RE bulls seem very frustrated

we know.. you're rent hasn't risen since 1964, we're all jealous...

brb i need to walk into my stock portfolio to get something out of the fridge.

It' is funny Ino. Their frustration is onvious when they get nasty, and call you a liar when you mention you had no rent increase.
And these same people claim they are professionals none the less.

Hilarious

I'll admit I visit far less frequently than I used to, but not much seems different with the characters on this site. So not that surprising to me I guess. Certainly very little (ok, next to nothing) to get excited about in RE in this city, but there will always be those with loopy aspirations.

As for the desperate need to be validated, well, I find that on both sides of the fence. Either way, it's unbecoming...

>As for the desperate need to be validated, well, I find that on both sides of the fence. Either way, it's unbecoming...

See this thread which simply calls out one poster for a multi-point diatribe: http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/34771-re-bears-seem-very-frustrated

bjw, with the amount of sh*t you took when you bought your place, doesn't it feel great to look at your equity and monthly payments in today's market? C'mon bjw, a little nanny, nanny, boo, boo is all in good fun here.

Juice, just calling it how I see it. I was lucky not to get thrashed (financially speaking), but it's not like I got filthy rich off my purchase either. Having met 'nada, I'm sure he's still doing just fine despite not buying a place too. The only real "loser" here is the guy who moved to Ft Lauderdale. Who was that anyway?

What is funnier, I Know Nada, is that BK real estate prices have been up by WAAAY more than Manhattan prices YOY for a few months now - both on the rental and sales fronts. Like +10 to 15% YOY versus up by low single digits. The lesson being, I suppose, that we all should have been buying/investing in BK re, not Manhattan, for these past few years. Nary a peep from the Manhattan-centric crowd on these boards about this.

Prices were also more stable after October 2008 in many "prime" Brooklyn neighborhoods. I remember a few of my clients being very annoyed that prices did not crash as they lobbed in low offers that were rebuffed. In hindsight these buyers wound up doing very well purchasing in late 2009/2010.

The old adage about Brooklyn was it was where people who could not afford Manhattan went. And when Manhattan crashed, people would run back to Manhattan. That idea changed some time ago as BK has become a preferred destination for many. Oops...this sort of strayed from the OP's topic.

Keith Burkhardt
TBG

Keith, I was one of those obnoxious lowballers 1st Q '09.
For prime manhattan I'd more specifically say from 3rdQ 2009 to 2ndQ 2011.
By 2011, I was burnt out, finally buying in 1st Q 2011.

Im still a bull but recognize the influence of global stupidity on our fair city. Most markets are in a state of a bubble 90% of the time anyway.

Edit...I'm still a bear...not a bull

Inonada:

1. your repeated premise that stocks and bonds represent a better investment is flawed
2. Bernanke's easy money policy inflated stocks and bonds almost immediately
3. real estate has been much slower to bubble because of its numerous headwinds

4. real estate is now beginning a period of likely sharp price increases
5. while it is stocks and bonds that now face severe headwinds

6. in all likelihood, cumulative 2014-2015 returns for well-located NYC real
estate will far outstrip those for stocks and bonds

8. you know in your heart that I am right
9. so why dont you admit it here publicly on Streeteasy
10. confession will cleanse your soul and leave you a happier person

K. There's a great argument,"you know in your head that I right."
L. Because I have ESP
M. Have I told you I predict Martian investors will cause stochastic price increases in Manhattan

Brooks2:

1. aren't you overdue for your bath
2. in pure sulfuric acid

rb345 says

"1. your repeated premise that stocks and bonds represent a better investment is flawed [because I ignore all historical empirical data and instead rely on my psychic predictions of what will happen in the future.]"

The end.

Why is this so difficult? Stocks are supposed to outperform residential real estate over long periods. Shorter periods, anything can happen. There's no revelation. As for bonds, the return on bonds has been enhanced by long term improvements in the US economy that have brought interest rates down as US risk declines - that's the normal market and a benefit of our great country. But, bond returns have now also been juiced by extraneous fed manipulation and we may some day see the implications, or not.

