People who bought

Are you mentally challenged juiceman? I asked for specific numbers related to his purchase and the neighborhood to find comp rentals because is incorrect about the inputs to his model. For example if he is using a lux rental to get the 18x number on his tenement. I'm not debating him on his model although Steve has already shot it down as nonsense.

Mentally challenged? No. Tired of people whining about tech_guys numbers? Yes. The model tech_guy put forth is entirely reasonable. Why in the hell would he share the actual numbers of his place on a public board? With you clowns? Debate the numbers he put forward, they are actually quite conservative.

"Steve has already shot it down as nonsense."

LMAO! jgr, you may be new to this board because steve's opinion on numbers means D-I-C-K. steve exaggerates the hell out of his numbers and is quite liberal with his "fact based scenarios". Discrediting tech_guy because of something steve said is probably the funniest thing I've read on this board in a while. Why don't you try to discredit him yourself based on your own numbers or research? Why are you relying on steve to form an opinion?

Juiceman, you are wrong here. You're just feeding the troll.

Tech_troll made up numbers - his "example" includes an apartment with $1 rent. When asked for a real example, he just repeats himself.

jgr's point is right.... steve has debated the logic, but jgr just pointed out the ridiculous of the made up example as proof idea for assessment of a market.

You're talking about someone who doesn't understand finance trying to "convince" everyone he didn't lose money in a market that declined 20%, using "examples" he made up to prove his point.

Personally, I'm amused that nyc10022 is off on other threads accusing me of having "verbal diarrhea", while refusing to answer my very reasonable questions about 18x vs. 30x in this thread.

"Tech_troll made up numbers - his "example" includes an apartment with $1 rent"

If you're not smart enough to understand how to scale up ratios, we have nothing more to discuss. Quite ironic that you accuse me of not understanding finance, when you can't understand elementary mathematics.

"When asked for a real example, he just repeats himself."

Tell you what - you reveal your name and home address first, and then you won't sound like a desperate hypocrite for insisting I reveal mine.

OK, troll.

You didn't make the mistake of a lifetime, buying at the top of the a bubble, because you made up the $20 apartment that rents for $1.

You are not a loser after all!

Now will you go away? Noone is interested in your stupidity...

"Why don't you try to discredit him yourself based on your own numbers or research? "

I'm not going to waste my time on a hypothetical model when I know the inputs to come up with the model are complete bullshit. If you are too stupid to understand that point then I feel sorry for you. You spend time with the "entirely reasonable" model. Did it tell you that houses were screaming buy 6 months ago? How'd that prediction work out?

nyc10022, if you don't understand the math, stop trolling. Let us adults who understand math debate the numbers. Its over your head, so just butt out. Even stevejhx understands *exactly* what I mean with my ratios. You're proving yourself less capable than him when it comes to simple math...

"I'm not going to waste my time on a hypothetical model when I know the inputs to come up with the model are complete bullshit"

You seem to not understand what hypotheticals are. Forget the reality of it - do you agree that 18x (even if its 100% impossible to find in today's market) is about break even?

"'m not going to waste my time on a hypothetical model when I know the inputs to come up with the model are complete bullshit. If you are too stupid to understand that point then I feel sorry for you. You spend time with the "entirely reasonable" model. Did it tell you that houses were screaming buy 6 months ago? How'd that prediction work out?"

LOL

and, no, I didn't even sneak a peak at the tech_troll comments... if there is one good thing about this, it makes me realize that at least pertfitz is amusing... he's an ass, but at least he has a brain.

"I'm not going to waste my time on a hypothetical model when I know the inputs to come up with the model are complete bullshit. If you are too stupid to understand that point then I feel sorry for you."

"Tech_troll made up numbers - his "example" includes an apartment with $1 rent. When asked for a real example, he just repeats himself."

nyc10022 & jgr, let's not get nasty. Just look at the model again. I know it pains you to admit, but you are arguing from a position of weakness here. tech_guy is correct.

tech_guy, you have come up with a simplified model that makes perfect sense. I'm not sure why they don't see it, but thanks for posting.

