stretch)? Are you a robot programmed solely for PITI purposes? Should we PITI you? This is amazing.