Desperate at Chelsea Stratus!

Oh, I forgot my favorite part:

"** INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY ** Brand new never lived-in Corner 2 beds, 2 baths plus balcony at the new luxurious and tallest condominium in Chelsea - **The Chelsea Stratus**. Apartment features South/East exposures, storage room, washer/dryer, walk-in closet, and floor to ceiling windows. Building features a ultra-modern fitness center, an intimate lounge with large-screen television and firep..."

That's right - it will cost you $13,000 a month to maintain an apartment that you can't get $5,500 in rent for. ALL TAX BENEFITS INCLUDED!

Cool.

Steve. Do you have a job?

stratus is a lousy building. that area is too dirty, crowded, and grimy.

Actually, thanks for asking. I just finished my last job this morning, so I'm entertaining myself.

what do u mean by last job? are you a temp? a secretary?

I have my own translation company & I do individual assignments for my clients. My last assignment ended, I await my next. I've been at it for 15 years.

Thanks for your concern.

You are very welcome. I now understand clearly your real estate qualifications.

Steve, now I understand the espanol posts. Seems like you can't post w/o someone trying to rip into you, which sux. But, that happens on many boards, guess it's a safe place to discharge rage & cheaper than therapy.

"I now understand clearly your real estate qualifications."

Do you?

I have an undergraduate degree (honors) in Economics from George Washington University, worked as a managing consultant and senior audit manager for Price Waterhouse, before that I was an auditor with Bank of America, and before that I worked for Arthur Young & Co. I also have an MA in Spanish from Columbia University, have owned (and still do) a few properties in New York and South Beach, have seen a few real estate bubbles here, there, as well as in London and Madrid, where I used to live and work.

They all look the same: people auctioning their properties to the highest bidder. Until the ponzi scheme collapses.

Though I admit I don't have as much real estate bona fides as, say, a broker or an agent. "Buy, buy, buy, buy, bye-bye!"

dwell, it doesn't bother me what these people say, unless they get so obnoxious that I ignore them (rufus, eah, LICComment a.k.a. tech_guy, petrfitz a.k.a. Your_Landlord, etc.) or report them if they get threatening. The latter hasn't happened in a while (thankfully).

So you are a part-time translator now, spending most of your time on some nameless chat board? I get it.

You should write a book!

I did.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=bushistotle&x=0&y=0

Steve, good work with your comps and research. I think we all agree, the market is more-or-less in trouble.

Also, no offense, but this one negative review of your book is so hilarious, I thought others here might enjoy it:

4 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Bad Purchase, August 5, 2006
By S. Vandenburg "celticraven" - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
I bought this book thinking it would be similar to America according to Jon Stweart. Big Mistake! The first paragraph involving sexual acts with himself bumps this book up to adult only. It's not funny, the fake Italian accent didn't go over well with my Italian ancestry financee, and in short, it is blasphmey and Catholic Bashing. The actual Bush parts are funny, but the book was not worth the unfortunate investment. For example, one chapter had priests in the Vatican engaging in homosexual acts in the bathroom. Reader Be Warned!

ROFL "I DID." *snap*

This book has a lot to do with real estate.

Book looks weird...I can pick up a copy for $0.40

Anonymouss - you got wasted convincingly by Mr Hanley. Better to stop now than look even more ridiculous.

BWC

Actually, you can read that first chapter online. It's hilarious.

"one chapter had priests in the Vatican engaging in homosexual acts in the bathroom."

It's called verisimilitude.

i can't find the first chapter only the first page.

so it's another bush-bashing book. how conformist! i guess i'll bash bush now that everyone's doing it, right?

nonsense

oh boy, again too much information about Hanley. Still none qualifies as someone with any more than an opinion, perhaps an informed opinion, but certainly no expert opinion.

also, of course, none of the info on Steven Hanley is relevant to the Chelsea Stratus. How surprising that another discussion has been hijacked to talk about this guy. Ok, so someone asked Hanley a person question in the form of an attack ... did it really need to be answered? Was there something about the honor code that required a response about his occupation, Spanish degree, and ancestry?

I'd love to see more posts about the Stratus ... and none about Hanley.

My opinion about the Chelsea Stratus ... if you are going to live in a huge tall building, at least live in the top half, otherwise what is the point of living in a stratus?

ps - isn't there a Dodge Stratus?

LMAO! That review made me WANT to buy the book.

this guy Hanley has pulled this crap before?

