Why haven't prices in NYC fallen more steeply already?

"The best you can come up with is "I know you are but what am I"?? I post links to the crap you spew so the readers can judge for themselves in full context. You just put incorrect lies in peoples mouths."

Not my best, it was one of my easiest.

Established that you lied, you're a horrible investor, and you're troll.

Didn't have to apply much effort, of which you wouldn't be deserving anyway... anyone can read the original post, or the quotes. Pretty easy to make you look like a moron when you're claiming I said the exact opposite of the quotes.

You are again taking things and twisting them. I never said that prime NYC would not decline did I? You just won't accept any statement that doesn't say that all of NYC will be down 50%+ ands that WS is dead.

If someone offers a more moderate projection you twist what they say.

> You are again taking things and twisting them.

Unlike what you just did?

"You just won't accept any statement that doesn't say that all of NYC will be down 50%"

Thats a blatant lie.

Funny that you don't know where my apartment is (prime Manhattan coop, not outer borough condo), how I got the money (my own, no "allowance"), when I bought it, yet still know its a bad investment. Just like how you claim I lied, yet I'm the one quoting the original - you just repeat "you lied" again and again.

You need to learn that repetition does not create truth.

Or, just learn to be happy dancing alone, because no rational observer would side with you here.

There is way too much focus on the extreme downward predictions. It is getting to the point that any talk of moderate outcomes or questioning extreme predictions quickly disintegrates the conversation. There are other viewpoints out there and that is what I find interesting.

The problem is that the definition of "extreme" is completely off-base. Based on historical bear markets and the fundamentals there is nothing extreme about a 50% decline. Given that the market is already probably off 30, I wouldn't be surprised if it went down 65%.

"You just won't accept any statement that doesn't say that all of NYC will be down 50%+ ands that WS is dead."

American Express just got approval to be a (highly regulated) bank holding company (with a travel agency attached). What does that tell you?

They want MONEY.

"It is getting to the point that any talk of moderate outcomes or questioning extreme predictions quickly disintegrates the conversation."

Not at all true. Just, give me the fundamentals as to why you think the "extreme positions" are wrong. A tech_guy explanation? A (what happened to) petrfitz explanation? An LICComment (must have had the WiFi turned off at the now-closed Starbuck's in Long Island City turned off) explanation?

Just tell us why. Why are they wrong? If you accept that Wall Street propped up prices - which based on the facts it did - why would its demise not have the opposite effect? If you accept that people need a) jobs, and b) credit, to buy apartments since neither is available right now in the country, and even worse in New York County, why would that not have a devastating effect on prices?

Since the governor, the mayor, and the MTA all say that there is a crisis, why won't that crisis affect the housing market? Since the crisis is CAUSED by the housing crisis and the turmoil on Wall Street (in terms of tax revenue, or the lack thereof).

Just tell me why. Like Obama, I'm all ears.

steve, when you have completely incorrect ideas about what an "opportunity cost" is, don't understand the tax deduction, and think the bank's approval process is more important than the bottom line, we don't have enough of a shared common language / dictionary for a useful debate.

You're like a mathematician demanding a proof for calculus, but insisting we use a dash for addition and a cross for subtraction. Without shared fundamentals, we can't properly discuss anything rational. Even *if* your definition is right (and clearly I disagree) the fact that the rest of the world accepts a different definition still means you can't properly debate the rest of the world.

NYC10022 you really know your shit my hat goes out to you.
This is just the first wave of mortgage meltdown. There is a "Second Wave" coming as it is continuously ignored in the press.Starting in early 2010, a massive second wave of Alt-A, Option Adjustable Rate, and Jumbo Prime mortgage resets begins. Its total volume is as big or bigger than the subprime wave, and it will hit an already debilitated finance industry. These loans, like subprime, are also bundled together as RBMS and could be the catalyst for the true onset of deflation (i.e., price drops the Government's statistics can't hide). A great deal of this loan volume is just a tad in quality above subprime, and growing unemployment in higher paying professions should fuel this second wave's force on the financial markets. This is why Citibank and Goldan Sachs are desperatley seeking deposits. You ain't seen nothing yet.

I think the bottom line is that this real estate bubble was created by artificial wealth derived from credit. As that deleverages, the extent of the real estate market decline will depend on a combination of wealth destruction, unemployment and fear. There is some chance that we will generally correct to a 2003 level, for most properties. But often in these situations the corrections overshoot, because of certain situations such as divorce and unemployment forcing sales, and the fear. Or, as Noah like to say, the lack of confidence. The herd-like mentality. Will it happen here? Well, history would say yes (this is one fugly economic landscape, both nationally and locally). But one never knows, maybe they have another bubble up their sleeves.

Going back to the original question- one factor I think has had an impact is there's no reason to lay off WS employees until the end of the year, given their comp structures. Even though various layoff numbers have been thrown around, we won't see the real impact until the new year. Also, because of the importance of the general economy on WS profits, it takes longer for the effects to be felt (in the same way it takes a while before we are officially in a recession). That doesn't mean it isn't coming though.
On the positive side (for prices anyway), the fact that NYC buildings are more stringent means that fewer people will *need* to sell. This absolutely does make a difference; it makes the margins slimmer;

> NYC10022 you really know your shit my hat goes out to you.

Can't say I didn't try to warn 'em...

And the hypocritical statement of the day...

"You need to learn that repetition does not create truth."

The incentive to lay of WS employees sooner than later is to save cash. Their comp structures are irrelevant. Every week 10,000 people are employed is a whole lot less cash that a firm would have. Cutting headcount is the quickest way to preserve resources. The delay is that it takes a while to figure out which departments/people/levels/etc should be let go. These firms are not holding onto anyone out of the goodness of their hearts and they will not keep them 1 minute longer than they "need" to.

The problem with the Wall Street gangsters is that they all thought they were smarter than anybody else. Now it's a shootout with the lights out and we don't knows what dead body is coming up next.
Take the $250 billion in corporate debt held by the big three automakers which were rated A. They have now been reduced to Junk status but the defaulting of these is not really all that catastrophic. What is unknown and scary is part are the credit default swaps backing these bonds which can be in the trillions. One big fucking Ponzi scheme that will set off another wave of defaults leading to massive writedowns at the bond insureres like AIG,MBAI, etc..... MBIA Inc. and Ambac Financial Group Inc., the two biggest bond insurers, have a more than 70 percent chance of going bankrupt, credit-default swaps show.