Thanks JuiceMan. Honestly at this point, I think they know its right, but instead think they can bait me into revealing the personal details of my purchase. They can't debate the numbers, so they're trying to gather personal information about me to attack the source.

They really must have sunken quite low to demand someone reveal private information about themselves - I wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror if I were them.

"because steve's opinion on numbers means D-I-C-K."

I published where I got my formulas from, and my data from. I'm the only one who's done it. I've done it with historical price-to-rent ratios, PITI ratios, imputed rent ratios, disposable income to price ratios, p/e ratios, owners occupied rent, break-even point on investment real estate. I could go on.

If that's dick, fine. I like dick.

> nyc10022 & jgr, let's not get nasty

Juiceman, thats not nasty, you are delirious. I gave a specific answer, and you ignored it. And it was what you QUOTED. I never complained about the model, I complained about the stupidity of making up data to fill it.

Here it is again.. "Tech_troll made up numbers - his "example" includes an apartment with $1 rent. When asked for a real example, he just repeats himself."

I'm not sure why you're not smart enough to pick that up.... we've told you this several times. Nothing nasty there. The point was stupid, and I pointed out the stupidity, without even a nasty word.

Fact is, we're now down 20%. It is stupidity to fabricate a model with made up data to "prove" it didn't or won't. It is here, and there is empirical data now. Using not even an anecdote but MADE UP NUMEBRS as inputs is just the dumbest part of it.

Anybody missing this point either has trouble with math or is in absolute denial. 20% is here, and it was a faster fall than anywhere else in the entire country.

The crash is in, and its a little late for rationalizing why it won't happen.

First, the 20% is not fact. Its predictions made by 2 sources, but the data isn't in to prove that yet.

Second, you completely failed to acknowledge where I said properties at higher ratios (which is all you point to) are going to fall in line with roughly 18x ratios. Read the last 2 posts on the previous page in this very thread. Those properties will fall - I never doubted that.

Its pretty evident that you care more about doom and gloom, and less about the truth.

"If that's dick, fine. I like dick."

I may not like your numbers but you do make me laugh. I've never argued your ratios steve, let’s just say we disagree with the inputs sometimes.

"It is stupidity to fabricate a model with made up data to "prove" it didn't or won't. It is here, and there is empirical data now. Using not even an anecdote but MADE UP NUMEBRS as inputs is just the dumbest part of it."

nyc10022, you are missing the point. The model accurately depicts a 20x ratio, which was the great debate. The model is correct. It is not made up, it is not hypothetical, it is real. If you want to challenge the inputs fine, but the model is solid. What exactly and specifically do you want to challenge about the model? You are dancing around the issue.

Juiceman, please read more carefully before you post again. I didn't challenge the model, just the inputs... which were made up. You are attributing the 20x debate to me, which is a mistake on your part. I noted that there were plenty of examples well above even the 20x ratio, which was denied without any evidence to the contrary. And then I noted entire threads on it, to which there was no response.

"nyc10022, you are missing the point. ... You are dancing around the issue."

Sounds like you just don't know what the point is then... I made it very clear, there was a WEALTH of 25-30x in this down before the crash, which is how anybody with any intelligence could have seen the crash coming.

You really need to read more carefully bfore you make accusations.

So you are saying the model is solid. Good we agree. Now what inputs do you have an issue with?

BTW, if you DO want to discuss models.... any model needs to factor in rent changes and underlying price changes, as all the standard models do.

If you get those wrong, you can "prove" any ratio you want... had anyone factored in the decline of 20% and enough rent decreases, you probably could have proven a 5x ration too.

I've said it time and time aain, the models blow up in major price decreases.... and, now that we have it, its sort of a moot point. Buying AFTER the decline means a better buy than before, and as long as you weren't paying 10x market rate, renting just proved to be smarter.

The 20% locked in renting as the smart option.

"BTW, if you DO want to discuss models.... any model needs to factor in rent changes and underlying price changes, as all the standard models do."

