If you had $100,000 to invest in 1998

Steve is going to argue - inspite of the data above that disproves him - that "RENTING IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN OWNING"

He will then post something that is so big and boring that no one will read it. He will misuse logic and twist it to "prove" his theory.

He still will not be able to prove us with one credible PERSON who supports his claims.

He will post links to articles that speak to investing during a bubble and claim that it is data that can be extrapolated to include th e"long term"

Speaking as someone who has around in New York in the nineties -- I'd like to point out one assumption of the New York mag article -- that you had cash.

There was a Keith Haring for sale at an ACT UP fundraising auction sometime around then. It was an auction I was at, and I remembered thinking that the art would have been a good investment. However, to buy the piece, I would have had to had cash.

On the other hand, to buy a $100,000 apartment in 1998 only required $20,000 in cash.

Similarly, if you're now sitting on $5 million, it might make more sense to put it in some hedge funds than to buy a Tribeca apartment. But some people need the mortgage financing, so it's not an apples-to-apples choice for every investor.

ali r.
{downtown broker}

http://www.forbes.com/2005/05/27/cx_sc_0527home.html

Op - Agreed. My investments in contemporary art have crushed any returns that real estate or stocks have remotely offered over the past 10 years. I'm glad I bought Hirst, Koons, and Prince in 1998, as opposed to any stocks that my friends had purchased at the same time.

From Steve's article

"Real estate is at another disadvantage here, because we're not taking into account potential income tax breaks. And, though dividends aren't included in the S&P 500, Jeremy Siegel, an expert in financial markets and economics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, points out that a house pays a benefit that is not measured in its price. In other words, you can live in it. Rent free."

This is counter to Steve's Imputed Rent Theory

"Historically, the largest real home price decrease is on the order of 5% in any given year," says Jonathan McCarthy, senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. "Whereas you talk about a real stock-price decline, you could probably see 20% or even more."

Malraux - i was offered the opportunity to buy a Warhol in 1998 for $10K from a relative who needed money. I passed. I regret it now.

Malraux - who are today's artists of note?

petrfitz - be careful - were you offered a print (as I assume you were for that price in 1998) or a painting? Depending on the image, a single print might not be worth much more than that today than the same amount invested in stock or real estate at the same time.

As for today, in the $100,000-and-under catagory that you can buy a significant work by, I'd take a look at Matthew Barney (photograph or drawing), Andro Wekua (painting), Kai Althoff (painting), Gert & Uwe Tobias (large woodcut), Anj Smith (painting), Kehinde Wiley (painting), and Sterling Ruby (painting and sculpture) as a few of the possibilities. No guarantees, but they're all doing intereting work in one way or another.

"Steve's Imputed Rent Theory"

Wow, is that ignorant! It's not my theory.

From "my" article: "if you take a longer view--say 25 years--you'll find that the S&P 500 has actually stomped the real estate market, from Boston to Detroit to Dallas. From the start of 1980 to the end of 2004, home sale prices increased 247%. A pretty sweet deal, it would seem. Over the same period, however, the S&P 500 shot up more than 1,000%."

Steve has the S&P beat every real estate market over that time frame or jsut the select few that work in your favor?

Malraux - thanks - I understand. I was offered a painting. My relative was part of the Factory crew and was buddies with Andy. He has a few paintings and prints. Should have bought it then either way.

Consistently on a rolling average basis since the end of WWII, which basis eliminates the effect of choice of periods.

Always, always, always.

And petrfitz, we must know people in common: an ex of mine was AW's second cousin, from Pittsburgh.

Steve including markets like New York, Beverly Hills, Silicon Valley? Over the last 10 years, 20 years?

Press on the link - stocks always outperform owner-occupied residential real estate everywhere because the price is constrained by incomes, leverage, and competing products (rental real estate).

That does not mean investment real estate, even if you invest in a single condominium and rent it out, because you have the added benefit of someone paying your expenses. With owner-occupied real estate, the only benefit is not to rent.

This is over very long periods of time using moving averages. It always has been the case and it always will be, because stock prices are linked to forward corporate incomes, whereas residential real estate is linked to past household incomes, and corporate incomes grow at a faster rate than household incomes.

Where's MMAfia the moron to chime in here.