Jason 10006:

1. historically real estate has been more profitable to own than stocks or bonds
2. Bernanke's artificially low interest rates have upset that relationship the last few years
3. but it is now returning, and with a vengeance

"1. historically real estate has been more profitable to own than stocks or bonds "

Even a sour-grapes non-stock-investor like myself knows that this isn't true. RE has historically tracked inflation, protecting owners from it, whereas stocks have usually outperformed inflation.

Triple_Zero, no need to talk sense into rb345, he has his first two marbles missing.

Glad someone else notices Arby is full of sh1t

Triple Zero:

1. the major stock indexes are rigged to exaggerate their long-term performance
2. when a Dow 30 company implodes or goes bankrupt, it is replaced with a new company
3. when non-30 companies implode, they are simply de-listed
4. the other indexed operate the same way

5. thereafter the indexes stop tracking abd averaging in the current stock prices of failed companies
6. in addition, they replace failed index leaders with very successful growth companies
7. which adds a second element of manipulation and bias

8. if the Dow's performance were re-calculated to include all its failed leader companies
9. and to exclude their replacements
10. their annual average gain would be a lot lower than presently reported

11. also, while real estate values to some extent track inflation
12. your statement excludes the rental income real estate generates
13. that income tends to grow vewry substantially over time

14. for example I bought two coops in Brooklyn 21 years ago
15. at the time they were bought they netted about $4,000/year
16. now they net $48,000/year

17. other apartments I bought more than 10 years ago also have much larger returns than
they did then, altho not as disproportionate

3. the current price of the imploded company's stock is then deleted from the index

Bjw has always tried so hard not to really take a stand (other than to refute over the top anti willaimsburg rants ) , and therefore not offend anyone.......isn't that seeking validation of a sort ?

4. Detroit

Wow rb345, you are dumb. People can and do sell the stocks that leave the indices and buy the stocks entering them. That is the whole point of the indices.

"your statement excludes the rental income real estate generates "

No it does not, that is part and parcel of the price of real estate.

reallynow with the armchair diagnosis - love it. Despite a certain news channel's best efforts, there is such a thing as fair and balanced. I tend to prefer discussions that way - I know some are here to start a couple fireworks (yourself usually included). Nothing wrong with that; I just don't have that kind of time anymore :)

>there is such a thing as fair and balanced. I tend to prefer discussions that way -

That's not humanity. Humans are competitive by nature. And competition, opposing points of view, friction and conflict is how humanity and the world evolves. Even so-called pacifism requires taking a defiant stand in order to create change. Namby pamby, on the other hand, well, I wouldn't accuse you of that, after all, I see glimmers ... that attack on stevejhx ... I'm sure there's more lurking below your mask ... maybe even your mask is just a combination defensive and offensive tactic. Watch out.

The S&P 500 is up 2% from where it stood back in 2000 when it broke 1,500. You would have done so much better putting money into a bank CD.

I don't know anyone who bought real estate in 2000 who hasn't tripled their money.

I'll stick with real estate.

"fair and balanced"

hogwash bjw. I know you better than that. Pick a couple butt cracks and jam your foot in them!

"That's not humanity. Humans are competitive by nature. And competition, opposing points of view, friction and conflict is how humanity and the world evolves"

Nice, I like it.

