Owning costs 30% less. Renter = sucker.

The portion of the maintenance that goes to the coop's mortgage should still be deductible, I think.

NADA, same here, I appreciate your thoughts as well, just two people sharing different perspectives. I do understand your reasoning, and it is just two ways of looking at it.

I believe there is a portion of the maintenance, related to interest the co-op pays on the mortgage, and the underlying property taxes, that is tax deductible under AMT. I may be wrong though, I'd have to check with my accountant.

I think volatility as a concept is a factor but it just hard to measure in a meaningful way. I mean, what does 28% mean to me, really? Why does the standard deviation of monthly returns on housing prices as calculated by some professor x some leverage ratio really have to do with my own specific situation in life? I know that 1) I will always need a roof over me and my family's head and 2) my life is probably not going to change for the next 5-10 years. Of course, life always has uncertainties, but you cannot plan for every single one. Sometimes you just have to resign yourself to the potential to run into some bad luck.

So I try to focus on what I can control. And as a result, my approach is more based on common sense & intuition instead of numbers. I mean, sure having a terrorist bomb go off next door would suck, but it is not something you can or should control (even with insurance post-9/11). So I try to think about the scenarios that you have some control over (is my life stable? is my life changing?) and since everybody is at a different place in life, that is why some people should rent and others should buy.

that's an amazingly well thought response that basically states "well I can afford it." Fantastic... now where in there world does "the greatest NYC RE credit driven bubble" factor into it?

If you say the bubble has no effect, then why bother? why the fk are you spreadsheeting your housing life... I don't create a spreadsheet for the diamonds, thongs, vacations and dinners out with my wife?, why for housing? Why not for a cost benefit analysis for expensive shampoo vs. costco shampoo? Why not a spreadsheet for the $5K in (dont' know exactly, but I can't seem to find space in my closet for more legos) star wars lego for my son? WHY this and not that? why why why? I know people with money, they don't calculate the $10K in diesel fuel for a week out. And funny enough, when they sell, they price it well and then dump it.

The fact out of the 12K manhattan units for sale, 11,999 are out there for 2x the "normal" duration for a listing should give you pause, the fact credit continues to crunch should give you pause, the fact rents continue to go down (esp for higher priced units) should give you pause, the fact you are trying to justify what should NOT need a justification should give you pause....isn't that the WHOLE thrust of your argument, I don't care and if I did, I'm still ahead than that shithead... sorry you will never be ahead of w67 and Inonada the strategic renters (the extreme edition).. sorry, ain't' gonna happen, not in this bubble.

nada, maklo, you guys make fantastic arguments even though for most people it will be hard to find a deal maklo found when buying his apartment and nada has found in rentals.

>w67thstreet

Did columbiacounty log in as w67thstreet? Not one FLMAOZ in 3 paragraphs.

Maklo, I believe it is as jordyn says. When your taxes are being defined by AMT rules, state and local taxes are not deductible, so the marginal taxes you are paying through your coop don't get deducted at all. So only the fraction that is mortgage interest will be useful.

maklo -- The portion of the maintenance that goes to paying property taxes is definitely not deductible under the AMT, just as you can't deduct your own property taxes.

I do think looking at volatility, especially of a highly leveraged asset is important, but it's also reasonable to treat your investment in housing as a medium-to-long term one, just as it's acceptable to take on a fairly risky portfolio for your retirement savings when you're 30 years out. As nada points out, there's a bunch of reasons why your housing investment may require liquidation faster than you expect--getting into a situation where you can rent out your unit if required mitigates that somewhat, but comes with its own set of costs.

If rents were to rise by 30% over a few years it may prove to have been profitable to have bought in 2011 (before mortgage rates rise or become even more restricted). Of course it also depends on the holding period. Rents rising by 30% could happen if the Chinese allow their currency to adjust since inflation could get crazy high. The idea of "running numbers" with assumptions for expected inflation or stock market returns seems a bit naive in light of current economic conditions. The real questions are: do you need a home and do you have stable income expectation or a pile of cash? That would be my analysis.

The market allows for extremely simple, clean hedges to be put on against inflation. It's pricing inflation at 2% a year over the next 5 years, and 2.5% over the next 30. If I felt a change in Chinese currency policy were to maybe cause a 30% move in inflation, why wouldn't I put a hedge there? If inflation comes in at 2%, I lose nothing. If the 30% move does happen, the hedge makes a crapload. With a price-to-rent of 25x, it's the other way around. If inflation comes in at 2%, I lose a crapload. If it comes in at 30%, I lose nothing.