OMG, you are one the folks focused on the 12x, 15x, 18x ratios. How can you now say that you need a better model? I agree by the way, but you are one of the many constantly focused on these ratios. Seems like a bit of backpedaling nyc10022?

Juiceman, I'm out. You seem to have trouble with reading..

I never said we need a better model, I pointed out that the popular models all should (and do) include the rent changes and price changes.... and recent changes way beyond earlier assumptions sort of skew the results.

"I agree by the way, but you are one of the many constantly focused on these ratios. Seems like a bit of backpedaling nyc10022? "

OK, you're having trouble understanding.... this is my last time and I'm out.

I've said this for months... the models can give you a baseline, and assuming even modest price appreciation and rents increasing - which you need to get to the 20x ratios - we were still overpriced given the 25x and 30x. I also made it VERY clear at the time that if you put in lower rents and prices, the models need to be shifted lower.

We now HAVE those lower prices and rents. That isn't backpedalling, that is my prediction coming true.

It means the models had the wrong assumptions in the first place. If you put the 20% declines in back then, you'd be looking at 5x ratios as "correct".

Thats the point... the models needed prices to at least stay vaguely consistent.

Once they tanked, the models essentially all fell flat, because noone was assuming 20% price declines in them, let alone 40%.

If you still don't understand this, please ask Steve.

I'm a little tired of explaining it to folks who don't get it.

If you want the simple story, the decline is in. It is here. Renting has now been proven the smarter option in the last few years, because even high rent would have been cheaper than a 20% capital loss leveraged likely 5x. Thats 100% loss.

You would have had to burn money, or pay 4x market rates to have lost that renting.

I'm off this thread.

Quoting myself because its appropriate:

"I've said this before. If you see 25x, I see a place needing at least a 20% cut. If you see 30x, I see a place needing at least a 33% cut.

You call for what, a 40% cut across the board? Do you really believe the cuts to an 18x property will be similar (percentage-wise) to the cuts in a 30x property?"

Any response? Anything at all? Its extremely silly for you to claim I denied the existence of properties priced over 20x... if you search the archives, you'll say I've said this same thing weeks ago.

“Juiceman, you are wrong here. You're just feeding the troll.

Tech_troll made up numbers - his "example" includes an apartment with $1 rent. When asked for a real example, he just repeats himself.

jgr's point is right.... steve has debated the logic, but jgr just pointed out the ridiculous of the made up example as proof idea for assessment of a market.”

This was you right nyc10022? Just checking to make sure this was you and not someone else disagreeing with the model and the numbers tech_guy used. You seem to think that I misunderstood your posts so I’m making sure.

"Juiceman, I'm out. You seem to have trouble with reading"

"this is my last time and I'm out."

"I'm a little tired of explaining it to folks who don't get it."

"I'm off this thread."

nyc10022, you are a piece of work. You spend all day antagonizing people, calling folks morons, idiots, losers, and you are by far the most condescending jerk on this site. Yet, when someone asks you to explain yourself or requires more specifics on your opinions, you change the subject and run and hide. Why is that?

The way I see it is:
These days, we've been programmed to buy stocks or real estate with our savings.
Very few hold savings in cash.

So, unless you are a great market timer, you probably either got killed in the stock market recently (renters), or you're stuck holding your depreciating property (owners).

It's not pretty for anyone. Owners are trying to preserve capital to stay above water. Renters who are Potential Buyers are trying to accumulate wealth to reach higher downpayment and wealth requirements. Both hope they don't lose their jobs. If you're single, you have it "easy"... just taking care of yourself with options to live with parents, family, roommate, etc. Situation gets more serious if you have a family.

Nobody wins. Rubbing it people's faces begs for a smack down from karma.

"I may not like your numbers but you do make me laugh."

Laughter is my goal, JM. But you've seen my vids.

Tecchie: "Quoting myself because its appropriate"

My, you must love being alone!

"the cuts to an 18x property will be similar"

No. 12x.

"Any response? Anything at all?"

Yeah. Where did you get the 18x you made up? What theory? What data? What delusion?