Jason10006:

1. I might be dumb
2. but not half as much as you are for thinking that I am

3. you obviously dont understand what I wrote
4. before resorting to name calling you should make an effort to do so
5. and then respond on a factual level, not with infantile invective

Inonada:

1. another point your argument overlooks is the personal cost to owning different investment types
2. in today's world stocks and bonds and ETF funds must be monitored almost 24/7
3. otherwise their owners risk taking sharp losses on sudden price swings
4. as gold bugs did yesterday, with their 9.4% loss

5. by contrast once my apts are rented I have almost no work to do for the remainder of the lease term
6. except deposit checks
7. pay monthly bills
8. and hook my cell phone into a 190-decibel noise machine when tenants call requesting repairs

9. time is money, and the time spent monitoring stocks and bonds to protect va. market volatility losses
exacrs a real cos which, if not paid, can lead to catastrophic loss, e.g., Apple down 250

require much more management time that real estate

This should be interesting. Arby challenging Jason to avoid infantile invective. All we need is Jim Hores, catgutguy, C0C0, and upperwestrenter/iguanaboy.

On the twelfth month of RE ownership my new home gave to me,
12 months of maintenance
11 co-op meetings
10 more minutes commuting
9 broker solicitations
8 super visits
7 rooms of cleaning
6 windows repaired
five... board ...members....
4 types of paint gloss
3 HVAC repairs
2 neighbors 1 bad
...and a zillow estimate that makes no sense

Hey Nada. if you replace NYC RE with Sprint.... it'll make sense.

in 2007 I bought $1MM of sprint with 10x leverage for $2.4/share. For 6 years, I have had to pay $6K/month for margin. And for 6 years I have been in the hole by 50% with Sprint trading at $1.2/share. Now Bernise had decreased my margin cost by 400bps and now my monthly margin cost is $4k/month.

Sprint just hit $2.4/share in April 2013 ( at least thats' what the shills are reporting).... yeah baby I'm a financial GENIUS!

>Sprint just hit $2.4/share in April 2013 ( at least thats' what the shills are reporting).... yeah baby I'm a financial GENIUS!

Um, Sprint is above $7.

Amen, w67th.

W67th/Inonada:

1. you are both quilty of cherry-picling evidence
2. by arbitrarily picking time ranges that support your arguments

3. Sprint opened at $10.96 on December 27, 1984
4. and opended today at $7.20
5. if you had bought Sprint at its open and still owned it, what would your annual return be

6. by contrast I bought an apt in Manhattam on almost that very date
7. today it is worth more than 6x what I bought it for

8. moral of the story: it is fortunate that I sprinted for real estate that I can Cell for 6x cost

>8. moral of the story: it is fortunate that I sprinted for real estate that I can Cell for 6x cost

Don't forget that w67 is a commercial property owner.

Inadas "methodology" -- cherry picked dates to compare stocks to real estate i-- is assinine, dumb, meaningless, BUT revealing of a person who is really confused about financial analysis. Nada -- find ANY article In any serious finance journal that uses that methodology to analyze the merits of investing in real estate . You can't. It's indefensible (giving you come credit, maybe you see how dumb it is). Why do you do it over and over again?

"find ANY article In any serious finance journal that uses that methodology to analyze the merits of investing in real estate . You can't."

Yet pretty much every article on such points out, accurately that in the US going back to the late 1800s and in the Netherlands 200 years farther back and UK 100 years farther back - that investing in stocks or bonds have been better investments, on average, and by a LOT over the very long time horizen.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shiller-stocks-better-investment-homes-132313649.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/robert-shiller-on-stocks-2013-1

Jason, those articles are all recent. How about providing some links to articles from the Netherlands from the 1700s to prove your point?

SE, why?

Jason -- uh.....The point was that nada uses a four year, cherry picked period .........

"US going back to the late 1800s and in the Netherlands 200 years farther back and UK 100 years farther back - that investing in stocks or bonds have been better investments"

Based on those stats, you'll be long gone before you have a chance to enjoy the money you made.

Just check the past 13 years and let me know how much the stock market has appreciated

Nada puts on this pseudo - analyst act and then makes investment analysis based on a four year period ...and then repeats it in every thread that comes up. My point is that nada would be laughed at for this ... anywhere but Streeteasy talk

Apparently some people on here think nada is a financial analyst

Apple pays 3% div. ford pays 3% div. which stk has better potential for explosive growth?