"The real questions are: do you need a home and do you have stable income expectation or a pile of cash?"

For some people, they'd rather have a home at a guaranteed cost (modulo maintenance increases, of course). Others would rather have 50% larger/better home at the same expected cost and can deal with the uncertainty.

One important number in Maklo's calculation is his assumption of future capital appreciation at inflation plus .5%. Coming off a historic bubble, this is an assumption that needs to be justified, not just asserted.

The best way to figure out what prices are likely to be at some indefinite time in the future is to start by considering how markets normally work: if prices go above cost of production, producers discover they can make larger than usual profits, so they go to work producing. That increases supply, which tends to bring prices back down to the cost of production.

Real estate works more or less in the usual fashion, with two caveats. First, since building/converting/moving apartments from rental to sale and vice versa is slow, there is often a lag -- high prices can continue for a long time before developers can increase supply enough to catch up.

Second, since some people buy for investment rather than consumption, it is possible for demand to rapidly increase. If enough people make Maklo's assumption that they will make inflation plus .5%, and then include that profit when calculating what a reasonable price to pay is, that increases the price they are willing to pay: If I can sell my house for $2m later, then there is no reason to pay less than $2m for it now. The $2m looks like it is basically free.

That increased demand, given supply that is fixed in the short term, leads to price increases, which justify the initial assumption of rising prices and lead others to make the same assumption. This is a bubble, properly speaking: prices that rise because people assume that prices will rise, with no connection to underlying hold-for-investment or consumption value.

Bubbles normally end because rising prices induce increased supply, and eventually the increased supply overwhelms even the bubble-induced demand.

NYC demand is still basically bubble-based. First, we still have investors like Maklo who include future appreciation in order to justify an investment that (ignoring capital gains) is a money-loser on his own numbers. That is, he is overpaying now because he assumes someone else will overpay even more later. Second, a large number of buyers view themselves as simply trading (bubble) profits on one apt for (possible overpayment) on another and are thus willing to overpay without thinking too much about it: they are simply gambling with house money, which is always easier. Why worry about losing money that you never expected to make in the first place?

Supply, however, continues to increase. Acceptable neighborhoods for the affluent continue to expand. Rentals are being converted to owner-occupancy. Decrepit properties are being renovated. New properties are being developed. Sooner or later supply will catch up with demand.

There is no way to predict whether the self-reinforcing price dynamic will overwhelm the fundamental supply/demand equilibrium at any given point. Rising prices induce more rising prices, until they don't, and the same is true of dropping prices.

But it isn't hard to figure out the fundamental value around which this fluctuation will occur. As long as owners and developers and landlords can make excess profits by increasing the supply of units for sale -- they will. And that increase in supply will, eventually, catch up with demand.

So IF you are trying to figure out what prices are likely to be in five years or ten years or when your life unexpectedly changes, the best guess is that prices will be roughly at the cost of producing a new unit, plus or minus an unpredictable amount.

The cheapest way to produce a new for-sale unit in NYC is to sell a condo that is currently rented. So the easiest way to test the assumption that prices are going to rise with inflation is to consider the position of the many condo owners who own as investors and have their units rented out: going forward, will they make more money by holding-to-rent or selling-to-an-owner-occupant?

Redo Malko's calculation using a landlord's numbers -- with no tax subsidy for the mortgage -- and it is pretty obvious that the landlord is losing money every month. The rent is less than interest+maintenance+depreciation, even without taking into account risk or opportunity costs. Unless this investor expects a return of the bubble, it should sell. People are often unwilling to realize losses, so the process is slow. But sooner or later, enough investors (or their banks or heirs) will decide that losing money is a worse option than making money and they will convert money losing rentals into sales.

Supply will continue to increase until landlords start to see rentals as equivalent to sales on a current, cash, no capital gains (and no tax subsidy), basis. And developers no longer see profit potential in building or renovating or working to make marginal neighborhoods acceptable to the affluent.

I do not know if buy-and-hold investors should be demanding 4% or 8% or 10% returns on their capital invested. But I know that 0% is not sustainable in the long run. I don't know how much it costs to build or renovate in NYC -- but it doesn't cost $1200 per square foot for routine boxes. The odds are overwhelming that supply will continue to increase, the bubble will end and prices will go down.

"If I felt a change in Chinese currency policy were to maybe cause a 30% move in inflation, why wouldn't I put a hedge there?"