"Very few hold savings in cash."

Wrong. I hold fully 50% in cash. Okay, it's only $1.95, but that's still 50%.

LMAO.

You know that movie Memento? I think that's stevejhx. Maybe if I tattoo my math to his forearm he'll stop asking me for it.

"Maybe if I tattoo my math to his forearm he'll stop asking me for it."

Maybe if you gave a reason for your math, I wouldn't need a tattoo.

The theory of relativity says you can't travel faster than the speed of light. Economic theory says property prices can't increase faster than income.

You say they can. Give us the proof. A lunar eclipse, tecchie, or something.

"So, unless you are a great market timer, you probably either got killed in the stock market recently (renters), or you're stuck holding your depreciating property (owners)."

I completely disagree. It didn't take genius to recognize it was time to get out of the market as soon as the banks started having trouble. BSC should have been all you needed.

"Very few hold savings in cash."

People need to think differently then. Cash savings are essential for getting through the rough times (job loss) and unexpected expenses without resorting to high interest credit cards. You should not need to touch any money you invest in the stock market for 10 years or more. Otherwise you open yourself to the risk of a 50% downturn, job loss, and credit retraction hitting all at once.

stevejhx: My theories will be proven by a partial lunar eclipse on 2/9/2009 and a full lunar eclipse 12/21/2010. The eerily repetitious numbers are a sign of how repetitive it feels talking to you.

>>I completely disagree. It didn't take genius to recognize it was time to get out of the market as soon as the banks started having trouble.

I agree that there were many warning signs. But regardless, what percentage of people got mauled by the stock market since September? Or own property? If you avoided both real estate and stocks then I would argue that you've been "timing the market". And most people are either too busy, lazy or ignorant to do that effectively.

>> People need to think differently then. Cash savings are essential for getting through the rough times

Couldn't agree more, but our nation is a nation of spenders and debters.

"Economic theory says property prices can't increase faster than income."

they cant? what happened the last x years?

dont even bother. this thread is awful. this board sucks, why do i come back, guess its like a car crash or something

"If you want the simple story, the decline is in. It is here. Renting has now been proven the smarter option in the last few years"

Just a terrible generalization. nyc10022, you're better than this.

Can anyone acknowledge that real estate is strange, and resists generalization?

Isn't it a generalization to say that real estate resists generalizations? ;)

People will see what they want to see. There are a lot of badly priced properties that went up irrationally during the bubble, and now are getting beat down - that 600+ post thread has a lot. Superficially, when they post a 1 bedroom that sold for $1700 / sqft in 2007 and $1300 / sqft in 2008, it looks pretty bad (I don't remember exact numbers, but those are close). Over 20%!

Then you realize, its $1300/sqft for a 1 bedroom. A good one, but not an amazing one. $1700 was ridiculous, $1300 is still overpriced. Of course its going to go down, and by a lot. Does that worry people in a sub-$1000/sqft bedroom? It shouldn't.

That's the point I tried to make with nyc10022, but he refused to even acknowledge. He finds a lot of 30x price to rent properties, and those will drop like a brick. He ignores the 18x properties, which are priced attractively. Granted, I ignore the 30x, but that's natural, no? Every buyer knows there are irrationally priced properties out there, both now and during bull markets, and that they should focus on good value, not stupidly high priced crap.

Well said, tech_guy. There's been a lot of drops, as you said, and it's a bit easy to get swept up in it all and make grand proclamations. I even forgot the 4Q reports aren't out yet! Those will probably be pretty ugly. Still, I find it amusing that nyc keeps calling you a troll, even though it's plainly untrue, and he was the one who decided to surreptitiously switch screennames once his posts just got too profane and ridiculous.

bjw: switch screennames?

b/f I go slap some sense into exit2.... techie.. two parts to a ratio.. .what if rents go down?

Think..... I mean.... compute.... compute...... compute........

Gotta go change my car.... I've got a stalker looking for my 2005 cayenne turbo (blk) with Lic plate # IDEHOE in edgewater....