Savings account pays .005%. Which is gonna allow you to retire in 20 yrs.

Mortgages at 3% for 30yrs, nyc re barely treading water. Where would I rather have 30 to 1 leverage going forward? Flmaozz.

Lets see nyc re go up another 300% in 13 yrs. so stks have done squat for 13yrs. So I'm gonna bet stk up go up for 13 yrs and nyc re will flatline.

Finally, reallynow speaks the truth. Enough with inonada's cherry picked 4 year analysis. Its a joke.

Following the OPEC oil squeeze in 1973 stocks lost about 50% of their value
pver the next nine years

"So I'm gonna bet stk up go up for 13 yrs"

13 years is a long time to wait, you'll be an old man by than. LOL!!!!

"Based on those stats, you'll be long gone before you have a chance to enjoy the money you made."

Wait - you say Nada is wrong for cherry picking 4 years, now you stupidly cherry pick 13? I gave you the longest timeframes we have. THAT is the point! over the LONG wrong stocks handily outperformed real estate. You don't have to take the past 120 like schiller - just take the past 30 or even 20.

Buy & Hold!

Jason you've drunk the Kool-Aid.

The S&P 500 has little more than tripled in the past 20 years, big deal.

Let me know who bought property 20 years ago in any section of Manhattan and haven't tripled their money.

RENY's very valid point just above is simply that while over time equities outperform, it is also prone to long stretches of underperformance. Those long stretches, overlaid by the average period for which an individual would be saving for retirement (or for college for their kids, etc), can have a materially devastating impact on expected investment returns for long-term savings goals vs. if you just simply assume equities perform during every small measurable period like they do for the average of the true long-run.

If people should be saving on their own (without the benefit of participating in aggregated pensions) and investment advice is to start to invest in your 20s and 30s to benefit from wealth compounding (and for an increasing number of Americans - this is after you've paid off your college debts and such), but an early 13 years of your investment period is flat to down, stocks for a material percentage of individuals can turn out to be a poor way to have placed your money.

Take a look at the following chart: http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/historical/djia1900.html and you can see flat periods like from 1906 to 1923, 1937-1949, 1962-1983 (there's your 20 years), and take note that within those 20 years "flat" periods, you have material volatility and many interim value traps.

I agreed and stated above that stocks outperform over the long run, but not everyone's horizon is long enough. Investors, investment managers, and investment educators need to keep in mind that the flip side of long-term equity outperformance is greater risk and greater likelihood of underperformance. RE returns less, but it is also long-run safer especially if you aren't overleveraging. In fact, the normal historical amount of mortgage leverage at 80% (initial) had only been available (before the mania of the past decade) based on the more steady returns of real estate and the more steady consumption elements built in (equivalent rent). The Fed (which regulates margin) has never allowed that amount of leverage on a stock portfolio.

Theoretically, to mitigate all of the above, you can market time, and if you are good at that and you have the flexibility to be able to market time, then good for you. I've never told anyone here what to do (though I've plenty times told people what not to do).

greens: I couldn't have said it better and couldn't agree more with your statement.

20 or 30 years is indeed a long time, let's all hope we see it.

Jason:

1. the long-term "statistics" you cite are completely irrelevant to current perfrormance of RE an stocs
2. even if they were valid, which I doubt
3. economic conditions are constantly changing
4. and future performance is a function of those new conditions, not past ones

5. e.g., prior to 1945 the US was in recession or depression a large majority of the time
6. the US also experienced numerous liquidity crises during that period that hurt real estate

7. the enlarged and changed role of the Federal Reserve has smoothed out US economic cycles
8. and ended the severe liquiduty crises the US formerly had
9. which were caused by the adherence to the gold stardard and its adedquacy

10. your analysis also seems to exclude the difference between stock and real estate "dividends", ie rent
11. until recently a majority of large US companies did not pay dividends

12. by contrast, rents and net rental income generally grow over time
13. the apartments I bought in the 1980's and 1990's now net from 20% to over 100% of their purchase prices

Looking at that chart, you could have bought at the absolute low in 1903, and found yourself at the low in 1932 having LOST money. Of course that would have been the greatest time to buy, but maybe after 29 years of losing money, and given your age, you might not have felt so strong about the opportunity to have taken advantage of it.

