Krugman minutes ago...

Doesn't surprise me.

we're down 25-30% off peak now, correct? (national).

A 40% total reduction would not surprise me...

i agree. i do not think this is a news flash, so to speak, but just reinforcement from a nobel prize winning economist.

absolutely. we are not out of the woods yet by any means. i think the first positive sign will be when home prices start to decline at an decelerating rate, which hasnt happened yet.

define decelerating rate? not what it means but at what rate?

i have had my eye on some homes in Bergen County for the last 6 months or so and have seen no price reductions on them.
i am close to making some offers but i keep thinking "what are these people waiting for? 6 months, still on the market and no reduction?"

> define decelerating rate? not what it means but at what rate?

Its not a specific rate... it means when the rate of decline starts decreasing.

One possibility is an overshoot negative for housing values. Corrections often do that, and in a climate of job losses and net value destruction, it might very well happen. In that scenario, prices will fall lower than historical norms or incomes would support, as we get an inverse bubble from fear.

The rate at which a rate increases or decreases is its acceleration. The first rate is velocity. Physics applied to finance...

gotcha.

An "inverse bubble"?

Now I've heard everything. Is that like military intelligence?

Hint: it's called a bear market....not an inverse bubble.

50% from peak is about right - it's what I've been saying for a year.

It will be more than that in Manhattan - like it is in Detroit - as our main industry is dead and not coming back.

now NY is as bad as detroit? talk about a reverse bubble!

50% is an overshoot. The median price for Manhattan condos is likely to decline between 25% and 35%. Everything I've looked at suggests that it's probably closer to 35%...but def not 50%.

Manhattan will be like Detroit? Ridiculous.

Steve said only in that our main industry is in major trouble...

We do have more diversity in terms of people/employment... but, in terms of income, there are few other large cities in this country that got 1/3 of their income from one industry...

sniper, did you get my latest e-mail?

"Hint: it's called a bear market....not an inverse bubble."

Hint: a bear market could be rational or irrational, just like a bull market. Think about it and apply it to my point. Inverse bubble isn't the best name, I'll admit, but the idea is sound.

"It will be more than that in Manhattan"

More than 50% now steve? Are with anon3 at 75%?

i think so. was it the one in cliffside? if so, we are looking for a little more land, space between homes, etc.
thanks for sending the link though. i appreciate it.

"Manhattan will be like Detroit? Ridiculous."

Yes, just like a market crash in June of 2007 when predicted, or Manhattan prices nosediving. How many decades did it take Detroit to fall to where it is? Let's see where things are in 40 years. I hope much better. But ridiculous? Time has a way of flattening the mightiest empires.

An overshoot seems inevitable to me (not necessarily in NY but nationally) given the volume of foreclosures and the backlog of delayed foreclosures.

Got you. Just curious, what towns are you looking in?

"An overshoot seems inevitable to me (not necessarily in NY but nationally) given the volume of foreclosures and the backlog of delayed foreclosures. "

I agree nationally... but I think NYC gets it too, maybe worse. Wall Street isn't 100% dead, but its going to feel that way for a few years. The fear will probably lead to some overcorrection.

New York has never been as dependent on finance as Detroit has been on cars. A very interesting article in the current issue of the Atlantic points out that cities such as Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Des Moines, Charlotte, and various others have a far higher concentration of workers in finance. New York is the global center of finance, but it is not a one horse town: entertainment, music, performing arts, visual arts, light manufacturing, government, education, healthcare, pharma, tourism, design, etc. all have major presences here. As a city, I think New York will actually come out of this downturn in good shape relative to almost any other major city in the country. I am very bullish on New York.

But it is one thing to be bullish on New York and quite another to be bullish on the New York real estate market. In the end, the end of the absurd bubble in finance and real estate will be good for the city, but it will be painful in the short term. Finance has had an enormous and enormously disproportionate impact on real estate in the city over the last ten years. Add to this the end of the boom in foreign buyer, and tighter credit, and I wouldn't be surprised if New York City real estate declines well over 50% peak to trough. But let's be clear: a decline of well over 50% peak to trough could leave median manhattan apartment selling for well north of 400k. In Detroit the average home sells for $19,000 per year.