Tina... at least you got a sense of humor :) Cheers... all where's all my titles!

w67th: You're 100% right. If rents go down, a 30x ratio will be a better buy than an 18x ratio. Of course, they have to go negative for that to be true, but that's what you meant, right?

steve,

did you really just write that property values can't increase faster than income? why don't you look at that sentence a few times and reconsider it. what you may mean is that over a long period of time income and real estate prices will TEND to hold to some approximate ratio; that would be true. but whatever economic 'theory' you are spouting that says real estate values cannot rise faster than income...obviously there is something wrong there.

by the way, this obsession with these ratios is pretty funny as well--you all act like it is even possible to "prove" that one ratio or another is the golden key that unlocks the secret to real estate pricing. i have news for you: it's a lot more complicated. as tech_guy himself admits, his ratio only works if rents increase. and voila--rents are decreasing. on the other side, if one stubbornly clings to steve's 12x rent ratio, my parents would not have made 100x their initial investment in their apartment on the UWS--they would have sold when real estate started to look bubbly in 1986. you have to look at a lot more than these ratios because things change over time: more families can decide to stay in the city or move to the suburbs. terrorists can attack. crime can decrease, or it can increase. taxes can increase, of they can decrease. rent control and rent stabilization laws can change. new construction can increase, and it can come to a screeching halt. the mortgage tax deduction can change. interest rates can fall (well, they can't really fall from here) or they can rise. the public schools can get better, or they can get worse. and then there's the opportunity cost--very complicated to value. equities can take off like a rocket, or they can crash. hedge funds can implode. shall i go on?

the decision to buy, and then the decision what to buy, cannot simply be made by drawing a comparison to current rents, for, among other obvious reasons, the fact that current rents are just that: current. comparable rents are one of the most useful factors for valuing real estate, but they are anything but the only ones. there is no one ratio that governs real estate prices or guarantees that you will (or will not) make out well with a purchase. stop search for investment holy grails people.

tech_guy,

clearly an apartment with a 30x rent ratio is more likely to lose more money than an apartment with an 18x rent ratio. is that in dispute? i think the more interesting questions are: will either be a good investment? why is there such a disparity (or is their such a disparity) among various similar units. in your example above you claim that there are one bedrooms that sold for 1700 sq feet, and that if they decline that should not worry someone who paid less that 1000psf for his one bedroom. but on what basis do you make that argument? are they comparable apartments? are they in the same neighborhood? in similar buildings? you claim that they were overpriced--in fact, they were NOT overpriced if they sold. They were priced correctly for the market. if they sold, then they were part of the market. real people bought them for real prices. your opinion that they were overpriced isn't the point--the market sets prices, and if they sold then they weren't overpriced. they may have been overVALUED...if they are declinging from 17 to 13 psf then it is safe to say that they were. but not overpriced.

and i would not be so sanguine about the price stability for dumpy, cookie-cutter one-bedrooms that never sold for over 1000 psf. as inventory continues to rise there is going to be enormous downward pressure on units that don't stand out. if you have a fabulous apartment you can always hope for some rich person to come along and fall in love with it. if you live in a 600 square foot one bedroom in a 300 unit building on third avenue the chances of that are somewhere between slim and none.

HR absolutely agreed... what I love about RE is the stability of it (hehehe) and its closeness to cash flow... its the sort of foundation upon which all asset classes are valued upon (look at all the 99yr leases in happy old england and still some in NYC)... now that's stability in a sense as it will outlive most lives and therefore can be looked upon as a bedrock upon which to value a CDS or an equity share.... but lets assume some people here could and did time the market, let's say within 20%... then how much "home" could your parents have had? (maybe 15CPW worth?)... and given most americans move every 7 years (I would imagine much more frequently in NYC) and that would equate to 2x 3yr term leases, for most NYCers current directions in both rents and home prices are Very relevant to our discussion of techie's ill timed purchase...

happyrenter: Its hard to argue that $1700 was a reasonable price. Again, I don't remember the exact apartment, but its pretty easy to find $1000/sqft for an apartment in a great location, great views, great building amenities. Sure, you may need to gut-renovate it, but that's not $700/sqft.