All this prognostication about decades is great. The complete lack of discussion about yields is enlightening, though no longer surprising.

In any case, my point was that we've been here for the past few years with differring views on various markets. My commentary was on those years and the viewpoint of some imaginary coup in NYC RE despite reality.

Only prognostication I saw was from w67.

inonada:

1. the relative price movements of stock, bonds and real estate from 2009-2012 are not
characteristic of or reflective of long-term trends

2. stocks have benefitted from Bernanke's zero interest policies, cheapest in history
bond market financning, and the depreciation of the dollar vs. foreign currencies
until recently, none of which are sustaniable long-term conditions, as well as labor-
eliminating technology and software advances that are now adjusted for in their stock
prices and actual and earnings projections

3. bonds have benefitted from Bernanke's zero interest policies and the financial coll-
apse of Europue, which has led to atypical and non-sustaonable purchases of American
bonds by flight/fear capital from abroad

3. by contrast, real estate was constrained during that period by the numerous problems
left over from the Greenspan bubble

4. as a market timing investment strategy, your viewpoint is substantially correct, altho
it has missed out on the real estate rebound that began in mid-2012

5. as a model for future investment, it should only be employed by someone who has the time
to study bankruptcy law and acquire expertise in chapter 7 and 13 filings

I don't understand your third point.

5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
Pop goes the real estate bubble

Arby:

1. In the long term, we're all dead. All I can do is make decisions over my investment lifetime.

2. Those policies have been enacted to support housing, not stocks. Amazing that you stick your head in the sand art this. If Fed wanted to support stocks, they'd be buying stocks. Instead they are buying mortgages. Duh!

3. See #2.

4. Oh, it's now mid-2012, is it? That is the exact delusion I was talking about in my OP. SE condo index is up 1.0% since July 2012. Stocks are up 16% since July 1st. Through Feb 28th (to match last SE condo index reading), up 13%.

5. How about you study yield vs risk instead? Do that, and you won't miss an opportunity of a lifetime like the one that came in 2009.

>Those policies have been enacted to support housing, not stocks.

The Fed understands very well - and actively supports - the wealth effect caused by rising stock prices.

> Do that, and you won't miss an opportunity of a lifetime like the one that came in 2009.
> In the long term, we're all dead.

How long until the next opportunity of a lifetime?

Recent studies by Economist show, there is little gain to GDP because of the"wealth effect"

and how about to the stock market?

>> How long until the next opportunity of a lifetime?

In stocks, last one was 30 or 40 years ago. So maybe there'll be another one in an person's investment lifetime?

But who knows, maybe we'll see stocks do a 2.5x rise in a mere 4 years all the time now that we just saw a demonstration. I'm holding my breath.

Inonada:

1. the Fed's zero interest policies have directly and intentionally bubbled stock prices
in at least four fundamental ways

2. first, by driving yields on investors alternatives to stock, such as bonds, CDs, money
market funds, and bank deposits, close to zero and, in some instances, below zero in real
terms, forcing yield chasers into the stock market's current Ponzi structure

3. second, by creating enormous excess liquidity and money supply that foreseeably went into
stocks and commodoties, bubbling both

4. third, by driving down the cost of corporate borrowing to historic lows

4. fourth, by causing massive depreciation of the dollar which in turn (i)
stimulated US exports, and (ii) gave large corporations, most of which now
derive a majority of their revenue and profit overseas, one-term exchange
rate differential windfalls

5. Fed policies probably also contributed to the weakness in the job market,
which has enabled corporations to treat their lesser educated and lesser
skilled workers with stunning rapacity and contempt