New York City is not going the way of Detroit. As the Atlantic monthly points out, there have been three global centers of finance since the emergence of a global market in the 17th century: Amsterdam, London, and New York. No other city has ever come close to rivaling any of these three at its peak. Two centuries after its emergence as the global financial capital London remains a close second to New York even as Britain has long since declined to relative insignificance in the global economy. There is a lot of stickiness in an international financial center, and believe me, the current model of wall street may be dead but global finance most certainly is not.

stevejhx: correction oh great one...you've been saying down 50% since September-October...easy

Manhattan has barely dropped. Sniper is a good example...paid $650k a few years ago listed it for $850k and just went to contract...where's the drop. Rents are dropping but sale prices are crazy high and not dropping that quickly.

people like LICComment, Juiceman and alpine are in no position to say anything is ridiculous...a year ago you thought a 5%-10% decline would be ridiculous.

now that you think a plus 50% decline is ridiculous I have to give it 50/50 shot of happening

the overshoot can and will happen if the legislator and Patterson go through with their promise to raise taxes on NYC families making 150,000 and more

Sniper - towns like Ridgewood in Bergen County are similar to Summit and Westfield in that they will have less of a hit due to great schools, nice town centers with good restaurants (for the burbs), ease of commute to NYC and taxes that are not outrageous (not low, but not Greenwich, CT by a longshot).

I think there almost has to be some overshoot, doesn't there? I am figuring 5% on top of the decline for NYC, but that is nothing more than a quick guess.

"New York has never been as dependent on finance as Detroit has been on cars. A very interesting article in the current issue of the Atlantic points out that cities such as Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Des Moines, Charlotte, and various others have a far higher concentration of workers in finance."

You missed several points here... this argument was already said (by me, in fact).

What you miss here is that the for NYC is that 1/3 of INCOME came from Wall Street. That blows away most of those other cities. Talk about concentration all you want, but this is an insanely significant blow to the local economy and goverment.

The other point you miss is, yes, NYC will likely stay the (or at least a) capital of finance. That wasn't the point made.

No one said Detroit won't be motor city anymore. Simply that motor city will just mean a whole lot less.

So, yes, NY has other things, and we'll have some Wall Street. But we just got 30% of our income indefinitely decimated.

"Manhattan has barely dropped. Sniper is a good example...paid $650k a few years ago listed it for $850k and just went to contract...where's the drop. Rents are dropping but sale prices are crazy high and not dropping that quickly."

Yes, Julia... ignore all the stats... and the COUNTLESS threads on comps significantly lower... because you have an anecdote with no real numbers attached!

nyc10022,

i don't see how anything you said refutes any of what i said. detroit has a sinking population, 19% unemployment, and average home sales of 19k per year. you think new york is really going to be the next detroit? the truth is that detroit isn't the motor city any more. at one time it was the global center of car manufacturing by a large margin. the united states dominated the global automobile industry, and the domestic industry was hugely concentrated in detroit. neither of those circumstances remains. if you agree that new york will remain the capital of international finance then you can't believe it will be the next detroit. let's add that new york is also the global capital of media, advertising, the performing arts, and one of a handful of global centers of government, the visual arts, fashion, and tourism. what did detroit ever have other than cars?

the point you make about the dramatic decline in new york's income is indisputable: hence the severe pain that i alluded to in my post. and hence my extreme bearishness on new york real estate. but there's no reason why this decline in income will lead to a long-term decline for the city. one doesn't follow from the other. new york is well-positioned to remain a center of finance, art, media, government, education, and, more broadly, innovation of all kinds. if i didn't think that it would, i'd be moving. real estate will plummet, the city will go through a painful period. but it is not detroit.

"More than 50% now steve? Are with anon3 at 75%?"

Not 75%, no. 55% from peak to trough, unless something miraculous and unforeseen happens in the NYC economy. It's possible, but not probable, at least that I can see now.

I've been saying 50% since I started posting a year ago.

NY is not as dependent on finance as Detroit is on cars, but the difference between what the financial people were making and what everyone else was making - in Manhattan real estate terms, at least - was far greater than in Detroit. Manhattan's income distribution is (was?) as skewed as Guatemala's.