People! Stop comparing owner-occupied residential real estate to anything but the cost to rent. The house you live in is not an investment. It is not something you should or can compare to art, stocks, alpacas, gold, etc. If you really want to think of it as an investment, do a rent vs. buy analysis. As soon as you are in the black compared to renting, you have made a good investment.

petrfitz - are you reading the article closely? They you wont' ask these silly questions.

i would like to chime in for the morons:

folks, REALIZED returns is not the same as EXPECTED RETURNS, and certainly not the same as RISK-ADJUSTED expected returns. it is easy to talk about winners after the fact.

Paul10003, don't even bother, this isn't the forum to explain finance ... I tried to deal with similar questions on this board (e.g. leverage in asset classes) and the only guy who expressed that he got it (eavillager) got so fed up with the people who didn't get it screaming and yelling that he disappeared, whereas the support against me came in the form of references to, of all places, Wikipedia.

thesupertrooperwerd - wow! My advice is that rather than engage in nasty comments, just read the article.

manhattanguy, what they don't realize when they do their calculation is that it is actually riskier to own property than to rent, so the "return" on owner-occupied real estate also must be risk-adjusted. As the Fed how they do the calculation.

JuiceMan challenged me to a duel about the rent vs. buy argument, I showed him the formula, and he refused to use it. Indeed, he even posted that the "price of a property" was equal to the equity x risk-free interest rate or something ridiculous like that.

Yes VVerain, you gave us all a very nice definition of "finance," but you got it all wrong. Remember your "commutative property of addition" post?

And evillager, if I recall, was the one who said that corporate incomes are constrained by GDP growth, when corporate incomes are a component of GDP and therefore cannot "constrain" them.

JuiceMan - the house I live in now I bought in 2003 for $420K. I put down $80K. It is now worth $1.5 million.

should I compare those returns to the cost of renting? Should I ignore the $500K tax free I get when I sell? How does that Tax Free half million equate to the cost of rent?

Steve in his brilliance says " what they don't realize when they do their calculation is that it is actually riskier to own property than to rent"

so it is riskier to buy a property that historically has always gained value, than it is to throw all that money away and get absolutely no return? I guess that there is "no risk" in renting because fromthe start you expect ZERO return. Like these is no risk in burning your money or throwing it in the trash.

petrfitz, don't count your chickens....

And I knew you'd take the bait on the risk in owning. Yes, it does have a risk, and here is where you're blindsided: "to buy a property that historically has always gained value."

No, property does not always gain value in the short- to medium-term, and it is highly illiquid and highly leveraged, meaning the potential for loss is huge.

Ask the Federal Reserve Bank.

Ah yes, I recall more of your sublime "finance theory": that the financial leverage on a company's balance sheet is the same as the leverage a homeowner uses with a mortgage.

Completely forgetting that financial leverage is used to create income, whereas mortgage leverage creates only an expense.

You are really dumb.

petrfitz, it relates to the cost of rent in the way that it makes no friggan sense to rent in that scenario.

I want to make sure you understand my point. From an investment standpoint, you should compare buying only to the cost of renting. In your case, buying was overwhelmingly a better investment. However, you can’t compare owner occupied real estate to any other investment vehicle because you have to live somewhere. So if you are hell bent on looking at owner occupied real estate as an investment, compare it only to the cost of renting. As soon as you are in the black compared to renting (which could be 1, 3, 7, 15 years) than you have made a good investment. The rest of the appreciation is gravy (and good for you by the way)

I make this point because when steve says that owner occupied real estate has historically worse returns than the S&P, art, gold, alpaca, etc., he gets a rise out of people. He is actually correct if you compare base returns. However, it is irrelevant because you can’t live in a stock, or art, or an alpaca. What is the base return on shelter? That is why it is complete nonsense that the comparison is even being made.

Finally, for new buyers out there focused on the investment side of your home….stop looking at your home as an investment vehicle. That is what got all of these idiots that are now in foreclosure into trouble. Find a place you want to LIVE in, buy smart, do a rent vs. buy calculation, hold your property long enough to break even on what it would have cost you to rent, and you will have made a good investment. Anything above breakeven, as in petrfitz’s case, is cause for celebration……but there is no reason to lose sleep over it and, you cannot bank on it.

as far as I can tell, this article takes no account of leverage or taxes. if that is the case to call it unfair and irrelevant is an understatement.

Steve to use your logic - over the long term housing has always gained value, always. To use your logic, since WW2 housing has gained value in Manhattan significantly.

To use more of your insane logic, if you bought Manhattan real estate at the founding of the country, your real estate investment would have outperformed any stock investment significantly. Always - overtime.

