Inventory over 7,000

Stevejhx, can you document where you get your numbers. You seem to pull equations and data up to suit whatever point you are trying to make, but I see little or no documentation, except for the brief, one-off stats about price cuts on StreetEasy.

There seems to be a lot of hot air, and a lot pulled from thin air.

Which numbers?

S&P real increase in value 8.0% is from the S&P website and yahoo finance, moving average since end of WWII.

Historical real increase in property prices 0.7% since end of WWII is Case Shiller.

12x annual rent = purchase price is Forbes magazine, calculation from the 40x/28% ratios.

Current 24x annual rent = purchase price in Manhattan is - just look at any same apartment for sale and for rent, published on multiple threads here.

Tony, if you see "little or no documentation," you're suffering from macular degeneration.

JuiceMan- Keep telling everyone nothing is wrong and this is the opportunity of a lifetime. You are just a remorseful buyer. I said on my previous post that people like yourself lose all credibility when you ignore the obvious. Every sensible person on this site has just lost all respect for your uneducated theories. Good luck trying to con others, this site is to educated for people like yourself.

"to educated"

What?

dco, dmag2020 called you out for using incorrect written grammar when telling someone else that he wasn't educated to your standards. Pretty embarassing dco, pretty embarassing.

dco, wake up. If you can find the posts where I said "nothing is wrong and this is the opportunity of a lifetime" I'll mail you $1,000 (you can use it to pay your rent maybe?). I'm actually quite cautious and realistic about the current market, but find your posts trivial, exaggerated, and written like a young, inexperienced, frightened little lamb experiencing their first downturn.

Good bear arguments are as valuable as good bull arguments for people making an educated buy decision. You add neither. Making stupid statements like "I have already seen hundreds of properties down 10-15%", shows that you don%u2019t know what you are talking about and that get your kicks exaggerating facts to try and prove what you hope will happen.

dmag, great post.

The only embarrassment here are people who ignore economic indicators. JuiceMan why don't you tell all of us how the market is doing. Is it up or down. Gives us what you see. I'm curious to know how you view the current state of the market and where you believe it is going. In your analysis please explain all the down arrows and the rise inventories during this spring season. I'm open for discussion and would like to be schooled by such great mind like yourself. And by the way I'm an owner since Oct. 2001. When did you buy?

Linuspauling- "incorrect written grammar" I would of used "incorrectly written grammar". I try not to split hairs about spelling and grammar. I suggest you do the same. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

steven, "typically a guarantor must have 80x monthly rent in income, and it's not quantifiable how many such people there are. I I were a parent I'd tell my kids to live in Queens."

There are lots of such people. I can't give you a statistic, but I think brokers who deal in rentals can give you a feel for it. Also, your assumption about a certain income necessarily being a Wall Street job ..... it could also be a couple, each of whom earn half as much as the Wall Street job you're thinking of. For high salaries, look also at the "top" law firms. Their salaries move in lockstep with each other. I think first-year associates get around $160,000. Bonuses depend on how well the firm does and are nowhere near Wall Street bonuses, and raises vary. You can see surveys of averages paid by certain firms published in the papers. I think partners at the Skaddens and Cravaths now average about a million per year, meaning some make less, some make much more. These firms are tied to Wall Street, but sometimes Wall Street lays off but the "white shoe" law firms do not.

Oops, I forgot to mention -- Martians are not new to the New York City real estate market. ;)

It is simple dco, inventory is building, sales are slowing, but it has yet to impact prices in a material way, except for prices that were over ambitious to begin with. Places that are moving today are still priced over last years comps (for the most part), so there is no need to panic or run for the hills as you would like everyone to believe. The "economic data" may show that prices will continue to fall in the short term but it could also show that we will have a leveling out with little to no growth for some time (should the economy rebound). I have no idea and neither do you. So how about you stick with the facts instead of throwing up on yourself every time you post?