All income distributions anywhere are skewed because incomes are not normally distributed...

good point steve--in other words, the situation in new york is completely different from the situation in detroit. in detroit, the decline of the auto industry lead to a broad-based decline, massive unemployment, and significant population decline. in new york, the popping of the finance bubble is leading to a massive loss of wealth among a small number of people, and the reverberations of that massive loss of wealth through the rest of the economy. there will be a huge impact on our city, but a very different impact from the one in detroit. it's just a false analogy.

"people like LICComment, Juiceman and alpine are in no position to say anything is ridiculous...a year ago you thought a 5%-10% decline would be ridiculous."

flmd, you should get your facts straight. My prediction in Q4 of 2007 was that Manhattan would be flat to slightly down for 2008. I was completely wrong about that prediction for most of 2008 because prices continued to increase throughout the year, until Lehman happened. At the end of 2008, my predictions of where prices would be were actually the most accurate of anyone posting here (including steve, nyc10022, etc) Should I pat myself on the back like others?. Since the economic collapse, I have yet to make another prediction but I do continue to argue vigorously against uneducated, pull out of your ass 50-75% off predictions.

If you don’t believe me flmd, look it up. It is all documented right here.

new york is also home to the growing field of internet marketing - involves creative personnel, marketing personnel, sales people, technical web experts, etc.. right now, advertising on the internet has not come close to increasing to meet the amount of internet users. this is and will continue to be a boom industry and NYC will be the leader. there's way more dollars spent on advertising out of NYC than out of any other US city, and all the creative and media sales people are here.

"but there's no reason why this decline in income will lead to a long-term decline for the city. one doesn't follow from the other. new york is well-positioned to remain a center of finance, art, media, government, education, and, more broadly, innovation of all kinds."

happyrenter,

Very well said (and ps - I like how you write posts in letter format - I am stealing that from you, so thanks!). I think it's easy to lose sight of Wall St's real impact on real estate here - it's not that bankers themselves can no longer buy 8-figure apartments, it's the impact on the general local and state economies from the layoffs and bonus drops. That impacts everyone (not just those involved in real estate), but there are so many strong industries here that the city will recover relatively quickly. I'm with you on that.

right you are, bjw. but over the long term, it is not healthy of a city to become overdependent on one industry. isn't it a good thing that professionals and the creative class may be able to afford in manhattan again? i'm happy about it myself. i may work in finance but it doesn't mean i want to live surrounded by investment bankers.

happyrenter, good post. Finally some common sense around here.

happyrenter,

Totally agree. That's the beauty of this city - it draws in all kinds of people, and that's central to its vitality and durability.

HR - I agree as well...good post.

"All income distributions anywhere are skewed because incomes are not normally distributed..."

Not as badly as they are here.

"there will be a huge impact on our city, but a very different impact from the one in detroit. it's just a false analogy."

It's not at all a "false analogy," except in your interpretation of the analogy I was making. The analogy I was making was that both cities lost a good deal of their primary industries, with which you seem to agree. Of course there are differences, foremost among them is the relatively small size of the Manhattan property market, where most people rent, and the skew toward extremely high-priced dwellings aimed at a class that no longer exists.

"At the end of 2008, my predictions of where prices would be were actually the most accurate of anyone posting here (including steve...."

Not really. You insist on using the median price per square foot, I insist on using the price for the same or virtually the same unit, which is universally accepted to be a more accurate measure of prices as it corrects for changes in sample size. Your claim, above, that prices in Manhattan have only fallen by 4% is just absurd.

Now the bears are making up predictions that I and others supposedly made. I never said the market wouldn't fall, but I disagreed with those who called for a 50% or more downturn. I remember about 9 months to a year ago someone on this board asked for predictions on how far NYC real estate would go down and I believe I said 15-25%.
Now if Wall Street was 1/3 of NYC's income, and Wall Street is cut in half, that is a 17% decline. I believe that Finance in NYC will come back quickly when markets stabilize and activity starts to pick up again. That may take some time, but it will happen. It won't be as heady as a couple years ago, but after everything plays out, Wall Street will still be a leading industry.

steve,

if the extent of the analogy is simply that both cities 'lost a good deal of their primary industries' then you really shouldn't go around saying things like:

It will be more than that in Manhattan - like it is in Detroit - as our main industry is dead and not coming back.

our main industry is dead, or we've lost a good deal of it? obviously not the same thing. and any city that loses 'a good deal' of a major industry will always suffer a 50% property drop? it is arguable whether new york has one single primary industry, but even if we grant that point, the analogy you are drawing with detroit is exceptionally limited: simply that both have major (very different) industries, that both industries have suffered major (but very different) setbacks, and that these setbacks will have major (but very different) impacts on real estate. i dare say there are a lot of cities have had experiences that really do have major similarities to what is going on in new york--say san francisco's experience with the .com collapse. new york may very well be the next san francisco: a city that goes through a period with a stagnant economy and declining real estate values. but i think there's a pretty big difference between san francisco and detroit, don't you?