Probably the best statement I have read on here in months:
"Finally, for new buyers out there focused on the investment side of your home….stop looking at your home as an investment vehicle. That is what got all of these idiots that are now in foreclosure into trouble. Find a place you want to LIVE in, buy smart, do a rent vs. buy calculation, hold your property long enough to break even on what it would have cost you to rent, and you will have made a good investment. Anything above breakeven, as in petrfitz’s case, is cause for celebration……but there is no reason to lose sleep over it and, you cannot bank on it."

Finally I agree with JuiceMan: "stop looking at your home as an investment vehicle."

That's my point: owner-occupied real estate is not an investment, it is shelter. It is a wonderful thing to buy a property and hold it as long as buying the property is cheaper than renting it over the long-term, but it will not provide you a good return because it costs you an enormous amount of money to live there. Investment real estate - that you rent out - will, at the right price, provide you with approximately the same return as other assets, including the S&P 500, because it provides you with income while at the same time someone else pays your expenses.

So, you need to look at a home purchase as capitalized rent. If it's cheaper to capitalize your rent and amortize the cost than it would be to have a constant rent expense, then BUY. If it's more expensive to capitalize your rent and amortize the cost than it would be to have a constant rent expense, then RENT.

Right now, in Manhattan, it is far more expensive to buy than to rent. Case closed.

This entire thread started with the wrong premise: "it's clear that real-estate returns can vary widely." JuiceMan is right: if you look at owner-occupied real estate as something that is going to earn you a "return," you are going to get burned. All it is is a place to live.

ccdevi: "as far as I can tell, this article takes no account of leverage or taxes. if that is the case to call it unfair and irrelevant is an understatement."

First, with the exception of the capital gains exemption, the tax rates for stocks are the same as they are for real estate. Second, leverage has a cost, and owning has a risk, and maintaining a home over time is extremely expensive: repair expenses, replacement costs, special assessments, etc., none of which do you have renting, or owning stock.

Owner-occupied real estate is not an investment.

Finally I agree with JuiceMan: "stop looking at your home as an investment vehicle."

That's my point: owner-occupied real estate is not an investment, it is shelter. It is a wonderful thing to buy a property and hold it as long as buying the property is cheaper than renting it over the long-term, but it will not provide you a good return because it costs you an enormous amount of money to live there. Investment real estate - that you rent out - will, at the right price, provide you with approximately the same return as other assets, including the S&P 500, because it provides you with income while at the same time someone else pays your expenses.

So, you need to look at a home purchase as capitalized rent. If it's cheaper to capitalize your rent and amortize the cost than it would be to have a constant rent expense, then BUY. If it's more expensive to capitalize your rent and amortize the cost than it would be to have a constant rent expense, then RENT.

Right now, in Manhattan, it is far more expensive to buy than to rent. Case closed.

This entire thread started with the wrong premise: "it's clear that real-estate returns can vary widely." JuiceMan is right: if you look at owner-occupied real estate as something that is going to earn you a "return," you are going to get burned. All it is is a place to live.

ccdevi: "as far as I can tell, this article takes no account of leverage or taxes. if that is the case to call it unfair and irrelevant is an understatement."

First, with the exception of the capital gains exemption, the tax rates for stocks are the same as they are for real estate. Second, leverage has a cost, and owning has a risk, and maintaining a home over time is extremely expensive: repair expenses, replacement costs, special assessments, etc., none of which do you have renting, or owning stock.

Owner-occupied real estate is not an investment.

It's not that complicated folks:

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/real_estate/0704/gallery.stocks_v_realestate.moneymag/index.html

Winner: stocks. Hi Spunky Brewster!

"Right now, in Manhattan, it is far more expensive to buy than to rent. Case closed."

This is a painfully inaccurate statement to make without a time horizon steve. Especially for owner occupied real estate. The correct way to state this is: the current cost of renting vs. owning suggests that from an investment perspective, owning is more expensive in the short term and it may take a longer period of time to breakeven when compared to renting. The longer your time horizon when owning the better the chances are that owning will be a better investment than renting.

"First, with the exception of the capital gains exemption, the tax rates for stocks are the same as they are for real estate."

But thats a huge exception.

"Second, leverage has a cost, and owning has a risk, and maintaining a home over time is extremely expensive: repair expenses, replacement costs, special assessments, etc., none of which do you have renting, or owning stock."

