Listing Prices Falling Fast!

These are listing prices, not closing prices, and there is no comparison to prices a year ago. I'm not a bull, but let's not confuse the issues. It's probably more indicative of sellers expecting 20%+ annual appreciation who are slowly realizing that this will not be achievable and adjusting accordingly. Whether or not there are pricing declines YOY remains to be seen.

Here are the prices for a 1BR on streeteasy over the past 200+ days. Prices have been dropping as you've indicated, but the current level is still well above the low (and the overall range is very small)

1241
1241
1241
1241
1246
1247
1247
1246
1242
1242
1241
1242
1242
1242
1242
1242
1242
1242
1246
1242
1242
1242
1246
1242
1246
1242
1242
1242
1246
1242
1242
1241
1241
1248
1248
1246
1250
1250
1250
1250
1250
1250
1250
1250
1252
1253
1253
1253
1253
1255
1252
1253
1252
1248
1250
1248
1248
1238
1238
1237
1237
1237
1237
1237
1227
1229
1227
1237
1229
1229
1237
1238
1242
1246
1242
1246
1246
1246
1250
1250
1250
1250
1253
1252
1252
1252
1250
1254
1253
1253
1253
1255
1258
1258
1258
1258
1258
1258
1258
1258
1263
1265
1265
1265
1264
1265
1265
1265
1266
1266
1266
1266
1266
1265
1266
1264
1264
1258
1264
1254
1254
1254
1252
1253
1253
1253
1253
1253
1204
1204
1204
1204
1204
1204
1204
1204
1204
1204
1204
1204
1204
1203
1204
1204
1204
1204
1209
1209
1218
1218
1218
1218
1219
1219
1219
1219
1219
1220
1220
1220
1226
1229
1229
1232
1234
1234
1237
1237
1237
1237
1237
1237
1237
1234

1237
1237
1284
1284
1283
1283
1282
1282
1278
1274
1278
1278
1278
1282
1282
1278
1278
1278
1278
1278
1278
1282
1286
1286
1284
1294
1295
1293
1295
1295
1307
1307
1307
1307
1307
1307
1311
1293
1293
1294
1270
1264
1264
1264
1264
1264
1265
1266

"Tee-hee-hee"

yup, you were telling the truth when you said you weren't anticipating the drop with glee.

May they fall even more, ccdevi!

Tee-hee-hee.

Steve is gleeful because in his own mind his life of mediocrity will be fulfilled if his forecasts realize themselves. Among his many other (un)remarkable achievements, his obituary will read 'Remembered with love by the streeteasy forum members for having called the NYC RE bubble of 2007.'

as long as you admit that you lied

steve - you didn't respond to buster's comment. Who cares if asking prices get cut if sales prices are up? Asking price cuts may show a slowdown but not a downturn. You haven't really come up with anything substantive.

Falling listing prices are the first part of the trend. It always happens this way. Check out the other threads where people are comparing the same apartment with no or very little or negative price growth over the past 2 years, selling for a loss once the transaction costs are added in.

ccdevi - I may not have started out joyful, but now I am!

So Steve, you're getting tired of 21 Chelsea? Why would you EVER want to buy anything? It may come down, then go up, then go down, then go up, and maybe just as you're about to get your retirement place in South Beach in 2025, CRASH.

Tee-hee-hee.

will, i might NEVER buy anything in Manhattan again. As long as it costs 50% less to rent at 21 Chelsea, and I can invest my "down payment" in the stock market at 60%, why would I want to do something so stupid as to buy?

Pay $9,000 a month for something that currently costs me $4,500.

Ha-ha-ha!

steve, you know I'm on your side, but to be frank there's no evidence in the data of anything happening either way.

Wake me up when it falls below 1k/sqft

zizizi, I was just watching one of my heroes tonight, W. Buffett, the expert of knowing when something is "cheap." There is evidence: inventories are rising, prices are not increasing from 2006 levels. Median Manhattan price $1,100 more or less psf.

Look for $800, the 2004 level, because look at rents: if the people across the street from me are paying $9,000 per month for what I'm paying $4,500 per month, then something is DRASTICALLY wrong.

The figure is $800 psf. petrfitz proved my case this week when he said he had bought in 2003 when the cost of buying was the same as the cost of renting.

BINGO.

wtf does warren buffet have to do with your statement? are you just trying to drop his name for the sake of it to legitimize your position by association?

"I saw Warren Buffett on TV, and that makes me a value investor"

If you are capable of returning 60% in the stock market more than once in your life you should be running a hedge fund. instead, you are translating reams of mind numbing drivel. nuff said.

let me ask you this steve - if you are so smart how come you're 45, well past your prime professional years, and you're slogging it out in a chelsea rental doing hourly jobs?

by the way - I don't disagree with the idea that NYC RE has peaked. I just find your attitude distasteful.

deuces, w.b. is 77, I'm 48. I got years to go.

And yes, over the past 5ish year - that I've been paying attention, I've made 60% per year. More difficult to duplicate in the future, but hell, 60% of $1 is only 60 cents.

Over the last 10 - not 5 - years, I've been way outdoing 99% of hedge funds. That is true, at least according to morningstar.

"well past your prime professional years." Really? When w.b. is 77? Please.

I like where I live. I don't have an "hourly" job. I have a per-word job, & @ 12 cents a word, you'd be doing it too, if you could.

Steve, I agree with zizizi; we're mid-way through 2008 and really not much has changed with regard to Manhattan RE prices. Maybe that's the biggest change -- things seem kind of flat but if anything, prices are still rising.

