Things getting better?

Absolute cheapest I've seen is 255WE, 2 bed for 599k. I suspect that at that price, it went for close to ask.

no way to get final price until closing. would urge caution and care as you proceed.

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogapr09/housing04-09.html

want2buy, no offense, but I find it highly suspicious when people say they are in the market for such-and-such kind of property, but they also want to advance the theory that things are stabilizing and improving, or soon to improve. Specially when the posters have monikers that haven't been in the forum before, and they are oblivious to such facts as the spread between contracted and sale price these days, or the fact that sales are falling through a lot. I tend to think that such posters are brokers in disguise spreading the message: "I want to buy and so should you".

I think that things might be getting better for a very short period. I called a broker about a nice place that was reasonably priced, 2 weeks on the market, and turned out that it has an accepted offer already. The apts that are really nice and well priced will benefit from the seasonal trend. In july, as buyers fade, the story will be different. If the people that need to sell have put the apts in the market already by know (knowing that it is the right season,) and the nicest ones sell, could it be that by July hte best of the inventory is gone and we end up dancing with the uglier ones? We already have a ton of overpriced and uninteresting inventory to choose from.

Trompiloco, I find it highly suspicious when someone finds someone with a positive thought suspicious. Lol, those evil brokers!

In Carnegie Hill a bunch of 2BR also have accepted offers. Lost bids on two of them. I do find it more busy and brokers have stopped harrassing me with constant emails. I take it they are busier.

mimi, i think your take is exactly correct. things never move in a totally linear fashion.

although, mimi, in July you might be dancing with the apartment of one of the UBS people who were fired yesterday. sorry to be a vulture, but times are tough out there.

My take: buy if and only if you are going to be in NYC for the long-term and the apt matches your personal needs perfectly (e.g. you don't like moving, perfect size, etc.) and your financials are rock-solid.

my take: buy if and only if you are prepared to lose (and not care) 75% of your purchase price. not saying that will happen, but, for the first time in all of our lives, it is a possibility.

cc, now you are getting ridiculous! You are saying that you believe that prices will go down another 75% from today's prices? Today's prices are already 20-30% lower so you want to go down 75% from there? cc, I always thought your posts were out of touch but this is getting too much!

spike in prime mortgage delinquincies:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/04/delinquencies-rising-at-fannie-freddie/

i didn't say they would...I said they could. we are only 6 months or so into this mess --- I have no idea what's going to happen nor frankly do I have any idea what's actually happening now. as noted in the interview posted yesterday between bill black and bill moyers, geithner says that we have a $2 trillion hole in our banking system yet most major banks just reported profits. what the hell is going on?

at this point, anyone who buys who thinks there is some magical floor to prices based on past prices is delusional.

on the other hand, if you are wealthy and can stand the thought of losing a significant chunk of your purchase price, go ahead and enjoy. otherwise, beware.

I am cautiously looking right now. Obviously, my bids were too low given that both places went into contract shortly thereafter but I don't want to bid more. Still I don't think that we will go down even close to 75%. I am looking at 2BRs that are now listed around $1mm. These places were between $1.2 and $1.4mm in 07/08 and I don't think they will fall to $250K any time soon.

not to annoy you further, but what are you basing your conclusion on? and, if you do take the plunge, do you have a large enough net worth to risk a drop of even $300K?

Carnegie, that would be circa 1995 pricing.

cc, i found the answer for you!! you and I paid the banks. aren't we generous?

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/04/guest-post-how-big-banks-earned-so-much.html

p.s. did you think as recently as the end of 2007 that anything that is currently happening, not just real estate but stock market, auto biz, etc. was remotely possible? remember, that if you do take the plunge, you will literally be putting your money where your mouth is. i frankly am way too chicken to do that at this point.

An intelligent thread by wanttobuy just turned into a bizarre bear zone. Man you bears are just freak-n delusional. It's amazing how far from reality the mind will wander when under pressure.

the real delusion is the belief that anyone actually knows what "reality" is right now or for the near (at least) future. Everyone would do themselves a favor to step back and expand how they think about the concept of "possible". My gut reaction to even the hypothetical of down 75% from today is also, "How could that be possible?" But how am I to know whether that reaction is based on reality or my own inability to imagine the new scope of "possible".

If prices were to fall 75%, rents would have to fall a lot more as well and that would mean that the city is doing very poorly. Prices might drop some more but not by that magnitude. I believe that banking will slowly pick up again and prices will stabilize after drifting somewhat lower.

SteveF, your calling any other poster delusional is, by definition, unintentionally funny.