"Others would rather have a 50% larger/better home at the same expected cost and can deal with the uncertainty"

inonada, You speak of hedging against an economic risk like we should all be speculators with our money and rent our (very necessary) homes. Hedging strategies, like insurance, can be very expensive to buy or to sell--just ask AIG and the Fed. And as far as home size is concerned, the last I've been hearing is average home size is contracting, which is expected to be a very long term trend.

Shorter version:

Maklo assumes that prices will rise at inflation + .5%. But that implies that prices will be even higher relative to rents when he sells than they are now. This is implausible.

Much more likely, prices will drop until an INVESTOR buying to HOLD AND RENT can earn a reasonable return. Hard to know exactly what that return should be, but it should be more than the bank is making on the safer part of the investment. And it definitely should be positive.

So prices are far more likely to drop than rise.

Redo Maklo's numbers without his assumption of capital gains, and he is paying more than he would to rent.

inonada is a smart and sophisticated guy, but people come on to streeteasy with questions about their studio or 1 bedroom apartment, and inonada responds about $2-$10MM lofts in union square that are appropriate for a narrow slice of the market, putting in place a housing "hedge" against inflation, or how he negotiated 3 simultaneous leases. It's actually quite a baffling way to make a point because his reality resonates with so few.

>the best guess is that prices will be roughly at the cost of producing a new unit, plus or minus an unpredictable amount.

did you read what you wrote before you hit the "reply" button?

W67 restated:

Assume that NY bankers are willing to pay $5000 for a fancy new cellphone, because they have millions and they like fancy toys. What are the odds that the price of cellphones will rise to $5000 and then increase at inflation plus .5%?

It's not going to happen: prices are not determined by "willingness" or "ability" to pay. Costs of production matter.

If it costs $750 psf to build luxury housing in central Manhattan (or renovate and sell formerly RS units), prices aren't going to stay above $750 psf forever.

financeguy restated:

Even though no one would actually pay $5,000 for a cell phone, no matter how fancy, and even though no cell phone exists that could possibly cost $5,000 and no cell phone has existed in the past 2 decades that cost this much or is expected to cost $5,000 in the next decade, assume it anyway for purposes of making me look like I'm smart.

cuntersburg restated:

look at me.
look at me.
look at me.
.....

For HB's benefit, a clarification:
>the best guess is that prices will be roughly at the cost of producing a new unit, plus or minus an unpredictable amount. [Prices fluctuate around fundamental value unpredictably, so the best prediction you can make is that on average they will be at the fundamental price -- even though at any given moment, they are not likely to be average. Since the unpredictable trend-following amount is just as likely to be above or below fundamental value, it is best ignored in making a prediction about the future.]

5. VIPN Black Diamond Smartphone: $300,000
4. Vertu Signature Cobra: $310,000
3. Diamond Crypto Smartphone: $1.3 million
2. GoldVish Le Million: $1.3 million
1. Goldstriker iPhone 3GS Supreme: $3.2 million

PMG, you're the one talking about hedging an unlikely event: rent increases from 30% broad-based inflation over a 3-4 year period when all indicators point to 6-8%. You're suggesting speculating on such an event with a home purchase. I'm not suggesting one should speculate on it at all. However, if you do, there are better ways to do it than a home purchase. The inflation insurance provided by a home purchase is bounds more expensive than other avenues, not that one should purchase any of them.

"And as far as home size is concerned, the last I've been hearing is average home size is contracting, which is expected to be a very long term trend."

Huh? Last I've been hearing is that people are defaulting on their homes left and right. Also, people are having to work beyond retirement because they did not save enough or were relying on bubble increases in some shape or form to carry them through. Also, people have been unemployed and are dropping out of looking for jobs. Just because all this has been happenning, does that mean we should aspire to it?

I appreciate the notion if one is talking about a 5000 sq ft McMansion vs. a 7500 sq ft McMansion. However, this is Manhattan and for many the choice between a 500 sq ft studio and a 750 sq ft 1BR isn't exactly a discrepancy between "too much space" and "way the hell too much space".

Well, there you go Sunday. The $300K-$3MM cell phone.

>so the best prediction you can make is that on average they will be at the fundamental price -- even though at any given moment, they are not likely to be average

There's a lot of years of data out there. Based on this data financeguy, do the numbers come out around the average?