6. but in one major respect this entire discussion misses an even large point,
which is that regardless of how well a particular asset class performs com-
pared to others, investors still need to find the right eector within that
asset class even to earn average asset class returns

7. look at real estate as an example

8. office, strip mall, shopping center and hotel sub-sectors of that asset class all
still have serious problems, at leaat within specific properties and locations

9. Barron's reports that about 10% of the country's roughly 1000 major shopping centers
are in extreme distress

10. some are likely simply to be torn down and used as construction sites

11. if you were a direct or indirect investor in the equity, stock or debt of one of those
properties you would now be facing the loss of much if not all of your investment

12. or jump to Atlantic City and Revel in that casino's bankruptcy writedown of billions of
investor and lender capital invested during the last few years

13. similarly, look at how commodities and their related corporations have fared in the last year
14. gold down 9.4% in one day and 13% in two didnt excatly boost miners stock prices

15. or nuclear power and its supplier or fissionable materials

16. despite all the emphasis on clean sustainable energy and the need for nuclear power, and
worldwide construction of numerous new plants, the price of the ore that refines inro
the fuel rods used by nuclear power plants is now down some 90% from a few years ago

17. similarly, consider the fate of the shipping industry and oil tankers: demand for some of
which has fallen so far that their owners are considering cutting them up for scrap steel

18. or American farm land, which has soared in recent years but some of which might collapse
50-90% or more because of chronic drought and the depletion of the underground aquifers
that for decades have provided a source or cheap and reliable water

Err, OK. Let's go with the thesis that the Fed inflated all assets in the universe except NYC RE. Why has NYC RE been sucking wind in the interim, and what mistakes (if any) led you to miss the opportunities elsewhere in the past few years?

Yea, again Arby not making sense. Hey Arby are the Martian investors here yet..

inonada:

1. the Fed has inflated NYC real estate
2. you are witnessing that right now
3. NYC's more desirable neighborhoods are now in a helium market

4. they did not show massive price appreciation between Lehman and late 2012 for several reasons

5. first, the nation's financial collapse and "financial reform" caused large job looses on Wall Street,
which weakened demand for all forms of real estate and created serious concerns about the City's economy

6. second, NYC was affected like everywhere else by loss of real estate lending, particularly lending
on junbo loans, which are the lifeblood of NYC's more desirabkle real estate, and the fact that for a
long time jumbo rates were 150 or more basis points about non-jumbo rates

7. third, the market here was constrained by the fact that many people refrained from buying
because they thought - or hoped - that prices would go further down

8. as to why I didnt invest in the stock market between 2009 and 2012: I wont invest in something I
dont fully understand and I simply lack the time and information database such understanding requires

9. also, the stock markets are rigged vs. small limited knowledge investors like me, whose basic function
in the market today is to provide profits for institutional traders

10. Apple is a good example of the reason I am so cautious: it has lost 43% of its value in only seven
months for reasons that were fully foreseeable when it rose to its peak

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/34888-nyc-re-is-now-in-a-manic-panic-market

more mania.

or is it desperation?

look at me, look at me?

Totally agree c0lumbiac0unty, totally agree.

i'm glad that i'm making you so happy.

You and me - like brothers.

huh?

aren't you female?

brothers, it's a metaphor.

kind of like sisters?

however you want to position it.

i have no interest in positioning anything involving you.

Not sexy

"bjw, with the amount of sh*t you took when you bought your place, doesn't it feel great to look at your equity and monthly payments in today's market? C'mon bjw, a little nanny, nanny, boo, boo is all in good fun here."

The irony that Juicy refuses to admit how awesome it felt for those of us who called it right, watched rents stay relatively low, and much lower than the carrying costs had we bought, and now can enjoy substantial discounts, particularly in relative terms, if we like. Oh yeah, and our stock portfolio went gangbusters.

And we took a WHOLE lot more sh*t than bjw.