Additionally, sweeping claims about all of Manhattan is useless. You have to deal with each property and neighborhood independently. Chelsea will experience a more dramatic downturn than the West Village. Studio’s in the UWS will react differently than those in Gramercy. A truly educated investor / buyer knows this and willing and able to do research to find a diamond in the rough. As an owner since 2001, I’m surprised you don’t have a better handle on this.

Finally, you have to be more specific with the “when did you buy” questions. I have multiple properties in different areas of the country that I have purchased at various times. I’m not arguing with you because I’m afraid my properties will decrease in value, I’m arguing with you because I hate crappy numbers and overblown “facts”. You mislead with your ill informed, catastrophic babble and I actually believe that when people come to this board they hope to get solid data to help them make an informed decision.

Class dismissed.

for the grammar police, "are useless" instead of "is useless".

Juiceman- Tell the people all over this country how exaggerated my opinions are. My guess is that non of your properties located throughout the world have seen price decreases. It's funny when I hear that Manhattan is not Miami and ti compare the two is not fair. Now you want to say that Manhattan is so vastly different that you can't compare one neighborhood to another. Give me a break. ALL of NYC is seeing prices drop and it will continue for sometime. OK JuiceMan if all of these neighborhoods are SO different then tell me a few that will see prices increases this year.

It is however much clearer to me now what your angle is on ignoring the obvious signs. To acknowledge that things are going to get worse would require you accept that your real estate investments were bad ones. Keep talking up the market and you will reverse it soon enough.

JuiceMan your ANGLE is crystal clear. That was my whole objective. You analysis is flowed from the beginning. You are incapable of being objective on the matter. I will no longer accept your analysis for this reason. It clear that no matter what the economic indicators are you will always refuse to accept the data. Good Luck with your properties.

dco I'll give you the same challenge show us price decreases in Manhattan over last year. That means apts that sold last year that are selling for less this year. It must be the same apt. At least 10 examples would be preferred. Remember it has to be the exact same apt that sold last year or the year prior that is now selling or has sold for less.
Interesting to note. prices are increasing in the Downtown area. i repeat take a look at West Village, GV Tribeca Soho and you will see actual increase in prices over last year.

That's easy dco, the West Village, Soho, and GV will all see increases in prices this year over 2007 comps. The answer to your other question is no, I have not seen a dramatic price decrease in my properties, nor would I care if I did. Two of the properties I live in and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. I really don't give a damn if I make money on those or not (but I will). The other properties are rented, cover all of my costs and then some, and I will hold those for a very long time.

If you don't see the difference between Chelsea and West Village, LIC and Soho, park view vs. garbage dump view, or Manhattan and Miami, then it isn't even worth engaging you in an intelligent debate. Real estate can be broken down by block, floor, school system, floor plan, neighbor, etc, etc. I’m not sure how you decided to buy your current place (dartboard, coin flip, or magic eight ball) but some of us on this board actually care about macro and micro differences in investments. You may want to think about that before making sweeping claims about a market you obviously do not understand very well.

dco, you are clueless. My view is the ultimate in objectivity because I view real estate from an investor’s point of view. That is my ANGLE. I don't worry about past properties, I only worry about the next one. Good BEAR data is as valuable to me as good BULL data because both help me make good decisions. Your “data” is sloppy and emotional that is good for nothing. Pretty simple isn't it?

JuiceMan

Your “data” is sloppy and emotional that is good for.

Repeat:
It is however much clearer to me now what your angle is on ignoring the obvious signs. To acknowledge that things are going to get worse would require you accept that your real estate investments were bad ones. Keep talking up the market and you will reverse it soon enough nothing. I'm emotional. HAHAHA.

I'm the emotional one.HAHAAH

Houser- Please direct all your questions to JuiceMan since he has the answers your looking for. Neither one of you would ever think that prices are dropping. And by the way houser aren't you a renter? Since I'm done with you please give your answer to JuiceMan, that is if he talks to renters.