PMG: you have this view that there is great uncertainty in rents. Economics and history suggest that the uncertainty there is extremely small as compared to home prices. The underlying reason for this is that rent effectively accounts for 30% of CPI, and the Fed sets monetary policy to control this number to 2-3% with remarkable consistency. Well not that remarkable considering they can create or destroy money, but nevertheless. History has shown that they have been able to control inflation and rents just fine, and the markets certainly show a continued confidence in them doing so going forward. Even with volatile food and energy prices, inflation pretty much never exceeded the target by 2% on a year-over-year basis and has been 2-3% over 5- or 10-year periods.

Now, counter that with uncertainty in home prices where inflation would dictate 2-3% inflationary increases. In the past decade, we saw 3 years (maybe 4) with increases or drops exceeding 20%.

PMG, 300mercer, maklo = tool

Inonada, columbiacounty, financeguy, Sunday,w67 = not tool

Flmaozzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. 30% rent inflation. Hey I just bought an iPhone Paris hilton rubbed her breast on for $1.7mm, I'll sell it to Tools for $3.4mm. I hear she ain't rubbing her breast on things much longer.....

w67 = not tool + ape

columbiacounty = not tool + uses a rollator + lost all of his money in 2009

Gray posters of the world unite!

Reminds of that song..... 'shoplifters of the world'. Who sang that? Cure?

"...the biggest threat to containing U.S. inflation may be the shift away from homeownership..." writes Joshua Zumbrun for Bloomberg

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-30/rising-rents-risk-higher-u-s-inflation-as-fed-s-rate-restraint-questioned.html

w67 = vibrator without a battery, or a tool for the ladies only, and basically, useless.

PMG, do you remember when w67thstreet mentioned that thousands of people touched his wife?

2740 open houses, but who's counting?

PMG, I would imagine w67th takes the moniker "a tool for the ladies" as a compliment.

>PMG, I would imagine w67th takes the moniker "a tool for the ladies" as a compliment.

What about you?

Thanks for the article, PMG.

"Investor expectations of rising prices in the next decade, as measured by the spread between Treasury Inflation Protected Securities and nominal bonds, have fallen to 2.28 percent from 2.66 percent on April 11, the year-to-date high."

"Effective rents in the first quarter, or what tenants actually paid, rose in 75 of the 82 markets tracked by data provider Reis Inc., which said the average was up 2.5 percent from a year earlier to $991 a month."

So the market is projecting 2.28% over a decade (billions of dollars trading daily on this, I imagine), we saw 2.5% over the past year, yet you translate that into a risk of a broad-based 30% increase? And instead of discussing and reasoning, you link to some vague words from some Bloomberg reporter, as if he is a good source of expertise.

So let's say rent increases start to set in on the path to your 30% increase, which will necessarily go hand-in-hand 30% wage inflation because the money has to come from somewhere: unlike asset prices that can be financed with debt, rents aren't paid with future earnings. The Fed is running with interest rates at 2% below inflation to stoke growth and inflation right now. Even with this loose policy, they can barely get the needle to budge on inflation. Come the day when they finally start seeing some movement because of rising rents (say by 3-4% rather than the desired 2%), what do you think the answer will be. You think they'll keep interest rates at 0%? Or the "typical" 1-2% above inflation at 3-4%? Or perhaps 5-6% to cool things down? Hmm, I wonder.

And when you have short-term rates at 5-6%, do you think they'll be handing out 5-year ARMs at 3% like they are now? Or will it be 6-7%? And what do you think happens to home prices when financing costs go up from 3-5% now (depending on ARM vs. fixed) to 6-8%, adding $1250 a month in interest to a $500K home?

Now that's how things would place out with a muted 3-4% inflation. Never mind the 6-10% pace it'd take to hit your doomsday 30% China-induced scenario.

FinanceGuy -

You make some assertions whose logic I just did not get.

If prices rise at inflation plus 50 bps and rents rise at the same rent, the price/rent ratio will stay the same. I don't know why that is an "implausible scenario." Rents don't stay static. - they've got supply/demand dynamics at play as well.

If one rental unit is converted to an owned unit, you decrease supply of rentals and increase supply of owned properties. Of course by reducing the rental supply (with demand fixed), rental rates should tick up ever so slightly, thus improving the price/rent ratio. There is clearly a continuous dynamic equilibrium going on here, but you haven't said anything to convince me why it is tilted more towards buying or renting at the moment.

You assert that investors are not making money on their investments at today's prices. Where is this data from?