"Hanley's ancestry" LMAO

Anybody walked by the stratus lately? There's a David's Bridal going into the retail space. Super classy and high end wedding dresses starting at $249.99.

That a pretty good tenant

dude, you're a GWU grad. get over yourself. i'm not even sure if you hit top 30 schools. and MA in spanish at columbia? ok, that ranks up there with ... well, probably with GWU for competitiveness. i'm not one to shoot people down, but you really come off like this condescending loser that... to be frank, you don't have that much to brag about. you're just another mediocre guy that needs to blah blah blah blah. and please, don't get me started on your glamorous life as a consultant/auditor. it's not like it's rocket science. don't get me wrong, all of it is an honest (?) living and i don't typically like to judge like this, but... it's just a pet peeve of mine about insecure types that need to constantly toot their own horn. if you're gonna be the bragging type, at least tell me you're a harvard/stanford grad that worked at goldman (well, you know what i mean) and have a masters/phd degree in something real. at least then i'd say: "what an a-hole --but what can you say, the guy is a baller." .....you on the other hand, get a life. find some happiness, would you? maybe you wouldn't be such a crank no-it-all child if you had some happiness.

stevejhx
5 days ago
ignore this person
report abuse

Here we go: 9D

StreetEasy History

03/25/2007 Listed in StreetEasy by Elliman at $1,485,000
08/21/2008 Sale closed for (insiders only)
09/05/2008 Price increased to $1,880,000

wait a minute ... stevejhx, Streeteasy's #1 loudmouth, isn't even a $10 per month insider?

anonymouss
5 days ago
ignore this person
report abuse

Steve. Do you have a job?

Steve has a job but not a watercooler. This is Steve's watercooler. You (and I) are his colleagues. Gd help us ... its worse than The Office and Dilbert.

stevejhx
5 days ago
ignore this person
report abuse

I have an undergraduate degree (honors) in Economics from George Washington University, worked as a managing consultant and senior audit manager for Price Waterhouse, before that I was an auditor with Bank of America, and before that I worked for Arthur Young & Co. I also have an MA in Spanish from Columbia University, have owned (and still do) a few properties in New York and South Beach, have seen a few real estate bubbles here, there, as well as in London and Madrid, where I used to live and work.

So, third rate college (honors), and then the job that the top people in the school didn't really want (audit), and then seeing prospects not very bright, off to get a masters in a liberal arts subject but not a PhD because you couldn't cut it. Then you wandered around to places where you could hang out being a playboy or playgirl.

stevejhx
5 days ago
ignore this person
report abuse

or report them if they get threatening. The latter hasn't happened in a while (thankfully).

teacher, teacher! he called me a name, teacher!

didn't even notice that, hohoho. yeah, undergrad major in econ in DC, but then goes into accounting as an auditor -- have you ever heard of an econ major going into auditing? quite strange. ... and again, it would all be good and fine if he wasn't so up-in-your-face, know-it-all obnoxious about things. what a loser.

"teacher, teacher! he called me a name, teacher! "

No. Wishing you dead and threatening to stalk you is what I mean.

"have you ever heard of an econ major going into auditing?"

Yes, actually - hundreds of thousands of them.

"what a loser."

Post your theories.

steven, you should clarify that when you say you own in new york, you actually don't mean the city. i hear they are adding more express trains to the LIRR though, kudos champ.

I have a Lexus, thanks though.

stevejhx
about 8 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse

"teacher, teacher! he called me a name, teacher! "

No. Wishing you dead and threatening to stalk you is what I mean.

Post any specific link to where someone wished you dead?
And what does it mean to threaten to stalk you? Did someone stalk you? Did someone show up at your apartment or to watch you watching people at the gym?

You are such a baby. Your whole persona is based on crying for teacher to help you out. You want big teacher to come and say, yes stevieboy, prices are too high based on what the textbook says, here's an 'A' for having read the textbook. Good boy, now go home to mommy at your rental apartment and wait for the textbook theories to be right. What a good boy.

Joey, you leave Stevie alone, don't pick on him.

have you ever heard of an econ major going into auditing?
"Yes, actually - hundreds of thousands of them."