What kind of real estate investor doesnt care if he makes money? Now it all makes sense, you don't actually care if your investments make money. Well that's a new approach. You must be very successful.

"Two of the properties I live in and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. I really don't give a damn if I make money on those or not (but I will)."

JuiceMan, for the grammar police: data "are," datum "is."

Once again dco please provide examples where the price of a Manhattan apt is selling or has sold for less in 2008 than in 2007 or the prior years. Please provide 10 examples as proof.

I understand dco, not much left to respond to when faced with logic and common sense. It is clear to everyone now that you are talking out of your arse, thanks for playing.

houser, happy to discuss your thoughts on the rental market, but it seems to me that you have a really good grasp on GV, Soho, West Village, and Tribeca and my guess is that is from experience. dco probably won't be able to fulfill your request because he doesn't understand it and actually believes that the West Village is the same as Edison, NJ.

Well steve, if that is your only criticsm of my post, I think you get what I'm saying.

dco without being repetitive dco please provide examples where the price of a Manhattan apt is selling or has sold for less in 2008 than in 2007 or the prior years. Please provide 10 examples as proof.

Remember it must be the same apt that sold in 2007 or prior to that and is now selling for less in 2008.

Houser- You don't get it. It doesn't matter what I prove you and Juiceman will just invent some reason why they were bad examples. Don't worry the two of you have convinced me that the market is fine, in fact I think I'm going out this weekend to by a new condo to flip.

That's a jump in logic, JuiceMan.

"Comps" are a trailing indicator since it takes a long time for property transactions to get executed in New York, especially for co-ops, and seller are normally reluctant to lower prices because they have fantasies that their properties are worth more than anybody else's. So you may in fact be correct that comps will remain approximately the same. If they do, inventories will continue to rise, until prices come down to 12x annual rent.

"the difference between Chelsea and West Village, LIC and Soho, park view vs. garbage dump view, or Manhattan and Miami" isn't really a valid comparison in and of itself. Yes there are natural relative price differences between areas because the incomes of the people living there are different, but there is always a relationship of property prices to incomes.

So, Manhattan prices are higher than Miami's. Agreed, because our incomes are higher. But if both Manhattan's prices and Miami's prices are outside their historical p/e level - for the same or different reasons - then over time they will revert to that level.

And both are well above their historic p/e level, but for different reasons, so prices must fall.

Houser- You don't get it. It doesn't matter what I prove you and Juiceman will just invent some reason why they were bad examples. Don't worry the two of you have convinced me that the market is fine, in fact I think I'm going out this weekend to by a new condo to flip.

dco I promise you if you can provide examples where the price of a Manhattan apt is selling or has sold for less in 2008 than in 2007 or the prior years I will not I repeat will not invent reasons why they are bad examples. Now Remeber they have to be the exact same apt that has sold for less than they have in 2007 or prior. It has to be Manhattan. Please provide 10 examples as proof.

houser, even if the same properties sell for the same price, the seller still loses money because of the transaction costs. In order to break even, a property would have to increase in value a significant amount. Example:

I buy a home for $1,000,000, 80/20 mortgage. I pay $75,000 in closing costs (mansions tax, mortgage recording taxes, points, bank fees, lawyer fees etc.). Now my price is $1,075,000. I sell the property, pay a realtor a 6% commission ($60,000), 1.425% transfer tax ($14,250), 2% flip tax ($20,000). That means I have transaction costs of $170,000. In order to break even on the transaction, the property would have to increase in value almost 20% JUST TO BREAK EVEN.

Nope Stevejhx you been touting along with others that Manhattan sales prices are lower in 2008 than they are in 2007. I am asking for proof. Transaction Smanaaction cost hogwash
Sorry you lose I win.

Once again
Please provide examples where the price of a Manhattan apt is selling or has sold for less in 2008 than in 2007 or the prior years. Now Remember they have to be the exact same apt that has sold for less than they have in 2007 or prior. It has to be Manhattan. Please provide 10 examples as proof.