If you take modest real appreciation out of my calculation, the rental equivalent through buying is still far below the equivalent rent. You'd either need to jack up the expected return on the downpayment or assume real price declines to make them equivalent (for my scenario). But hey, maybe - as inonada points out - I got a good deal.

And if prices were simply based on the "cost of production" as you say, why does it cost 5x more to live in NYC than Dubuque, Iowa? Because land is the biggest component of cost for NYC real estate - and land supply is NOT increasing materially. And that component is determined by supply and demand. If real demand goes up 50 bps per year, and supply stays fixed, then embedded land prices should go up by that amount. I think - looking at historical precedent - 50 bps per year increase in real demand for Manhattan real estate is not unreasonable. Unit supply is increasing as you build UP, but the marginal costs of building up increase as you build higher, and interestingly, the increase in population density further increases the cost of the underlying land.

>FinanceGuy -
You make some assertions whose logic I just did not get.

You mean you didn't just capitulate because his post was so long?

Maklo r ufking stoooopid? 6 floors used to be the limit till they invented the Fking elevator. 80 floors used to be the limit till they invented express elevators to 50th Fl. I'm still working on the no sleep miracle drug which will make owning a home a moot point. FLMAOzzzzz

Rents increasing to infinity and beyond!!!!!!!! Beyond!!!!!!! Beyond!!!!!!!

-toilet flushing- twofer today nice

Maklo, I just realized something. In addition to the coop taxes not being deductible, neither is the mortgage amount over $1M. So your tax benefit is only $1500 a month, not $3110. So add $1600 a month to your latest numbers to get a more accurate cost.

wow sounds like everyone had a really productive day!

"But hey, maybe - as inonada points out - I got a good deal."

I did some searching and you clearly got the outlier deal. You concur, right?

I guess to me, if you compare an outlier sale-deal to a mediocre rental-deal, and after corrections you find you're breaking even with rosy assumptions, you're skating on thin ice.

You're assuming that financing cost will remain flat (despite all market indications otherwise). Furthermore, you implicitly acknowledge that numbers make no sense except in outlier deals, but then assume that the market will continue such irrationality (and add to it to the tune of 0.5% a year) by the time you want to sell.

Then again, I'm guessing a few hundred thousand more or less 10 years from now won't make or break you, but a divorce from an upset wife with nesting syndrome would. Your rose-colored spreadsheet just helps you rationalize it all ;).

ah...the newt gingrich excuse.

"but a divorce from an upset wife with nesting syndrome would"

you guys mention this a lot. is this really the world you live in? where wives leave husbands because they don't buy them things? and if you know this is the only sort of woman you'll be able to marry, why are you not protecting yourselves from the start?

Apparently you've never heard the term "nesting instinct":

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nesting_instinct

Prevelant in many pregnant animals, which to date have all been female.

When you collectively easily have the money, vetoing its spending on items you deem irrational but ones that your spouse deems important increases tensions and the likelihood of divorce.

lucille

has no money
has no brain
and...is most likely a guy.

oh well.

apparently you have never carried a child to term? it does make you flaky and forgetful, and fat and gassy. but not, like, mentally retarded. and it won't make a prostitute of a woman who did not have those tendencies in the first place.

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/05/22/2642456.htm
Homeownership gap called matter of gender: "Nesting" instinct cited as single women become force in the real estate market

"Many single women agree. So much so that they now account for 27 percent of the nation's first-time home buyers, according to the National Association of Realtors, and 21 percent of home buyers overall -- more than double the rate of 20 years ago. Single men, meanwhile, account for just 9 percent of home buyers, the same percentage as 20 years ago."

"Men on average still earn more than women, but single women seem willing to buy with less, according to the National Association of Realtors: In 2005, the median income of a single female home buyer was $48,100; for a single man, it was $66,100."

BTW, you're the only one here assuming it's the husband's money and that the spending decisions women in aggregate make are tantamount to mental retardation. And in your prehistoric view of marital dynamics, no one here is talking about spending more or less; just in a different manner.

actually, you said that in this sentence right here

"Then again, I'm guessing a few hundred thousand more or less 10 years from now won't make or break you, but a divorce from an upset wife with nesting syndrome would."

you also were very specific about pregnant women's nesting instincts, which is not the case in the article you linked. you were also the one who imlied those same women who were let's assume rational when you married them, suddenly get pregnant and lose all perspective and context and force their husbands to buy over priced real estate to soothe their "nesting" instinct. and just because i'm a nice person, let me tell you a secret. it's no more real than men's fear of commitment. men will commit all too quickly and readily to the right woman. a woman who invokes "nesting" or any other lady condition, will only do this with the right man. do you understand what i'm saying?

don't call my escorts whores!!