GWU does have an accounting program, but cocky-boy decides to be an econ major in the nation's capital near thousands of policy jobs and think tanks that are always looking for top-notch economists... decides to go into... Auditing, of course. naturally.

hmmmmm...

here is theory #1 - and really, no other theory is needed; we've all met hundreds of Steve's in our lifetimes: Steve struggled as a mediocre nobody for quite a while, grappling with issues of insecurity about other successful people doing better than him -- just across the way were Georgetown guys that were so suave and had all the inroads. but he was always convinced he was just as good. moves from job to job, always obsessing with trying to move up and gain some respect. there is much frustration along the way. i'd like to know the timeline for the "escape" to columbia. unless it happened right after undergrad, it smells of frustration, angst, existential questions of "what the f*ck am i doing as a mediocre auditor/consultant?" ... and we can all imagine the ear-to-ear grin when the acceptance letter arrived from columbia -- a brandname school that finally validates me! ... along the way, Steve picks up some knowledge of real estate, trolls streeteasy, hijacks discussions. he's found his niche to validate how great and knowledgeable he is.

"I have an undergraduate degree (honors) in Economics from George Washington University, worked as a managing consultant and senior audit manager for Price Waterhouse, before that I was an auditor with Bank of America, and before that I worked for Arthur Young & Co."

All place that are nobody's first choice... guess blogging is the only place Steve could "compete" with the folks that surpassed him.

Notwithstanding the ad hominem attacks, Steve’s analysis of the situation at the Stratus spotlights how the real estate market, which is normally less that efficient, becomes truly dysfunctional when it enters a crash phase. And how can you accuse him of “hijacking” a thread that he started? We need more posts like this and fewer by anonymous brokers. By the way, qualifications are something you question/evaluate when you are looking to break the tie between two equally persuasive arguments. Questioning a person's qualifications—unsuccessfully, I might add—does not discredit his argument. You would have learned that at any reputable institution of higher learning…but evidently not at your real estate broker licensing course.

loftparade, you must not have read much of steve's other posts :) Stick around long enough and you'll see he gives it more than he takes it. For someone who retypes other people's work for a living, he sure is incredibly judgmental of other people's qualifications and jobs.

Everyone else: I like paul and nyc's analysis, and here's the capper: He made quite a bit of money in Manhattan real estate, buying in a depressed market, and timing a sell wonderfully. Probably the only financially successful decision he's ever made. Anyone who's been following his recent stock picks lately knows he's pissed all that profit away.

In other words, all the money he made in his one successful financial venture is now gone. He *needs* another depressed RE market and followup bubble just to get his money back. That's why he's so incredibly emotionally tied to this.

Hi Guys. You should probably start a new link because what you are talking about has nothing to do with the Chelsea Stratus anymore and its frustrating to be looking for what the link says and hear all the bickering instead. Thanks!

They have no arguments against my arguments, buddyparker, so they attack me personally.

Let them deal with the subject at hand.

the rent-v-buy monthly carrying charges is very interesting, and is relevant

However, the long discussions about this subject get caught up in side issues and dress themselves up in language to appear a scholarly economic theorem/principle yet never gets much into any testing, especially to take into account variations in interest rates. If interest rates jump to 10%, prices would have to fall much more than 50% to yield a monthly after-tax or before-tax carrying cost which is comparable to today's rents. No one can predict tomorrow's rents. These discussions usually assume rents will decline, without specifying how much or over how long a period of time, or how they will change after hitting bottom, if they indeed decline at all.

Only in the past two or three years have coop resale prices in one Queens neighborhood, Sunnyside, reached heights which make carrying charges comparable to rents today in that same neighborhood. Today is presumably the peak of the resale market, if one assumes we are in a free fall real estate crash citywide.

So trying to map out the future looking at what a mortgage today costs in a Chelsea condo, what a Chelsea rental costs today, predicting future common charges and real estate taxes pre- and post-abatement .............. it's all a moving target. What we can all agree on is that at present most condos, especially new construction, if financed with 20% down and fixed-rate mortgage, will probably requie someone to write out checks each month with numbers larger than the numbers for rentals of thes same size in newer buildings, especially if a renter aggressively shop the market.

Steve is right that the Chelsea Stratus is an example of "too expensive." But that's not what's going to cause the big RE crash he wants and is looking for evidence of.

"But that's not what's going to cause the big RE crash he wants and is looking for evidence of."

What is?

"What is?"

The momentum buying psychology has ended. Now people who can afford to buy and considered themselves sideliners don't want to buy, because the asset value is perceived to be headed south.