We are now in a period of Irrational Pessimism.

Steve- Don't waste your time. Houser and Juiceman will never concede that prices are dropping. All I see everyday are price reductions. If they were price increases I'm sure it would fit their argument. They are not objective individuals. Hence their analysis is flawed from the start. You can't start out with the answer already known and conduct a truthful analysis.

DCO you keep saying prices are dropping and yet all I ask is to answer the following

Once again
Please provide examples where the price of a Manhattan apt is selling or has sold for less in 2008 than in 2007 or the prior years. Now Remember they have to be the exact same apt that has sold for less than they have in 2007 or prior. It has to be Manhattan. Please provide 10 examples as proof.

Steve - Not arguing the foundation of your argument (that you have to figure in transaction costs), but don't you think $75,000 in closing costs is a bit high of an estimate on a $1 mil property. Assuming you were talking about a coop, there would be no mortgage recording taxes. On the opposite side, if you were talking about a condo, there would probably be no flip tax on the sale.

I think your point still holds, you need to have an increase to break even, but your numbers are probably a bit off as to just how much of an increase.

You are correct about transaction costs steve. But just to be clear, in the same way you don't include tax benefits in your formulas of costs for a reason I still don't understand, you take a worst case transaction cost analysis here. They may not be as high, is all I'm saying. If the deal isn't co-brokered, the commission for sale may be only 5% or 4% based on what a seller works out with the selling agent. If the unit is under $1MM, there is no "mansion tax." Many co-ops do not charge a 2% flip tax. Many are less, some charge only a percentage (1-2%)of the capital gains, some have a flip-tax of a fixed amount per share that works out to less than 1-2%. Yes, a small fraction of co-ops have a 3% flip tax but that is exceptional and not at all common. So while a property must increase to cover the transaction costs, there is no need to overstate the fact (or use all caps) in order to make a point, Steve.

Once again
Please provide examples where the price of a Manhattan apt is selling or has sold for less in 2008 than in 2007 or the prior years. Now Remember they have to be the exact same apt that has sold for less than they have in 2007 or prior. It has to be Manhattan. Please provide 10 examples as proof.

"Stevejhx you been touting along with others that Manhattan sales prices are lower in 2008 than they are in 2007."

Nope, not once. I said that they were GOING to fall, not that they had.

joepa, every single transaction is different - it was just an example to prove a general point: transaction costs must be amortized over the period you hold the property for.

actually this ritualistic repetitive stuff is fun now I know why stevjhx enjoys it so much

"Nope, not once. I said that they were GOING to fall, not that they had."

How much money you willing to bet big boy

is houser really malraux?

nope how bout just a gentleman's bet than?

kylewest - I actually saw a place on the UWS not too long ago that had a flip tax of 15% of any net profit made on the sale. I had to double check with the broker that it wasn't a mis-print.

Exactly how would you propose doing that since the way you want to record the data may take years to determine: housing is illiquid, so to find 10 properties that all fall in value in a year is going to be extremely difficult if not impossible, since only about 8,500 properties change hands in Manhattan each year, and most people hold their properties for much longer than that.

The only way to do what you want to bet on is median prices, though they, too, tend to be skewed by very expensive purchases out of my price range.

median smeedian. I need proof.Please provide examples where the price of a Manhattan apt is selling or has sold for less in 2008 than in 2007 or the prior years. Now Remember they have to be the exact same apt that has sold for less than they have in 2007 or prior. It has to be Manhattan. Please provide 10 examples as proof. You show me the

proof

kylewest, steve always exaggerates his numbers, that's why I don't discuss them with him anymore. If we could agree on the inputs to the model, we would have a model that everyone could use. steve's model assumes a worst case scenario (and then some) on all of his inputs. If he were a real economist, he would execute a gut check sensitivity on his inputs and then give a range of potential correction with associated probabilities. He is stuck on a 50% correction because he has only modeled the absolute worst case scenario and assumes a 100% probability. That is why his “theory” is such rubbish. Right model, wrong inputs. His economics professors would not be happy with him.