"You insist on using the median price per square foot, I insist on using the price for the same or virtually the same unit, which is universally accepted to be a more accurate measure of prices as it corrects for changes in sample size."

I have never argued that the Case-Shiller method wasn't more "universally accepted" but unless you have their database on a server in your living room, we have to wait for their results. For us streeteasy hacks trying to play with numbers, median price per square ft is as good as it gets. I don't understand your refusal to acknowledge that it is a decent measure when many reputable real estate firms use it (including one that owns this forum)

"Your claim, above, that prices in Manhattan have only fallen by 4% is just absurd."

I know, it kills you doesn't it? This a list price measure, so it doesn't tell you much about contract prices but I still found it interesting. For all of 2008 this measure stayed in the 1150 range. Give me a mix argument and let’s play with it – you shouldn’t dismiss things so quickly.

"if the extent of the analogy is simply that both cities 'lost a good deal of their primary industries' then you really shouldn't go around saying things like...."

HR, I can't predict how you or anyone will interpret what I said. I said what I meant and I stand by it. You seem to need more nuance than I can type in a day, and that's saying a lot.

"I know, it kills you doesn't it?"

No. It's simply not true. Median prices don't correct for the sample, and they are a lagging indicator significantly affected by a crash that occurred primarily after September 17. Ergo unreflected in current data.

I believe that even Jonathan Miller has said that prices have fallen 15% to 20% from peak, and that was in December, before inventory pushed over the 10,000 - or 3-year at the current rate of absorption - level. There's plenty more to come.

"At the end of 2008, my predictions of where prices would be were actually the most accurate of anyone posting here (including steve, nyc10022, etc)"

Huh?

"Fringe properties in fringe areas will suffer. Maybe enough to flatten the overall market. As for the good neighborhoods...up...up...up."

"I'm glad you are coming around to the fact that Manhattan real estate is unique and the sooner you get in, the better"

"I'm still wondering what happened to the Q3 mortgage crisis."

"2005 levels? Your talking about a 15-20%+ correction. Ain't gonna happen."

steve,

i'm not sure what you consider the nature of language, but predicting 'how you or anyone else will interpret what i said' is kind of the basis of language. if you have no guess as to the meaning others will derive from what you write, why bother to write anything? just communicate with yourself. i don't doubt that you mean what you think you said, but i don't think i am alone in being at a loss as to what that is. new york is going the way of detroit? new york and detroit are completely different but for a vague, ill-defined possible similarity that will impact both cities in entirely different ways? wall street is dead? wall street is impaired but not dead?

i don't think the problem here is my interpretive skills.

lol, nice digging nyc10022. even if you do belong in the john birch society.

"Median prices don't correct for the sample"

That is true, but median price per square ft is significantly less sensitive to changes in the sample. SIGNIFICANTLY.

"and they are a lagging indicator"

and the Case-Shiller method is a leading indicator? Do they have access to futuristic data? What measure do you have access to that isn't lagging?

Yes good digging nyc10022, you proved my point.

"Fringe properties in fringe areas will suffer. Maybe enough to flatten the overall market. As for the good neighborhoods...up...up...up."

This was correct for 2008 except for the fringe statement. Prices were up for all of Manhattan in 2008 and in strong neighborhoods, up SIGNIFICANTLY.

"I'm glad you are coming around to the fact that Manhattan real estate is unique and the sooner you get in, the better"

Again, is response to Manhattan behaving like the Miami condo market, etc, etc

"I'm still wondering what happened to the Q3 mortgage crisis."

Taken from a conversation on Q4 of 2007 when folks on this board said Manhattan would suffer just like FL, AZ, and CA did. Again, I was 100% correct.

"2005 levels? Your talking about a 15-20%+ correction. Ain't gonna happen."