Sure, so factor it in. But to throw out leverage is ridiculous.

If in 1998 I have 100k and I invest it in the Haring painting, today I sell it for 3 mil. Lets say I pay roughly 435k in tax. So I made an after tax profit of about $2.5 mil.

In 1998, I have 100k, I buy a 500k apt. Lets assume for purposes of ease that I finance 80% with interest only debt. Today I sell it for $2.5 mil. I pay back the 400k in debt. I pay say 200k in expenses/sales taxes. I pay about 200k in cap gain taxes. So I made $1.6 mil, still not up to par with the art but not nearly as bad as the numbers the op posted from the article and about the same at the after tax apple profit.

Now sure, you had expenses etc and you had 500k at risk rather than 100k and there is a price for that and that should be factored in. But when real estate appreciates, and over the long haul I think we all agree it does to a degree, leverage is a powerful, perhaps the most powerful, factor of return.

"from an investment perspective"

Owning is not an investment.

"owning is more expensive in the short term and it may take a longer period of time to breakeven when compared to renting"

At these prices, it may never break even.

"The longer your time horizon when owning the better the chances are that owning will be a better investment than renting."

It's not an investment.

If you bothered to read that Fed article that I pointed out to you regarding imputed rent, EVERY TIME imputed rent is far above market rents, the real-estate market crashes. Every time. It is now far above the last time it crashed, in 1988.

Petrfitz, if I "bought Manhattan real estate at the founding of the country," I'd be dead.

"over the long term housing has always gained value, always."

Yes, always, at 0.7% real compounded every year (though probably higher in Manhattan). Versus 8% real for the S&P 500.

TheFed, what you like about what JuiceMan said is what I've been saying for months.

ccdevi, you're so dumb: "So I made $1.6 mil."

You forgot your mortgage interest. You forgot your property taxes. You forgot your common charges. You forgot your capital improvements and repairs. You forgot 3/4 of your expenses.

But yes, you made $1.6 mil.

And you still have the bubble mentality: "In 1998, I buy a 500k apt. Today I sell it for $2.5 mil."

If you think that it's normal - or sustainable - for property prices to rise fivefold in 10 years, then YOU'RE NUTS. Did your income rise fivefold in 10 years? Mine approximately doubled.

It's a BUBBLE, dudester.

yeah I'm the dumb one. unreal. as you have harped on in this thread, a home is a place to live. If I bought the painting, I'd still have housing costs. Your mortgage interest, property taxes and cc's, minus any tax benefits are your "rent" that you would have had to pay if you had bought the painting (sure maybe your rent under the painting scenario might have been less, it might have been more, who's to say).

Yes there are other expenses and there is risk to account for, was I not clear enough when I said "Now sure, you had expenses etc and you had 500k at risk rather than 100k and there is a price for that and that should be factored in."? So where do you come off saying I forgot all these things? Oh wait I remember because you're dishonest when you argue.

And I never said anything about sustainability. Again you're being dishonest.

steve, stop splitting hairs. Replace where I said investment with "cost benefit". Here you go:

"Right now, in Manhattan, it is far more expensive to buy than to rent. Case closed."

This is a painfully inaccurate statement to make without a time horizon steve. Especially for owner occupied real estate. The correct way to state this is: the current cost of renting vs. owning suggests that from a cost benefit perspective, owning is more expensive in the short term and it may take a longer period of time to breakeven when compared to renting. The longer your time horizon when owning the better the chances are that owning will be a better, from a cost benefit standpoint, than renting.

"At these prices, it may never break even."

Hello drama queen? Give me a break.

"TheFed, what you like about what JuiceMan said is what I've been saying for months"

Must be the either the clarity of the message or the messenger don’t you think steve?

"I never said anything about sustainability."

Then what does this imply: "If in 1998 I have 100k and I invest it in the Haring painting, today I sell it for 3 mil. Lets say I pay roughly 435k in tax. So I made an after tax profit of about $2.5 mil."

Sounds like you think it's sustainable.

JuiceMan, I'll accept "cost/benefit," but not "it may take a longer period of time to breakeven when compared to renting," because you might never break even at these prices.

"If in 1998 I have 100k and I invest it in the Haring painting, today I sell it for 3 mil. Lets say I pay roughly 435k in tax. So I made an after tax profit of about $2.5 mil."