While I acknowledge there are differences of opinion out there, most agree that the national economy is stabilizing. With a likely compromise on the Frank-Dodd bill out there, housing will likely stablize somewhat as well. I think better times are ahead.

I know your retort: Manhattan is different. How ironic!

In that regard, I recently posted a report that demonstrated that the Manhattan employment market is still strong. No doubt that layoffs in IB etc. will hurt, but so far, so good.

As soon as it costs as much to buy as to rent, then I'll believe it.

Steve, last i checked Buffett started his business when he was 26. Between the ages of 26 and 50 were his prime years.

I'll reiterate my point about your investment skills - if over 10 years you have outdone 99% of hedge funds, and in the past 5 'that you've been paying attention to' you have had 60% return, then why aren't you RUNNING a fund? surely that kind of track record would do the trick.

Regarding the job, hourly/wordly - same thing. It's contract work that pays a fixed rate and you income is linearly dependent on time spent on contract.

I wouldn't do it because of two things:

1) It has no scale. You're a one man shop which means that even if you worked 8 hours a day 6 days a week the most you will ever make is 500-600k / year. And imagine the joy and excitement of keeping that kind of pace. So the reality is that this activity would guarantee me a barely upper-middle class lifestyle in perpetuity.

2) There is zero innovation in what you do. No room to be creative and bring new ideas to market, and make your mark in a field. No long term opportunity beyond the next word count based project.

So again - so smart and yet the above is where you are after 25 years in the workplace? What happened?

steve - the top hedge fund managers making a billion a year in compensation haven't come close to 60% year over year returns for the past five years, but we are supposed to believe that you made 60% per year? That means you turned $10,000 into over $100,000 in five years? You are losing credibility with that one.

"@ 12 cents a word"

steve: you mentioned in another thread (several weeks/months back) that your rate was 2 cents/word. one of three conclusions for us to draw here:

1. one of these figures a typo
2. you have negotiated a major rate increase
3. you are totally full of **it.

which one is it?

nope. rush rate is +2 cents on top of the regular rate.

duecescracked, what's your point? If I wanted to open up my own company with my own employees then I could easily do that. Obviously I'm satisfied with what I'm doing and don't have the egotistical need to "make a mark," or whatever.

I have no stress, get to spend my weekends at the beach, and can work from wherever or whenever I want. Seems much better to me than the "daily grind."

Though actually what I do is very high value-added: "Una vez completada la carga de la batería, se corta la corriente principal y queda una pequeña corriente, llamada de flote o mantenimiento."

If you don't know what it means it's of 0 value to you. I know not only what the words mean, but the meaning of the underlying technology.

LIC - making that much money on the stock market is not difficult if you know what you're doing:

http://quicktake.morningstar.com/FundNet/Snapshot.aspx?Country=USA&Symbol=DXZLX

It happens I have a very good strategy, and borrow on margin.

Plus my former FL properties gave me excellent results: one of 400% in 4 years, the other 200% in 18 months.

I came to NY 10 years ago with about $50,000. Now I have a couple of million. It's about 60% per year.

"making that much money on the stock market is not difficult if you know what you're doing"

im not debating whether you up 60%/yr over the past 10 yrs but by insinuating that those who dont have your track record dont know what theyre doing... you probably insulted a good number of people on this board who stock-pick for a living.

"is not difficult if you know what you're doing" is not an insult; in fact, I thought it was unusually upbeat for me. :0

There are several hedge funds that do it all the time. Other people do it in different ways - Joe Lewis, FX. But even the best, JL, WB, get burned from time to time, as have I.

It does get more difficult as one gets wealthier - finding enough opportunities without concentrating too much risk in them. And not in every market every year are there opportunities to make 87% in one asset class. That said, I am a firm believer in risk concentration as long as you know what you're getting into.

There are lots of opportunities that I ALMOST took but didn't: IBM when Gerstner took over (I was unemployed at the time, couldn't invest), Google (I didn't understand the auction mechanism), MasterCard (I was already - and unusually - fully invested), RIMM when it was losing the patent case.

But then there are plenty I did take advantage of, the first being BofA stock in the 80's when I worked there, bought it for $10 sold it a few years later for $100, some of the hedge fund-like funds I'm in now. Miami and New York real estate on their way up.

Concentrate the risk if you understand the asset class, because a fully diversified portfolio will guarantee you a 0% return if everything works like you plan.

The top-performing mutual fund in the country over the past five years, according to Morningstar, is the BlackRock Latin America Fund with a 51.29% annualized return. So Steve has outperformed by at least 800 basis points every single mutual fund company in the United States of America followed by Morningstar, because, you know, it's not that hard if you know what you're doing. Steve, how long is your nose right now?

Stevie Boy...you are quite silly...you said "I came to NY 10 years ago with about $50,000. Now I have a couple of million. It's about 60% per year."

But if you worked for 10 years full time to grow that $50k to $2mm, that is rather poor...an average of less than $200k in earnings per year...you did not earn 60% per year..you worked for 10 years and now have $2mm from that...I worked on Wall Street for 10 years and made $5mm in earnings during that time, but I did not make 5000% investment return, I worked and got paid, and that is what you did, but your job was invested your money, still a job

And if you do the math $50k invested for 10 years at 60% would get you $5.5mm

Good Lord - this man spams message boards left and right to try to crash the market, argues with bears and bulls alike, and kicks our loveable Spunky off of Streeteasy. Are we really wasting our time with this man's nonsensical boasting of 60% annual returns and dubious mathematics?

I'm still trying to figure out how 45 yrs old is past anyone's prime...except maybe a womens Tennis Pro...