Houser,

Many of the new developments are instructive as they are generally condos with low % of money down and allow/(maybe encourage) investors who may rent or flip their purchase. This seems to me to be the best way to get repeat sales for the exact same unit as generally coops discourage investors and flippers and focus on buyers who actually intend to live in the apartment.

I have been following a few on the UES and here is a sample of some recent transactions and offerings.

Arcadia 408 east 79th - 18B closed 12/15/05 at $3,072,000 and has gone to contract with last ask at $3,250,000. If they get the last ask that's a 5.7% increase in 2 1/2 years.

Cielo 84th and york - 10C closed at $1,015,000 on 5/25/06 and re-traded for $1,110,000 on 2/27/08. That's a 9.3% increase over 1 3/4 years. 7B closed 5/2/06 for $1,610,000 and has been listed at $1,895,000 for over 2 years so that seems aggressive.

Metropolitan - 181 east 90th - 4B closed 1/26/05 for $1,430,000 and is on the market at $1,599,000. If they get the ask that would be an 11.8% increase over 3 1/4 years.

No closings for a while in any of these buidlings and growing inventory.

Yes, all sales flips are positive. However, all have been for not much of a return and returns are likely negative after fees and brokerage commissions.

There is a great site called flippersintrouble.blogspot.com about sacramento real estate. It cross references the county data on closed real estate transactions with the data from the MLS on offerings. Any home on the market within 12 months of the closing date and with a new MLS listing price which is less than the original closing price qualifies as a "flipper in trouble". This used to have a handful of listings. There are 1592 today in Sacramento.

Maybe Streeteasy could use their data to do the same?

Well JuiceMan I'm glad you finally agree that my model is correct. You are free to disagree with the inputs, but I'm still waiting for that "overwhelming buy signal" when housing prices fall to 17x annual rent from the current 18x, when the historical norm (and 40x/28%) force the ratio to be 12x.

Show me someone who says it's not 12x and let me see how they come that number. I just have not seen any other one, not from you or anybody.

Now then, this is silly: "he would execute a gut check sensitivity on his inputs and then give a range of potential correction with associated probabilities." The housing market is far to illiquid to do a meaningful analysis like that. Houses aren't stocks; there are only 8,500 transactions in the entire borough per year.

But I will add that I have said in the future that my estimate is based on my numbers, and that we can't be sure exactly how all the variables will play out. I just happen to agree with Case Shiller.

And I did very well in economics, thanks, getting an A+ not only on my senior thesis, but in microeconomic theory: I was the only one, in fact, who even got an A.

Thank you Jake that is good information.

repeating your own school grades is really dorky.

kylewest! Finally JuiceMan says something nice about me, and you go and ruin it!

I have no doubt you did well in economics steve, but you seem to be very comfortable throwing numbers around to get your 50% without worrying that "The housing market is far to illiquid to do a meaningful analysis like that."

That said (and I have always said this) I think your rent vs. buy monthly cost analysis is a good way to look at property for both owner occupied and for investment purposes. I also think it would be a great tool for people on this board, if we could agree on a consistent set of inputs. I'm leading the witness here a little, but by using a tool like this you will find that some properties will require a 40% correction to hit “equilibrium” but you would also find some that would require a 10% correction. It will differ greatly by building and by neighborhood. Wouldn’t it be more productive to have a consistent model that provided folks with a tool to know what type of property they were looking at? I think it would be, but you have to open your mind a bit to the relative possibilities and probabilities of what could happen.