"in fact, they were NOT overpriced if they sold ... overVALUED"

Ok - but this is a matter of definitions, not meaning. You understood exactly what I meant, you just have issue with the terminology I use. Which is fine - I agree that overvalued is a better word, but it doesn't change my underlying point.

"and i would not be so sanguine about the price stability for dumpy, cookie-cutter one-bedrooms that never sold for over 1000 psf"

What about the rental equivalent stability?

"if you have a fabulous apartment you can always hope for some rich person to come along and fall in love with it"

Hope is not a strategy. If you can't justify costs with rental equivalents, you're deluding yourself (and I say "you're" in the general sense - I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir right now). Unless its so fabulous that there are no rental equivalents, but again, it all comes down to rental equivalents.

For the record, happyrenter's description does not describe my place. But I'm done talking about my place. It leads nowhere interesting. "Are you happy with your purchase?" "Yes" "Prove it" "No" "I don't believe you" "I don't care" - anyone who wants to discuss it with me can reread that last line and get it out of their system.

no, tech_guy, i do not just disagree with your wording, i disagree with your point. the apartment was NOT OVERPRICED. how can i say that any more clearly? when something is overpriced, it does not sell. you think it was overvalued. i agree. i think your apartment was overvalued as well, along with virtually every single apartment that sold in Manhattan in the last four years. but i am not the market, and the market said they were priced right, so they sold. whether i am proven right that they were overvalued will be demonstrated over the next few years. it's looking pretty good so far, but who knows.

as for rental equivalents...you yourself have said that the appropriate ratio of rent to purchase price fluctuates over time. it also seems clear that the ratio is somewhat different for different types of apartments (the premium to rent should be higher for small apartments, since people will want to move more often). and since a mortgage is usually for 30 years, it should be about rental equivalent over a long period of time--that is, it should be about projected rents far more than current rents. i'm guessing that whatever projection you had for rents when you bought your apartment have not come to pass, no? you can cling to one formula as the answer to everything, or you can attempt to look holistically at an extremely complex market. which one do you think is going to workout better for you?

as for hope not being a strategy, you are making light of what should be an indisputable point: supply and demand being what they are, apartments with rare and coveted features may do much better in a downturn. cookie cutter can do well when things move quickly, but when fifteen similar apartments are for sale on the same block as has started to happen, the only way they can differentiate themselves is by price. we're looking at the difference between selling something under a valuable brand, and selling a commodity.

"how can i say that any more clearly?"

You can't. Instead, reread what I wrote and everywhere you see "overpriced", substitute "overvalued". I meant what you described, and I agree your word for it is better than my word for it. How can I say that any more clearly?

"i'm guessing that whatever projection you had for rents when you bought your apartment have not come to pass, no? "

My projection was no change. Best numbers linked here show anywhere between a 2% and 5% change. In the mean time, I refinanced my mortgage quite a bit lower.

"you can cling to one formula as the answer to everything"

I never said anything of the sort. Where are you getting this from?

i'm getting it, tech_guy, from your obsession with your 18x formula and statements like "it's all about rental equivalents." that suggests a myopic or willfully ignorant view of the real estate market.

why does the math matter so much when we already know that anything bought last summer is down twenty percent? We are seeing the market conditions under which rent needs to be much higher not equal to entice buyers to buy in a falling market. Until rents jumped in 96 people were actually paying an after tax monthly premium for the privilige to own. If rentprice equalnto aftertax cost of carry was gonna hold as support it would have. If Steve was wrong that pretax was the way to look at it for a sound long term investment then we wouldn't already be down so much so f
Fast.