What does that imply? It doesn't IMPLY anything. Do you know the meaning of the word imply? I was simply using the numbers, which presumably are reasonably accurate, that the op took from New York Mag. So I wasn't implying anything, I was simply describing something that apparently already happened.

And how sloppy are you. You quoted the art part in commenting on your contention that I think massive real estate returns are sustainable. What a jackass.

oh and nice to ignore the two paragraphs that destroyed your argument and concentrate on a throwaway sentence. thats a tried and true steve technique.

Oh dear! Let me correct my cut-and-paste error that has turned me into a "jackass"!

"In 1998, I buy a 500k apt. Today I sell it for $2.5 mil."

I repeat: sounds like you think it's sustainable.

Which 2 paragraphs do you think "destroyed my argument"? I don't see them.

Do you mean this: "Now sure, you had expenses etc and you had 500k at risk rather than 100k and there is a price for that and that should be factored in."?

No - I only had $100,000 at risk, just like you did. Take $100,000 and compound it at 8% S&P rate and after 30 years you have $1,006,265.69.

Then take the your $500,000 and compound it at 0.07% per year, and you have $616,387.92 at the end of 30 years. Your $400,000 mortgage would have cost you $463,352.76. So your net profit is about $153,000, without accounting for common charges and property taxes.

If my rent started out the same as your mortgage payment and also increased at 0.07%, I will have paid $964,410.28 in rent, leaving me a profit of $41,855. But I didn't pay any property tax or common charges of, say, $1,000 a month. Rather, I invested them in the stock market. By doing that I would have earned $1,468,150.42, whereas you would have lost $401,837.62.

So all in all, I win. :0

Man you really are a sleaze. Have an opinion fine but why can you just discuss with just a drop of honesty and good faith.

In 1998, I buy a 500k apt. Today I sell it for $2.5 mil."

Again, that doesn't imply anything. Its clear now you don't know what that word means.

"No - I only had $100,000 at risk, just like you did."

Um, when I said it was 500k at risk, it was crystal clear I was talking about the real estate scenario. How would the person who invested 100k in stocks have 500k at risk (ignoring buying on margin)?

"If my rent started out the same as your mortgage payment"

Yeah, if it did. Did it? What if your rent equaled my mortgage plus my cc/taxes, as was the case in 2003 when I bought my last apt? yeah it turns your calculations on their ass.

"So all in all, I win."

Hmm well since the point I made was not that it was better to own stocks than real estate (I never made any such comparison in fact, other than offhand reference to apple) but that it was unfair to make this calculation without factoring in leverage or taxes, and in response you admitted it was right to factor in leverage and you again failed to take account of taxes (you accounted for none of the taxes you would pay on your stock gains, or the tax benefits of my interest and property taxes). And then of course you made assummptions biased towards your desired answer.

Well if thats a win in your book....

You said you put down $100k on the $500k apartment. You have $100k at risk. I said I put that same $100k in the stock market, and rented an apartment instead. Nothing "sleazy": it's what you said.

I calculated your return, however, on the full leveraged amount.

"What if your rent equaled my mortgage plus my cc/taxes, as was the case in 2003 when I bought my last apt?"

BINGO! If that were the case today then I wouldn't be on this thread and I wouldn't be a renter (in Manhattan - I own elsewhere). But it's not true today, though it was in 2003. Right now rents are half mortgage + common charges. As soon as they are the same, that's the time to buy.

Thanks, ccdevi! You proved my point.

No I have 500k at risk, this isn't an LBO, I am liable for the full amount of the debt. And I made that point because I am honest when I argue.

Your point? You mean that real estate in NYC today is overpriced? Which I have said plenty of times on this board. The fact is that this thread had nothing to do with that. You just can't talk about anything else.

This thread is about "If You'd Had $100,000 in 1998 ..."

You are in fact liable for the full amount of the debt and in NY creditors could come after you. Normally, however, they don't, and you only put down $100k of your own money.

In other states that don't use mortgages but deeds of trust there is no recourse to the "owner," since the creditor remains the owner.

The absurdity of the proposition of this thread is made manifest by people just arbitrarily picking dates and saying "from x to y I made $z!" which is what you yourself did. It doesn't work like that. Asset prices always return to the mean.

Steve says "Asset prices always return to the mean."

Steve says Always a lot. He doesnt realize that there are exceptions to every rule. That is what undermines the entire basis of his argument.

speaking of art
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11376986

"He doesnt realize that there are exceptions to every rule."