Massive job loss in a compressed period of time will get you your crash, steve. And it may be every bit as ugly as you think. And then again, maybe not. I don't expect Manhattan luxury building rents to tumble precipitously, nor do I expect a mass exodus out of NYC. But I agree with you that household income for what's referred to as "professionals" is plummetting. Did I spell that correctly? ;)

Spell which correctly?

Plummetting? In England, a-okay.

It's not my crash, lowery. It was going to occur, but the current incompetents made it far worse.

"It was going to occur, but the current incompetents made it far worse."

You mean the NYC r/e crash? I think that's a function of supply and demand. Everyone wanted to buy rather than rent, much more so than in the pre-boom period; at the same time, cheap money flooded the market; dramatic price increases spurred new construction; more interest rates cuts; rapidly escalating prices made even more people want to buy; no price was too high, and overbidding was the only way to land that apartment; now.... a glut may be coming down the pike at the same time that massive panic/hysteria bombards NYers' psyches. That's not incompetents/ce.

You can't grown enough tulips to recoup your initial investment on that tulip bulb that cost you a mortgage on the Amsterdam townhouse. I don't see this as completely a function of how much more it costs to buy than to rent, but it's worth examining.

lowery, I can't disagree with the basics of your bubble argument. I backed out of NY real estate when there were lines around the corner for overpriced apartments, and people willing to participate in open-outcry auctions. Maybe I missed the run-up. I'll miss the fall-down, too.

Never buy a place that costs more than it would cost you to rent it, out-of-pocket, because if you wouldn't buy it to rent to someone else, why buy it to rent to yourself? Just one more theory that puts the nail in the coffin of Manhattan real estate.

the nail in the coffin of Manhattan real estate.

lol and Manhattan real estate is dead, maybe we should move to Chicago or LA or San Francisco? Or London or Tokyo? Or do you mean that real estate in Manhattan is dead because all NYers should move to Iowa?

Wow

"if you wouldn't buy it to rent to someone else, why buy it to rent to yourself?"

That may be your investment philosophy, but it is not everyone's. This subject is far more complex than you make it out to be.

Every once in a while little flashes from the past surprise me via pop movies, archived photos, my memories, etc. - this city has been growing, and it is not just outwardly, but with the post-'70s phenomenon of living in the center of the urbopolis becoming desired instead of despised. Naturally, we're due for a period of rest and retrenchment, but I wouldn't write a check on the certainty of everyone leaving NYC, all of Manhattan turning into a slum again, or several other scenarios put forth by several people. I would not pay so much for a one-brm that carrying costs would be $7,000 a month, but I don't extrapolate from that any universal, self-evident truths.

"That may be your investment philosophy, but it is not everyone's."

Given the near 100% correlation between rents and purchase prices, and the concomitant economic theory derived from the data, that is, in fact, what most people believe.

"This subject is far more complex than you make it out to be."

No it's not. I know the complexity in infinite detail.

I don't have a doom-and-gloom forecast for NYC. Indeed, I love it here. Just, I make good money but can't afford to pay $20,000 a month in mortgage payments. Recently, neither can anyone else.

stevejhx
about 20 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse
"That may be your investment philosophy, but it is not everyone's."

Given the near 100% correlation between rents and purchase prices

Near 100% correlation? How can that be possible? How can you possibly make that argument? You've stated that historically price to rent is 12x. But today as you point out, is it a good deal north of that (and you foolishly ignore the trend of interest rates). So they aren't correlated now, but in some theoretical past they were?

"That may be your investment philosophy, but it is not everyone's."

steve believes that most people are, and every person should be, indifferent b/w renting and buying putting aside the economic factors. he believes this because he is. obviously this belief isn't correct but you literally will never convince him of that. steve cannot fathom wanting to own a home for any reason other then because its cheaper then renting that home. there really is no reason to discuss it with him.

Where I grew up in the suburbs, you could own a house, or you could own a condo in one of the two developments, or you could rent in areas of the same two developments. But if you wanted a house, you had no choice but to own. I think owning a house is a pretty good reason to be an owner.

"other then because its cheaper then renting that home. there really is no reason to discuss it with him."

