This Sunday's front page NYT RE sec. article rent vs. own

obviously if you have 1.3 million for the downpayment, it makes sense to buy a 2.6 million dollar appartment :) that may have already been true last year though

Our rent was going up 10% last June and we got fed up and bought instead.

This is where all the bitter renters are going to jump on to this thread and state that 1.) this article is yet ANOTHER NY Times skewed, nepotistic version of a reality that doesn't exist; 2.) that only brokers would say anything REMOTELY affirmative about this article and the one posted last week about the recent increase in the energy in the Manhattan real estate market, and 3.) that the market is going to drop by 50% (this year) and ANYBODY who buys ANYPLACE ANYWHERE in Manhattan is a stupid sucker.

While they're still sitting around like the bitter renters thay are still waiting for the big 'correction' that's about to happen ANY DAY NOW which they've been all assuring us about for the past couple years (sigh).

Okay, let the mayhem begin....

the broker says:
Mr. Maundrell said some developers were negotiating on prices and paying part of the closing costs or transfer taxes. “If you’re a single person or a young married couple renting for $3,500 or $4,000 a month, you should seriously consider buying an apartment,” he said.

But that doesn’t mean that Mr. Maundrell thinks that every renter should run out and buy, especially if they expect to sell within less than five years.

CUT TO: matsonjones in leased Lexus on way to tanning salon appointment, reveling in David Lereah audiobook (hat-tip to poster on other thread) read by Ron Popeil. INSERT: New Jersey license plate: "BUYNOW".

Oh boy, the same poor little bitter renter from the earlier thread on streeteasy that was titled 'NYT on "rebound" in NY market.' Wow - can't you post anything original? The same 'leased Lexus' comment, the same 'David Lereah audiobook' comment - so since all you can manage to do is painfully recycle your earlier commentary, I guess I'll have to repeat what I wrote on that earlier thred as well...

As for poster #6 – Amazing, if one actualy have the temerity to disagree with people like you who run around crying ‘there’s gonna be a big crash and all of Manhattan real estate will cost two cents on the dollar and the sky is falling and ohmygawd it’s the end of days and won’t we all laugh at those who purchased homes in Manhattan and won’t it be great…..,” they’re attacked by the mass lowered cro magnan foreheads of a bunch of bitter renters who don’t own property, or if they do own property, are totally screwed sitting on the sidelines because they are too financially exposed to the vagaries of the market.

What a lil' bitch whiner you are. I guess it really must suck watching that your big, brilliant, razor-sharp-no-margin-for-error predictions of the Manhattan real estate market collapsing into a black hole singularity didn’t actually happen, huh? No need to be so bitter. It didn’t happen in 05’ when you began whinging about it, it didin’t happen in 06’ in any marked way, and now here we are in 07’. Don’t worry, poor baby, maybe in 08’. Or 09’. Or not at all, maybe.

It's amazing that you were stupid enough to jump on this thread and act EXACTLY like the bitter renter you are, EXACTLY as I predicted in my post #4 above. I'm guessing it's because you can't make a reasoned, thoughtful case for your overly emotional and distraught rantings - why so angry, poor baby? Is it because you're just a little bitty bitter renter? It must be oh-so-hard to watch life and its opportunities pass you while you're standing there like a cow watching its first choo-choo train go by......

I saw a drama set in the depression & the wealthy family was still in their Manhattan manse. Madame was in their very bare drawing room in her mink & they were burning furniture to heat the room. Don't know if that was based on fact & something cataclysmic could occur, I guess; hope it's very unlikely.

no, in the future they burn bugaboo's for scrap metal and burn lawyers and brokers for heat

#6 is actually quite endearing, thank you---#7 thanks for the long rant, hope you are proud, ok your wife wants you to go back to bed

For me, the "rent vs. buy" was a very basic decision. I currently rent a small one bedroom and tend to move every few years. I've never lived in one place for more than two years. I relocate for work, and even then I travel frequently and work abroad for a few months at a time. It doesn't make sense to buy if you are going to move in a few years. And if you are seldom going to be home, you can rent a small/inexpensive apartment that would never suffice for longer term living.

When I am ready to settle down, I'll buy.

there may well be a major correction like 92 in manhatten RE, it may get worse....who knows. To buy or rent is not just strictly a financial decision. It is also about quality of life.