For those that don’t know what steve and I are discussing, "equilibrium" is when it costs the same to rent as it does to buy on a monthly basis. Steve has argued (correctly) that this relationship is out of whack, but we have debated for weeks on the degree of the problem. The reason why this is such an important discussion is that the closer you are to equilibrium when you purchase real estate, the faster you will breakeven for owner occupied real estate (when compared to renting) and the faster you will be cash flow positive for investment real estate. Being out of equilibrium isn’t always bad as long as you have a time horizon that allows the benefits of buying to catch up with renting. That said, if you are way out of "equilibrium", it could take a very long time to breakeven from an investment standpoint.

stevejhx - We're almost half-way through 2008. No ctash so far. I believe you're going to have to switch to 2009.

and I have to agree with kylewest, it is a bit dorky.

westelle, i answered you elsewhere.

JuiceMan, the figures I'm using for buy vs. rent were for the same unit that was both for sale and for rent. I (and others) found multiple posts like this, and in all cases the ratio was 2x.

That there may be properties that aren't is unquestionable, but those are the ones that I've found.

I'm glad you've bought into my argument, though, that owner-occupied real estate (not investment real estate) is a capitalized expense, which is why it should cost the same. (That's the gist of your last paragraph, I assume.) It is also true as you say that many of the benefits of owning property (tax deduction, for instance) accrue at the beginning, whereas renting they accrue toward the end (opportunity cost), so there can be a short-term benefit to buying even when the equilibrium isn't met, as long as you're not way, way off the curve.

FYI I was very lucking getting into graduate school at Columbia b/c I had an abysmal freshman year but did swimmingly after that, but they switched to a computerized grade system in my sophomore year, so while I actually graduated with a GPA of about 3.4, the last page of my transcripts showed a GPA of 3.8, because the computer didn't calculate my freshman year.

I fooled those Ivy League s.o.b.'s. :0

Made me very happy.

Wouldn’t it be more productive to have a consistent model that provided folks with a tool to know what type of property they were looking at?

Yes.

Steve writes: "FYI I was very lucking getting into graduate school at Columbia b/c I had an abysmal freshman year but did swimmingly after that, but they switched to a computerized grade system in my sophomore year, so while I actually graduated with a GPA of about 3.4, the last page of my transcripts showed a GPA of 3.8, because the computer didn't calculate my freshman year. I fooled those Ivy League s.o.b.'s. :0"
Steve, to intentionally submit documentation with an awareness that the information contained therein is inaccurate or false, and then fail to bring this to the attention of those who you know will rely upon the document and false information is unethical. It isn't "fooling." It's lying. Not having yourself caused the error does not excuse failing to reveal it.

I will yield even a further point to you, JuiceMan, since you yielded one to me: it may be that actual property prices need not fall 50% for equilibrium to be met. It may be that prices fall less than that, but that today's asking prices fall 50%, which is not the same thing.

In other words, median prices may fall, say, 25%, but asking prices may fall 50%, because as so often noted, buyers are still in the habit of asking for 20% more than what their neighbor got last week, when in fact they might get 20% less.

For the most part these are paper losses, however: I think only owners who bought after 2004 risk losing actual money if they need to sell in the short-term, and there are only about 35,000 of them or so in Manhattan, and since they just bought, provided they don't lose their jobs, they can just stay put.

I didn't lie - they didn't ask me for my GPA, and, in fact, they might not even have used it. They asked only for my transcripts, which I provided them.

Well the 2x is what I have issue with, because you use some funky numbers. I have and idea steve and will start another thread.

submitting documents with false information is unethical whether or not you believe the receiving party intends to rely upon the false portion. period. unethical and dishonest.

The documentation wasn't false. In fact, it was supplied not by me but by George Washington University. I merely got a copy for myself.

This is a real estate thread, and you're talking about "unethical"?!

JuiceMan, I did a calculation for 99 Jane using unfunky numbers.

Steve can rationalize anything.... twist and turn whatever it is in an effort to get what he wants.

Stevejhx, you joked above about gaining admission to an Ivy League institution knowing that a transcript submitted to them on your behalf contained inaccurate information skewed in your favor. Remaining silent about that was unethical. Whomever provided the document in furtherance of your application or your rank speculation as to what particular information on the transcript the university relied upon in granting you admission is not relevant. After posting this shameful ethical lapse and dishonest behavior you cannot seek refuge by decrying that this is a RE forum. If it is, then you shouldn't have been blathering about your grades in school on here. Suck it up. What you did was wrong. Admit it and we'll move on.