Still hasn't, oh and by the way this was in response to a 2008 prediction.

You can do better than that can't you? Feel free to continue to post stuff from 2007, but why don't you try posting them in context? Or can you?

"if you have no guess as to the meaning others will derive from what you write, why bother to write anything?"

If someone makes a reasonable inference from what I write, fine. You seem to need an epistemological explanation of everything.

"but median price per square ft is significantly less sensitive to changes in the sample."

Less sensitive to what changes in what samples?

Case-Shiller is a lagging indicator. I was referring to what is happening to asking prices, which is a current indicator and posted on a number of threads.

steve,
why not just correct and clarify your statements rather than make the absurd statement that you can't predict how other will 'interpret,' by which i assume you mean understand, what you say? you might have an interesting point buried in there somewhere.

juiceman,

do you really stand by this statement?

"I'm glad you are coming around to the fact that Manhattan real estate is unique and the sooner you get in, the better"

you'd have a lot more credibility if you just admitted that you were mistaken. we all make mistakes.

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/4169-streeteasy-mahattan-2q08-report

Here is a good thread where EddieWilson (aka nyc10022) fabricates some numbers to fit his agenda

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/4245-crains-brooklyns-home-sales-and-prices-cooling

Here is a good thread where EddieWilson (aka nyc10022) posts a useless article that he feels says something important

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/5121-top-broker-nyc-real-estate-in-steep-decline

A thread where nyc10022 is first called out shortly after his conversion from EddieWilson

"I remember about 9 months to a year ago someone on this board asked for predictions on how far NYC real estate would go down and I believe I said 15-25%. "

That's an awfully bullish statement LICC.

wow, I must have hit a nerve!

Somebody is awful ashamed of his "accurate" predictions!

"juiceman,

do you really stand by this statement?

"I'm glad you are coming around to the fact that Manhattan real estate is unique and the sooner you get in, the better"

you'd have a lot more credibility if you just admitted that you were mistaken. we all make mistakes."

Of course.... but that ship sailed a long time ago.

inverse bubble is that like delayed ejaculation?

$500psf prime nyc... no problem. :)

Poor DJIA.. it just can't get it up anymore....

Yo.. .welcome back Stevie...

juiceman,

i'm actually quite curious. do you stand by the statement "I'm glad you are coming around to the fact that Manhattan real estate is unique and the sooner you get in, the better"?

nyc10022,

you aren't exactly well-known around here for admitting mistakes yourself, buddy. instead of answering for him why don't we wait to see how he answers?

nyc10022: this is laughable...LICComment indicating that he said manhattan would go down 15%-25%...you didn't even think LI City would go down 1%.

Juiceman you need to admit that when you said that prices would be flat in 2008 you also said that was the worst that would happan to manhattan real estate...flat in 2008 and then up in 2009 and beyond

Sorry Steve, the only time I remember you calling for 50% down was in September - 2008...not earlier...I could be wrong of course

"I'm glad you are coming around to the fact that Manhattan real estate is unique and the sooner you get in, the better"

happyrenter, I'm happy to admit my mistakes as long as I am quoted in context. I still feel Manhattan is very different and unique for all the same reasons I did when I made this statement. These strong statements where based on comments comparing Manhattan to FL, AZ, and CA. These places were crushed because value was created where value didn’t exist. Manhattan did not have a foreclosure mess and it did not suffer the same fate as the rest of the country. I have never said that Manhattan was immune to price corrections, prices will continue to go up indefinitely, nor did I say Manhattan was immune to an economic downturn.

What I did say and still strongly believe, is that the Manhattan real estate market is very different animal than other markets based on all of the things you stated in your post above plus another 100 items that make this market unique.

What I also find interesting is you are trying to get me to say that this market is not unique when you yourself just posted a bunch of reasons why it is.

“you'd have a lot more credibility if you just admitted that you were mistaken.”

happyrenter, in fairness I don’t really care if you think I have credibility or not. I try and help as many people as possible on this board and have a little fun at the same time. If you go back and read my posts, they speak for themselves. If I’m guilty of anything it’s being far too aggressive in my early posts when I started late 2007, but have learned from those mistakes.

> If you go back and read my posts, they speak for themselves.

They certainly do!