I think it's an interesting metric of sorts, but there's no point discussing it when someone's got their mind already made up. People bought condos at the Stratus thinking they would double in value within a few years, not because they compared their costs to rents. At points in time certain neighborhoods have had new condos built where purchasers' carrying costs were more than the then-prevailing markets, but they got rents higher than the then-prevailing market rents, and that's one way that market rents have bumped up. Some people many be buying condos with cash. It is interesting to take a condo and assume "what if I bought this with 20% down and a mortgage like X." But who knows what every NYC condo investor's circumstances or goals or assumptions are? Not I. I don't think prime luxury Manhattan rents are going to decline all that much, but I do think prime Manhattan condo prices will come down more than the rents will.

People bought condos at the Stratus thinking they would double in value within a few years, not because they compared their costs to rents.

I know only one person who bought a place at Stratus. I don't know his exact financial situation, how much he paid, what his income is (it will be down this year I presume, he was at Citi). But I never heard him say that he was looking to do anything other than live there. This fallacy that people are buying just to flip is a falsehood propelled by people who are angry - they can't have an agenda other than if potentially they own rental properties than just to be simply angry.

"This fallacy that people are buying just to flip is a falsehood propelled by people who are angry."

I was pointing out to counter steve's rent-v-buy arguments that buyers who pay what steve thinks is too much are not looking at it the same way he does. The prices of condos have gone so high partly through flipping. It is also probably part of buyers' thinking that they may be able to rent something for less today, but they can't predict the future of the rental market, and if a neighborhood is rapidly escalating in property values, they could expect to keep a lid on their monthly nut by buying, whereas by renting for less today they may end up screwed down the road. Really, this is far too complex to just reduce the value of every single coop and condo to what steve might pay with 20% down and mortgage X today versus what he might find to rent around the corner. I'm not propelled by any agenda or anger; I'm simply pointing out that different factors go into a person's number crunching when they buy at the Chelsea Stratus than simply "what can I rent this out to a tenant for if I move," and if a person does buy as an investment and rent out a unit, we cannot assume they paid the minimum downpayment, or what their interest rate is, what their investment strategy is.

Steve is interested in rent-v-buy as a yardstick to gauge how much the condo market overshot, and presumably predicting that there is a given point at which reverting to the mean will occur. I dispute that, although I agree with him that there is some correlation.

> They have no arguments against my arguments, buddyparker, so they attack me personally.

Thats actually a lie. Many of Steve's points have been clearly and cleanly refuted, and then he usually resorts to tantrums... then claims its the other folks who aren't talking facts. Steve's stock market mistakes, for instance, are very well documented. He might call them personal attacks, but "your analysis was wrong, and your calls were wrong" aren't personal insults, they are true statements.

Quite a bit of hypocrisy.

ccdevi: the problem with your argument; that there are other reasons other than economic for wanting to own a home is valid but only in a non-bubble situation.

back in 2000 when prices for condos /co-ops were in line with residents income then non-economic rational makes perfect sense.

We are now in a time when people view their homes as investments as opposed to places to live...the economics has become the predominant variable in this analysis.

When there is a 30%-50% cost increase in being a homeowner it makes absolutely no sense to pay attention to non-economic factors. I would argue that the purchasers at this level are buying because they believe their investment will increase; not because they get some warm and gooey feeling from being a homeowner or some other intangible nor measured by money.

I never understood why people would buy at a price where renting makes so much more sense. But I heard from someone once their philosophy for buying RE with negative cash flow. At $500/mo, after 30 years, they will own it. That is one way of rationalizing it, but not when that $500 becomes $4000, doubling the price to rent just to own.

"I would argue that the purchasers at this level are buying because they believe their investment will increase; not because they get some warm and gooey feeling from being a homeowner or some other intangible nor measured by money."

I know this is arguing semantics, but if the homeowner wanted that warm and gooey feeling at price X, but was outbid on four properties, and finally ended up paying price X+15%, that doesn't mean necessarily that they were motivated purely by expectations of rapid equity appreciation. All these factors have blurred together in a white-hot market. Supply has not caught up with demand until now.

lowery : I would agree with you at 15%. but not at 30%-50%.

Maybe there are some people who do not know how much cheaper it is to rent as opposed to being a homeowner

"ccdevi: the problem with your argument; that there are other reasons other than economic for wanting to own a home is valid but only in a non-bubble situation."