Nope.

Shame, shame, shame on you.

As soon as Oprah gives up her beauty queen title, I'll give up my MA.

Deal?

You lied to get it. It isn't funny.

I did not lie - get over it. They asked for my transcripts, I gave them to them. My mother didn't write my essay for me.

You seem to think that I only got in because of that. Actually, I had already been in Columbia's undergraduate writing program and got a 4.1 average.

Yup. 4.1. You can get A+'s in Columbia. And it was Columbia's professors who wrote my recommendations.

No, kylewest, I didn't make them up either.

And, in graduate school, if I'm not mistaken, I graduated with a 3.8 - 3.9.

This is so sad. It always starts with small deceits and in the end the big lies comes easy. Can you no longer discern right from wrong? Honest from dishonest? You stole your way into school, feel guilty to this day about it, try to joke on an anonymous forum about it looking for absolution, and you get called out instead. You were wrong to do what you did. Shame on you.

Oh good lord, kylewest, get over it. Columbia is barely even an ivy.

Yeah, and if he lies about that, no doubt pulling numbers out of thin air is probably a cinch.

kylewest, weren't you the one who said how honest realtors were on one thread, then saying they were snakes on another?

Eureka! It was you!

I don't recall Kylewest saying that. Did you make that up, too? Take it out of context?

Does anybody actually believe that Columbia Business School couldn't figure out Steve's undergraduate GPA?

Bill, are you saying that because the false information may have been discoverable by the university there is no problem with Steve failing to correct the error? Lawyers who subscribe to that thought can lose their license to practice if it is found out--that is how serious such a breach is viewed within the legal profession. Between Steve remaining silent and reaping the benefit of transcript errors in his favor when applying to Columbia, billshiers comment above, verrain's general contempt for people who value and expect fair dealing, the ethics of many frequent posters on this forum leave me thinking that sleeze and a general get-away-with-whatever-they-can't-catch-you-at approach to business dealings is not the exclusive province of the RE brokers who are held up as being so much worse than the rest of us.

What I am saying is that this whole discussion is based on an assertion that is too preposterous to actually believe. The George Washington University is responsible for delivering thousands of transcripts on behalf of students applying to graduate school each year. Steve states that the reason for the error on his transcript was systemic - that the university had switched over to a computerized grading system after his freshman year and failed to account for the grades prior to the switch in calculating his grades on his transcript. This likely means that (a) the university made the same error with regard to every other student in Steve's class and (b) the university made the same error with regard to every student in each of the prior two class years, as the same problem would have been present in such cases, and failed to correct the issue. Moreover, although Steve claims that he was affected positively by the alleged error, other students would have been affected negatively. I'm quite certain that GW didn't deliver incorrect transcripts that mistakenly either over-reported or under-reported the GPA of thousands of undergraduate students over the course of three years.

If Steve believes that there was an actual mistake on his transcript, he certainly had an obligation to correct it, but (a) I don't think that there actually was any such error, (b) Steve probably doesn't truly believe there was such an error, (c) if there was a GPA on Steve's transcript other than his final GPA, it was for a reporting period that was disclosed and (d) Columbia knew Steve's actual cumulative GPA when they admitted him. It's not that I don't see the potential ethical issue - it's that I don't think the ethical issue ever actually occurred. I'm not in law school any more - I'm allowed to fight the hypo.

actually, billshiers, I didn't find out till after I was accepted, so what difference would it make?

And there was no error - it was so obvious that the first year of my transcript was kept manually and the rest kept on computer - they didn't even look the same, one was microfiche, the other a computer printout - that you'd have to be an idiot not to notice it.

But I'm hoping it helped! ;0

kylewest is switching the topic b/c he can't discuss real estate.