> nyc10022: this is laughable...LICComment indicating that he said manhattan would go down 15%-
> 25%...you didn't even think LI City would go down 1%.

Huh, when did I say LIC would not go down?

You have me confused with someone else...

> you aren't exactly well-known around here for admitting mistakes yourself, buddy

Oh, so happyrenter... YOU are?

You resorted to insults when your progressive taxation idea was blown to bits. You certainly didn't back down from that one...

Don't be a hypocrite now...

Nyc10022: I Meant LICComment did not believe that Long Island City would go down in value

sorry for the confusion

juiceman,

now i'm confused. when did i try to get you to admit that manhattan is not unique? i tried to get you to admit that at the time you made the statement "the sooner you get in, the better" you were mistaken. you sort of circle around admitting that your statement was wrong but can't quite bring yourself to come out and say it. why not? it is patently obvious that real estate prices in manhattan have declined and are declining. if you want to help people--as i believe you sincerely do--you should be willing to admit error.

by the way, i want to be clear about something: i believe manhattan is a unique place and i have said why. that is different from saying that it is a unique real estate market. in fact, i'd venture to say that in one respect all markets are unique, while in another no market is unique. markets respond to supply and demand. when one of those two variables shifts, prices move. all markets respond to shifts in supply and demand in the same way--in that respect no market is unique. but all markets have a different constellation of factors that shape supply and demand--in that respect every market is unique. manhattan has a unique supply curve and a unique demand curve, but so do miami, vegas, phoenix, detroit, and everywhere else.

"inverse bubble is that like delayed ejaculation?"

I think I'll just let this one go. :)

"Nyc10022: I Meant LICComment did not believe that Long Island City would go down in value
sorry for the confusion"

no worries, flmd...

"nyc10022: this is laughable...LICComment indicating that he said manhattan would go down 15%-25%...you didn't even think LI City would go down 1%."

flmd, I think you will eat those words. There is a thread where predictions where made and I'm pretty sure LICC did predict a 15-25% decline

"Juiceman you need to admit that when you said that prices would be flat in 2008 you also said that was the worst that would happan to manhattan real estate...flat in 2008 and then up in 2009 and beyond"

I don't recall this flmd, but if I did, I certainly didn't see Lehman and the fall of Wall St coming. Did you? What was your prediction in Q4 of 2007? You seem to be throwing a lot of stones for someone who has been on the sidelines. Are you a Monday morning quarterback?

nyc10022,
clearly i don't believe that my argument was 'blown to bits.' if i did, i would admit it. but sure, i admit i am wrong all the time--whenever i believe that i have, in fact, been wrong. go look at any of my numerous conversations with west81st and you'll see it all over the place. no one can be right all the time. i've yet to see you admit a mistake once, ever.

as for your claim that i resort to insults, i think you will find near unanimity on this board that i stay cordial and polite and that you rant, rave, and insult ad nauseam. but really, i am not going to get into it with you again. it's pointless.

juiceman,

here you go again. instead of just admitting a mistake, you lash out at the person calling you on an error. why not just say 'yeah, i was wrong, i didn't see lehman coming, i thought manhattan was more immune to economic downturn then it turned out to be.'

"now i'm confused. when did i try to get you to admit that manhattan is not unique? i tried to get you to admit that at the time you made the statement "the sooner you get in, the better"

Yeah you are right HR. I actually didn't read that part of the post, I stopped at unique. The statement "the sooner you get in, the better" was wrong. My bad.

"here you go again. instead of just admitting a mistake, you lash out at the person calling you on an error. why not just say 'yeah, i was wrong, i didn't see lehman coming, i thought manhattan was more immune to economic downturn then it turned out to be.'"

First of all this isn't lashing out. It is asking a legitimate question to someone that wants to challenge my posts from 16 months ago. (who the hell is flmd anyway?) I've already said that I was wrong about Lehman and the Wall St. implosion many times and actually pointed to Urbandigs and MMAfia as two people that got it right. As for this specific instance, I don't remember the quote and don't think I made predictions in Q4 of 2007 for 2009 but if I did, the same statement applies.

juiceman,

very nice post and thanks for the straightforward 'i was wrong.' very refreshing. now if only you weren't a republican :).