I love these MANHATTEN people, have great respect for their ideas

#10 - I guess your boyfriend wants you to go back to bed also....

Is the poster in #12 the Ariel Discount Getter in the other post?

They are cousins from ManhattEn
Ariel guy is bullish on the RE mkt

Having a mirror held up hurts, huh, mj. I'm your screenplay-formatting friend and I am a happy owner. But I am also sitting on a pile of cash from a SFH sale and have no intentions of blowing it on your depreciating asset. Sorry.

Exactly what mirror are you talking about? I don't even know what you're referencing regarding a NJ car car with an audiobook - I don't even own a car!

And good for you, sitting on your 'pile of cash' -- what does that mean? 400K, 750K, maybe? Don't make me laugh. I finally got my final bonus numbers this past Saturday for 2006 and will receive my bonus check on March 1, and my net AFTER TAX bonus will be more than that. I'm ALSO sitting on an additional REAL pile of cash from the FSBO sale of my 2,200 square foot Village loft in mid-2006 (talk about top ticking the market).

As for your talk about a depreciating asset, you only need look at your poorly invested 'pile of cash.' Exactly what kind of return are you getting on that money after tax, Mr. screenplay formatter? It's probably laughable.

And while you're sitting there with all your 'big' money, my wife and I are moving into our new penthouse Village condo in about sixty (give or take) days. About 1,900 square feet inside (with fireplace, winged bedrooms, amazing light and views, protected lot lines, and beautiful finishes), and about 1,600 square feet of wrap terrace. Since we committed to buy this place in early 2006, we have already been offerered a buyout for an amount 20% above what we paid - and all we've put down is 10% at this point - now THAT'S the kind of asset that you'll never ever have with all your 'the sky is falling and EVERY piece of Manhattan real estate will be down 25% by year end' bawling. No risk, no reward. And it's not about whether I have more or less money than you - it's about your attitude and aptitude - in your case, the former being puerile, and the latter being sorely lacking. Of course Manhattan real estate will (evetually) go through a 'correction' - it's inevitable, and on that we certainly agree - but that does NOT mean that there are still not marvelous opportunities. One has to buy a property that truly distinguishes itself from the cookie cutter glass boxes that are sprouting throughout the city. If you can buy in a great location (and prime Village is about as good as it gets), and look for a place with all the bells and whistles (penthouse, fireplace, wrap terrace, great layout, excellent light, protected views, top finishes) you'll not only be happy living there (and happiness is something that one shouldn't underestimate), but you'll also have a home that for the most part will be able to ride out any significant down turn with a minimum amount of depreciation. Having lived in NYC for quite some time, I clearly remember the early 1990's in Manhattan - and even then, the Village was the last place to feel any effect of the real estate downturn, and was the first place to bounce back. 'Prime property' (whatever that means to you) in that area certainly did not increase in value during that last down turn, but it really didn't go down in value, either - those type of place (prime property in prime locations) were stagnant and simply held their value until the market eventually bounced back. And as my wife and I plan to live in our place for a V-E-R-Y long time (it's the last place we ever plan to buy as it has everything we could ever want), all that means is an eventual downturn will be followed at some point by an eventual upswing. If I imagine living there for twenty years or more, and I look back twenty years to the last real estate boom around 1987, appreciation per annum for prime places has still been a terrific investment. So I'm happy to live in my place until (at least) 2027, all the while paying off a very low fixed mortgage at 6.5%, receiving the tax breaks on the mortgage interest, and watching my mortgage payments (due to inflation) become a smaller and smaller part of my monthly income on a percentage basis - while all the renters watch their rents go up, and up, and up, and up (like this article stated) at annul increases that are WAY above the rate of inflation.

Maybe the only person you need hold a mirror up to is yourself. You can't seem to discuss your opinions rationally, you're a bully, and, at the end of the day, you're just dreary and boring, nothing more. Keep trying to reach for the stars with those screenplays, though....

The worst thing about thin skin is you see the diseased organs moving.

#19 - And the worst thing about idiocy is that those who suffer it have no idea.

Try actually taking a moment to put together a cohesive thesis about the actual thread topic, rather than resorting to name calling and pandering.