It is pretty telling how the best case brag for bulls is that they didn't get killed that much. Pretty funny.

Oh, and Juice... NANNY, BOO BOO!

"It's been fascinating to watch the RE bulls here these past few months. It's as if they've created an alternate delusional reality in their own minds disregarding facts:"

I agree, it really has.

I do love how "not get thrashed" is the new standard for "success". The bulls have had to totally change the rules of the game to even come close to pretending they weren't wrong.

"There is this deep need to feel validated despite all the evidence to the contrary."

Correct.

Human nature.

right now , it seems the bulls have won. I think we'll make it official when the azure is finally sold out lol

Got to take your hat off to the marketing folks at Azure. They took the heat during difficult times, faced the music and managed to sell a land lease building at the edge of the known universe. I have nothing but admiration...

Anyone heard from our resident anthropologist, somewhereelse?

Somewhereelse must have moved full time to his alternate universe where he keeps insisting we are in the middle of a real estate crash

Me and my clients could use a little influence from da bears camp :) Currently only 10% of offers are getting to contract.

Keith Burkhardt
TBG

Keith:

1. is that 10% of all offers or 10% of final and best offers
2. also, what percentage are a or above ask, and how does that change
for you by neighborhood

This thread cracks me up.
Have anyone check prices lately??!?!?

NYC prices have already BLOWN past the bubble peak in 2007/2008.
Same with Rent.

Signing off,
A happy property owner that purchased in Spring of 2009.

Have sales prices surpassed rental prices? In other words, if one buys a condo or a townhouse at these very high prices, can one rent it out at a rental price that covers the mortgage and expenses?

Let me get this straight, the 2008 bulls wait SIX YEARS for some life... ignore inflation...

and still have to MAKE UP stats to try and show they weren't wrong?

Ouch.

Even the Elliman numbers have median manhattan, after a big jump, at $972k.... that compares to to $1.025 million in Q2 2008.

And rents 'blew past'? I'm in a place 12% below the NOMINAL peak from years back.

And, of course, keep pretending there is no such thing as inflation....

Unfortunately, with today's dip, the SSOs are only up...

633.20%

Pity me! I could have... ALMOST BROKEN EVEN!!!!

And LIC had to live in the toxic wasteland of Duane Reades the entire time.

"Somewhereelse must have moved full time to his alternate universe where he keeps insisting we are in the middle of a real estate crash"

Let me get this straight... LIC waits YEARS after I called the crash to deliver a punchline long outdated?

That's sad...

Taking some profits today. Woo hoo!

So is it true, somewherelse is the world's best investor? Better than inoitall? Better than stevejhx? Better than George Soros, Leon Cooperman, Julian Robertson and that prince from the middle east that bought all that Citigroup and is suing Forbes for underreporting his net worth? Is it true? And yet he's so humble that he lives in a rental in Manhattan that is nowhere near a Duane Reade! Which part of Manhattan has no Duane Reade?

Oh to be as delusional as somewhereelse. As time has proven his prior statements and analysis to be foolish and stupid, he tries to defend them with more made up analysis and foolish comments. He is still asserting that NYC real estate has crashed. That everyone was better to have rented than those who have owned these past 6 years. That his wrong calls the last few years have not made him look ridiculous. Sad.

scarednycgal- one would very rarely ever expect the rent on a purchase like that to cover the mortgage and expense costs on day 1, assuming standard mortgage terms and 20% down. That would defy market logic.

Defy market logic? What part of "cap rate" don't you understand? Real estate investors don't merely expect mortgage and expenses to be covered, they expect a substantial return from day 1. And they get it in many many markets ... just not in NY in the past several years, at the individual-unit level. Hence better to rent than own. Imbecile.

alan, you should stop trying to talk about things in which you are ignorant. Market dynamics and real estate pricing are way over your head.

Kool Aid mixed with LIC Superfund-site water = negative cap rate desirability. Got it.

""in which"? quit drinking the water.