Fuck you hfscomm1

"and just because i'm a nice person, let me tell you a secret. it's no more real than men's fear of commitment. men will commit all too quickly and readily to the right woman. a woman who invokes "nesting" or any other lady condition, will only do this with the right man."

and what percentage of people manage this delicate act?

i am very much against buying, generally, but i hardly think that the masses obsess about rent/buy ratios, the macroeconomic conditions, etc. perhaps they should, but that's for another argument. to say that in a relationship where one doesn't want to buy and the other does, that if the woman wins this battle due to a nesting instinct it can be akin to prostitution, is simply foul.

btw, you're not a nice person.

Interesting thread. A lot of good deals/bad deals in real estate (there are always 2 sides to the transaction isn't there?) depend on the utility functions of the two parties -- a seller may sell at a lower price if a better deal/investment is to be had elsewhere. Of course the definitions of what is better is different for diff parties. It's not all math.

And in many buy vs rent calculations, people seem to be arguing a different risk premium (return over inflation) of real estate vs stocks or other investments. This difference in risk return is just the overall market expectation (pricing in the cost of hedging rent increase, living in a place you desire, etc). Barring knowledge of the future, it's not a bad idea to have the same expected return for real estate as for other asset classes (inflation + x%), with the real estate return leveraged by mortgage borrowing.

Regarding volatility -- higher price volatility is *not* an argument against buying! In fact, quite the opposite. Remember that if you take out a mortgage, you are buying an embedded put in the price of your home by taking out a loan. This is what caused the mortgage troubles in the first place -- home owners only put down a small percentage of their house as downpayment.

The price of this put is the closing costs/mortgage origination costs, and the premium of the mortgage rate to the long term swap rate; which is very very small compared to options in the financial markets.

ie, is it better to buy or rent if house prices can be +/- 100% in one year? Better to buy of course! With 20% down, the most you can lose is 20%, but you can gain 100%, or quintuple your down payment.

lucille, you might not be a nice person (maybe you are), but I'm sure you weren't institutionalized after the birth of your children and placed on psychiatric medicine, like some other people here.

Hi aboutready, when's the next vaca?

> ie, is it better to buy or rent if house prices can be +/- 100% in one year? Better to buy of course! With 20% down, the most you can lose is 20%, but you can gain 100%, or quintuple your down payment

Great point. This is totally opposite of the people obsessed with the opportunity cost of tying up a downpayment that is otherwise getting 0% interest. (or negative 50% after the next crash)

oh great. it has something to say. what are the chances it pertains to something i said and not some bizarre comment or criticism of a hallucinated version of an anonymous poster.

huntersburg
about 4 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse
lucille, you might not be a nice person (maybe you are), but I'm sure you weren't institutionalized after the birth of your children and placed on psychiatric medicine, like some other people here.

i am SO a nice person. look, i just told all these guys their wives are totally f*cking with them and things like "nesting" instincts are just stupid sales gimmicks pushed on silly men. "nesting" is just making a comfortable home. that's it.

"With 20% down, the most you can lose is 20%"

Uhm, no. You can lose the full amount of the mortgage PLUS your 20%.

"Prevelant in many pregnant animals, which to date have all been female."

As a total aside, seahorse males get pregnant:

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

I stand corrected, jordyn!

but inonada, even fromyour own definition of nesting from wiki

In humans
In human females, the nesting instinct often occurs around the fifth month of pregnancy[1][3], but can occur as late as the eighth, or not at all[citation needed]. It may be strongest just before the onset of labor.[1][4][5]

It is commonly characterized by a strong urge to clean and organize one's home[6], and is one reason why couples who are expecting a baby often reorganize, arrange, and clean the house and surroundings.

you'll note that at no point does nesting involve the irrational purshase of real estate. here is one of those not so nice things i suppose, but this is why it's important to get some opinions you kids have on issues other than...counting. who is giving all this wonderful advice?

and i think you should start including in your bit something like 'while is it certainly financially sound to do XYZ, it is my expert opinion that dumping that greedy hooker excuse of a "wife" also can't hurt'

in fact, just for shits and giggles, maybe you should do one of your nifty rent vs own thingies for the bottle service girls you all apprently ended up marrying. you know, "wife" vs. honest working girl who gets compensated for services rendered