That's why you're going to lose a lot of money.

Steve - I am 25 + years younger than you and worth over $10 million. If I lose 80% of my net worth - I will still be worth as much as you.

Petrfitz, I'm very happy for you!

folks, contrary to what vverain says (not picking on you, vv), this is not "high finance"; it's common f'ing sense:
REALIZED returns is not the same as EXPECTED RETURNS, and certainly not the same as RISK-ADJUSTED expected returns.

realized returns are: hey, if you had invested in Apple 20 years ago, you'd be a friggin millionaire.
expected returns are: hey, if you wanted to invest in Apple today, would you think it would beat out the market or other alternatives?
risk-adjusted expected returns is: yeah, but is there more downside risk (among other types of risk) associated with what you think Apple' future performance might be?

to talk about how well XYZ investment did in the past to prove your point is quite meaningless. and HELLO? has anyone read the caveat for any piece of investment literature you pick up? "past performance is not necessarily an indicator of future performance." .... that roughly translates to: "shiiiit, i got lucky last year with my picks, i and i have NO friggin idea if i can do it again." now, if the investment professional can't make claims about the future, what the hell makes you think you can? (implicit in that last rhetorical question was the idea that investment professionals as a group are somehow "better" at this; but really, let's not go down that road.)

Steve: "Asset prices always return to the mean." ... actually, not sure about the context of that statement, but it's typically RETURNS that are mean-reverting, not PRICES. and in any case, the mean-reversion is oftentimes over long horizons.... and you know what they say about the long run.

petriftz: if you are really worth over $10mm, i have 2 comments for you: (1) drop dead. (2) dude, can you lend me some money?

p.s. if the answer to #2 is yes, please ignore #1. thanks.

oh. typo in that Apple example: i meant "B"illionaire not "M"illionaire. we all know that millionaires are the new poor.

paul10003, yes I know - I didn't say it right. Not the absolute prices but the price ratios return to the mean.

And I do like your explanation of risk - the people of this board (JuiceMan) say that real estate is risk-free. BS. When calculating imputed rents, the Fed adds a risk premium for owning over renting.

They think that I don't know these things, yet here I am translating a mutual fund prospectus, and guess what it says? "shiiiit, i got lucky last year with my picks, i and i have NO friggin idea if i can do it again."

Exact words. :)

If petrifitz is worth that much AND is 25+ years younger than me, then he's doing mighty fine for somebody still in college, 'cause you gotta suck some pretty big dick to get that kind of dough in the short-term!

Steve, you're a douche for saying that about petrfitz. petrfitz seems like a fine man of good standing in the community; and i am amazed at the compassion and intellect he shows on this forum.
(Petrfitz, how we doin on that loan?)

"Steve - I am 25 + years younger than you and worth over $10 million. If I lose 80% of my net worth - I will still be worth as much as you."

Lovely, I was waiting for the "my dad is better than your dad" pissing argument. LOL!

Like I said MMAfia, that's some mighty big dick you gotta suck to make that much money by that age.

So I invested $100k in an index fund today - TUR, Turkey - and it went up 2.32% in one day. Just imagine, if it goes up like that every single day, then in 365 days I'll have $432,109,671.45.

Isn't that amazing?

And isn't that petrfitz's argument taken to its extreme? It went up that much today, so OBVIOUSLY it will go up that much tomorrow!

At that rate, I'm gonna leave petrfitz in the dust!

After all, Turkey is that "exception to every rule," isn't it?

What a maroon!

It's even better than that! I made $60,000 in the stock market today. If I make that every single day, then I'll make over $2 million this year alone!

On top of the $432,000,000 that I'm going to make on Turkey, I'm gonna be loaded!

Or, perhaps, I'll just make the $750k I usually make, and will forget about the $432,000,000 million. :**(

The data above should be updated.

Yes, the update is Steve gave it all back... and more.

steve is on record for losing the overwhelming majority of his portfolio at some point this year. And he blames it on Lehman brothers. Doesn't matter whose fault, he has been right on real estate's direction and utterly wrong on equities.

10 millions? in level 3 assets. please bragg only when u have real money.
i won't even mention leverage, non linear growth, taxes, marginal utility......
get an education first

Investing in 1998 would be best in NYC real estate, or otherwise in the Facebook guy.

Pertifz might want to update those numbers.

And how about a "if you put $5 million into Nevada and Manhattan RE in 2007". How would that look?