JuiceMan,

One of my personal favorite EW/nyc threads:
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/4648-brownstone-brooklyn-38-of-prices-cut-11-decline

juiceman: I have been on this board posting since late 2007...In every post I have believed that my real estate would go down...I never talked percentages b/c I can't predict things like that...

my very first post was shockingly enough in defense of Steve...I stated that current ny real estate bubble was like any bubble...tulips...gold...railroad stocks...tech stocks...real estate...oil and eventually gold. they all have one thing in common, when they go up EVERYONE has a reason as to why this time its different. They always end the same

I always maintained that NY real estate was destined to go down...Lehman or not...bubbles are unsustainable

juiceman: who the hell am I?...who the hell are you? if you don't like being called out don't post

"clearly i don't believe that my argument was 'blown to bits.' if i did, i would admit it. "
Not admitting a mistake because you don't "believe it" is still not admitting a mistake. But, still amazing that you don't believe it, given there isn't a lick of data to support the claim, and tons to the contrary. "I don't believe it" doesn't make it any better, it makes it worse.\

"as for your claim that i resort to insults, i think you will find near unanimity on this board that i stay cordial and polite and that you rant, rave, and insult ad nauseam. but really, i am not going to get into it with you again. it's pointless."

Funny, you made the exact same "don't drag me down to your level" bs claim after you started the insults last time. YOU started personal attacks and then played the "who me?" game.

But your posts are there for all to see...

Careful with the hypocrisy.

> juiceman: who the hell am I?...who the hell are you? if you don't like being called out don't post

Seems like juiceman and btw are getting a little defensive...

"now if only you weren't a republican :)."

I'm not a Republican!

"In every post I have believed that my real estate would go down...I never talked percentages b/c I can't predict things like that..."

flmd, ok cool. Real estate is going down. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that real estate will go up at some point. I'll be right eventually.

In real or nominal terms?

juiceman: thats the spirit

Now flmd is making up things about what I have said. I never said LIC wouldn't go down. I said LIC would do well relative to other areas, because as an effectively completely new residential area, it will get more desirable as people move in and more retail comes in. I said the spread between the prices in LIC and in Manhattan will narrow from where they have been. Therefore, if Manhattan drops, LIC will also drop, but not by as much on a relative basis.
Stop losing more credibility by making things up.

LICComment: whatever gets you to sleep at night

I apologize... you were never a real estate bull...it was a figment of my imagination...you frequently stated that there was a likely chance the ny real estate would drop and people should be very careful where they place their money

bjw2103, nice thread. Egregious over inflated nonsense coupled with the side stepping of direct questions = irrelevant, which is exactly what nyc10022/EW has become.

hey, whatever makes you feel better, juiceman!

" I said LIC would do well relative to other areas, because as an effectively completely new residential area, it will get more desirable as people move in and more retail comes in. I said the spread between the prices in LIC and in Manhattan will narrow from where they have been"

I thought you were the guy who said it would track at 70% of Manhattan?

You no longer want to tie your boat to that (sinking) island?

> = irrelevant

So, what's relevant anyway?

Completely missing the real estate crash? Lousy predictions? A lousy sense of humor? Insults?

Tell us, oh wise one!

"Funny, you made the exact same "don't drag me down to your level" bs claim after you started the insults last time. YOU started personal attacks and then played the "who me?" game."

It's astounding to me that you keep repeating some version of this malarkey. You instigate more of this than anyone, and people can only be civil with you to a point. I can't think of a single regular poster on here that you haven't gotten vicious with. Not a coincidence. Ever hear of the airplane test? Shudder to think.

LICComment
about 5 hours ago
Now flmd is making up things about what I have said. I never said LIC wouldn't go down. I said LIC would do well relative to other areas, because as an effectively completely new residential area, it will get more desirable as people move in and more retail comes in. I said the spread between the prices in LIC and in Manhattan will narrow from where they have been. Therefore, if Manhattan drops, LIC will also drop, but not by as much on a relative basis.
Stop losing more credibility by making things up.

The only retail moving in is the prostitutes on Purves st, you can negotiate down hands jobs and BJ's due to the economy.

"flmd, ok cool. Real estate is going down. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that real estate will go up at some point. I'll be right eventually."

Haha...nice one JM...I agree with you on that one!

So now the argument seems to be "I never said prices wouldn't go down. I said that they wouldn't go down as much."

"As much," or "as yet"?