1996 above should read 2006. Ratios vary. One reason is condo vs. Coop. Another is higher maintenance. In the end there isn't an asset or commodity on earth that hasn't been smoked since sept so why dream that tech guys one bed is the us treasury of the real estate market.
One beds aren't an investment. If the monthly savings is so high and you are so young then you buy it. Tech guy is neither and even if it was the deal of the summer of 2008 it's still down and headed down further. Just because the plaza condos sold at 30x doesn't mean their spread can't hold and who cares. 18x is high because it had never been seen since 1988 and won't be seen again before 2018. Shut it. Sell it at a loss when you must and realize that isyour reality. You will either be a bachelor for a decade or sell your one bed at a loss. These are your outcomes. Mathematically.

Rhino - Until rents jumped in 96 people were actually paying an after tax monthly premium for the privilige to own.

This is because people kept their money in stocks for the (allegedly) higher return. Why sink your money in an apartment, when you could buy internet stocks?

RE was vastly undervalued in 1996.

Rhino - 18x is high because it had never been seen since 1988 and won't be seen again before 2018

Actually, the fair value number is about 20. Take the equivalent rent, subtract the co-op costs, multiply by 20. That is fair value. 5%, same as a muni. Has been since the days of John Jacob Astor.

On this calculation most prime Manhattan co-op real estate is a good value right now, and was fairly valued pre-Lehman.

happyowner,

you think that residential real estate has an equivalent risk profile to a municipal bond? that's just incredible. municipal bonds pay out guaranteed returns backed by the tax authority of a government entity. how can you compare the risk of such an instrument to residential real estate?

renter - you think that residential real estate has an equivalent risk profile to a municipal bond? that's just incredible. municipal bonds pay out guaranteed returns backed by the tax authority of a government entity. how can you compare the risk of such an instrument to residential real estate?

Have you looked at the market value of your long-term, non-treasury bond portfolio lately? Say some 20 year NYC GOs, or MTAs or water bonds? Not pretty - they are off maybe 20 percent if you needed to sell right now.

Plus rents go up over time, so ownership gives you some inflation protection. And I "guarantee" you that if you own, you will not pay a landlord rent. Guaranteed. No taxing authority needed.

what's funnier is that at the peak of what is now recognized as the biggest bubble is real estate history that manhattan was fairly valued. That is fucking hilarity.

Rhino - what's funnier is that at the peak of what is now recognized as the biggest bubble is real estate history that manhattan was fairly valued.

Oh cheer up!! Ten years from now Manhattan real estate purchased earlier this year will be up roughly with inflation, plus the owners won't have paid rent with after-tax dollars. Not a bad rate of return!!

you mean like how real estate purchased in 1988 went up by the rate of inflation? Who could afford a ten year place in 2008? I will grant if you buy a lifetime apartment in 2008 you were wealthy enough not to give a shit.

"Every buyer knows there are irrationally priced properties out there, both now and during bull markets, and that they should focus on good value, not stupidly high priced crap."

tech_guy, I don't know your market very well, but in what we are/were looking for (3-4 bedrooms, 1700-2000SF, outdoor space, UES or UWS), the vast majority of what we were seeing in 2007 and into 2008 was "irrationally priced". In other words, that was the rule, not the exception. We decided to wait, and continue to do so, and I see more and more "rationally priced" apartments in our segment. Meanwhile, the irrationally priced ones we saw a few months ago are sitting and/or chopping.

happyrenter: You have grossly miscategorized me, and seem to be too closed minded to listen to reason. Try rereading what I wrote in the past a little more, and you'll see what I mean. This is common for you - like in the comps thread, where you posted a long thread attacking me (for something I never said nor believed), at the same time West81st agreed with me. Which shows that its not my inability to communicate - he understood - you're just attacking your own shadow.

I'm not obsessed with the 18x formula any more than I love its ability to demolish other people's arguments. People say renting is so much cheaper, I show it isn't always, they can't respond. I am *eager* for someone to discuss all the issues surrounding it with me, but so far nothing but ad hominem and circular logic.

You touched on one - maintenance - but just threw it out there as a side tangent that you assume I'd never consider. Really? Nobody's ever mentioned it before. Its quite obvious that it matters. Maybe try discussing it with me before concluding that I'd refuse to discuss it?

So much closed-mindedness...