Thats a broad conclusion thats simply not true. While I certainly agree that as it gets more expensive to own versus rent, and as times get hard and people watch their $ closer, they are apt to attribute less value to owning, or maybe a better way to say it is that they become more apt to save money by doing without the non-economic benefits of owning, just as they tend to eat at home more and forgo the pleasures of eating out. BUT you seem to be saying that those reasons go away entirely, thats simply and rankly obviously not true, its all part of a value judgment. When you say something like "When there is a 30%-50% cost increase in being a homeowner it makes absolutely no sense to pay attention to non-economic factors" That is a value judgment.

All this is really no different then the age old stay in the city or move to the burbs calculation that people do in good times and bad. They balance $ and space versus convenience and city life. There are people who look at what I pay to rent a 2br in the city and think it makes absolutely no sense for me to do that when I could live outside the city and get more space for a lot less $. Thats there value judgment, I obviously disagree, and thats what makese the world go round.

"I would argue that the purchasers at this level are buying because they believe their investment will increase"

Thats simply not correct in all cases. I have 2 friends who bought in the past 8 months knowing they were paying top $, they did it because they felt it was time in their lives to settle down, not with an expectation of making gobs of money on their "investment."

ccdevi: so they bought fully prepared they could go down 20%-30% and not care?

ok

they bought something they could live with for what they feel is the longterm (5 years - 10 years) and they fully expect to be holding when the market returns, and they will make a profit...I'm sure they purchased a nice view, great location, very good school districts etc.

they expect to mae a profit when they resell...they think the downturn will be short or they can live through it.

I'm sure you feel the same about the property you have...nothing is the matter with it...but I am also sure that you feel you have a prime property in a desireable location that when you are ready to sell it will be higher than the price at which you purchased

This kind of rationalization happens in every bubble pop...

But, when it comes to RE, nothing gets spared...

nyc10022 what does that even mean?

hey look at nyc10022, he's Yoda or the Dalai Lama or that weird old guy at the top of the mountain.

lintintin, are you retarded? Or just having spasms?

"so they bought fully prepared they could go down 20%-30% and not care"

I never said that or anything like that.

"they bought something they could live with for what they feel is the longterm (5 years - 10 years)"

yes

"they fully expect to be holding when the market returns, and they will make a profit"

I haven't discussed it in those terms with them.

"I'm sure they purchased a nice view, great location, very good school districts etc."

Actually no. But what is even the point of this? You are no doubt aware that people have recently purchased places that don't meet these criteria.

"I'm sure you feel the same about the property you have"

Of course I hope to make a profit, I certainly wouldn't say I expect to. I can tell you for certain though that I bought my current place because we loved it and want to raise our family there. Did I do rent/by comparisons, sure, was it expensive to buy, yes, did we proceed anyway because of non-economic factors, yes. Thats simply a fact.

neither

ccdevi: all I'm saying is that in the past 8 years the reason to buy has changed...it is so subtle (you dont even realize it) and yet so strong...as you read my reply your initial respone was probably"well of course they expect to make a profit eventually...thats normal"

all I'm saying is that thought process involving profit is a very recent change...in the past people did buy using just the non-financial factors you discussed...that has changed but everything eventually resorts to the mean. That is nature.

I actually agree with flmd's sentiment. Its not 100% clear in the way he wrote it... but, yes, the motivations have definitely shifted away from non-financial in the last few years.

Mainly because the prices were too high to buy without the financial assumptions. I get that some folks see other benefits from owning, but at the price levels we saw, no one with a brain was doing that.

"all I'm saying is that in the past 8 years the reason to buy has changed"

but thats not all you said. Again I would agree that as buying gets more expensive relative to renting that non-economic factors will be more likely to be outweighed by the extra economic cost. That is obvious. That is very different then saying those non-economic factors no longer exist which is what you said.

"as you read my reply your initial respone was probably"well of course they expect to make a profit eventually...thats normal"

no not at all.

"but at the price levels we saw, no one with a brain was doing that"

another clear value judgment. you might say the same thing about someone who paid 10k for a 42 incg plasma 7 years ago or who pays a 500k initiation fee at a country club. and thats fine for you. but you're imposing your values on others.

"Never buy a place that costs more than it would cost you to rent it, out-of-pocket, because if you wouldn't buy it to rent to someone else, why buy it to rent to yourself?"
I like this as a rule of thumb. If I find a place that's no more than $2k above equivalent rent, I'd consider buying; if it's $5k above, I won't buy.

Can someone update stevejhx's numbers? 10D sold for $2.3MM about 17 months ago. 14D for $2.95 2 months ago. 8D listed for $2.5 about a year ago but didn't sell.

brilliant