I'm with cc and sidelinesitter, and wouldn't do anything decisive with my money in the next 8-12 months, not only because NYC RE will for sure continue to fall, but mostly because I have no freaking idea what's going to happen with the US & world economies. The only thing I know is they won't be looking better by early or mid-2010. At best, and I really hope for it, looking beyond NYC RE, we will have started on some final and coherent reorganization of the financial industry, and we will have stopped with the pernicious cycle of banks and others trying to fudge the facts and smile while the IMF, World Bank, etc. lower their forecasts for the near future every 3 months from "not promising" to "bad" to "dismal" to "catastrophic". When will we ran out of adjectives or have the blessing of having a seasonal report just repeat the terms of a report from 3 months before, instead of updating forecasts for the worse every time?

Yes, but there must be some reasoning to your argument. A further drop of 75% is very, very unlikely and then again if you wait for news to be consistently good, I believe other buyers will jump in with you as well.

Prices are not going to fall 75%. Absent an apocalypse.

However, if you want to buy and put down a 20-30% down payment, you should be prepared to lose 100% of it.

I'm not trying to tell anyone else what to think. I just want to wrap my head around the current market. Many of these properties in contract would suit my needs, but were listed around 10-15% above what I would feel comfortable spending. Now, if they are going to close down 10% from last ask, it would be worthwhile for me to keep looking.

My question would be, given the volume of listings in contract, would it be reasonable to expect a large spread between the list and contract price? Why not lower the asking price to the accepted offer to entice a bid from someone put off by the last listing price?

As to the turn of the thread, I do think it is funny that someone would "accuse" me of being a broker or whatever since I do not post here regularly. Predictions of a further 75% drop are just ridiculous. I would love to be able to buy a place for cash, but the other things (high crime, taxes, unemployment - maybe civil unrest or war) needed for that scenario scare me.

For the third time, I didn't say prices would fall 75%. I said they could. As others have noted here, we are in a time of unprecedented uncertainty. My point to you is how much are you comfortable and able to lose if things continue to unfold in unfathomable ways?

Carnegie, I think you just need for news to be consistent. Sort of a slog. Not much enthusiasm, no real "spin". That would indicate a bottom for the economy. The bottom for the housing market will follow that, by up to a few years most likely. But at least you wouldn't get hosed. The avid bottom feeder will be looking for distressed sales in 3-5 years, but there's no need to go that far.

I see no downside to waiting, other than the fact that buying your own home can be rewarding emotionally. If that compels you, then that's your choice. But worrying about some upswing is just silly.

See, I kind of disagree. NY has a different dynamic than the rest of the coutnry in the sense that real estate is very closely tied to bonuses (in my mind). In 3-5 yrs there will be less distressed sales in my view. By then, bonuses will have increased and people are less likely to sell under stress. I think that this year people have very little savings since the last two bonuses were bad. If they can make it through this year, they will be fine.

Demographics, carnegie.

I think it's about cashflow. This year there are some people who simply can't make it until next February. Once they passed that hurdle, they will be under less imminent stress.

Okay, how many MBAs are not getting the jobs they anticipated? Lawyers? etc. Some people MAY or MAY NOT get decent bonuses (although once the US and municipal governments can't sell any more debt and the current re-fi boom is finished, i don't see the income streams), but the whole chain will be fundamentally changed by limiting the entry point buyers. Law firms are CUTTING salaries, and it has just started in NYC.

Over $4 billion of Wells' bottom line was attributed to the FASB change. That's change we can all believe in.

I think pjc has articulated the range of probable risk very well. There is every reason to think that the New York real estate market has another 20-30% down from peak to go. The wilfull refusal by some posters on this board to acknowledge the unprecedented character of the economic contraction we are going through is sad, but understandable. Largely on the strength of the threads I read when I first discovered SE a month ago, I decided to sell a condo I bought in Chelsea in the mid-1990s. Went to contract in the summer of 2008 and closed just before Lehman imploded, at 6x my purchase price. Given the macroeconomic picture globally, nationally and locally, it would be utterly irrational-- from a strictly economic view-- to buy now when I'd be risking at the loss of 100% of my down payment at today's prices. The market is saturated with properties, and they are moving at a snail's pace. Banks are simply not prepared to make the jumbo loans that most prospective purchasers would need to buy places that asking more than $1mill, and we are only the end of a spring selling season away from fierce competition between the new development and resale markets. I'm sitting on my money another 12-18 months because I'm convinced that we are a long way from the bottom. I may not be able to time the bottom on this market, but I sure as hell am not going to buy now when all the indicators suggest that I'd be leaving money on the table.

you discovered SE a month ago, and on the strength of the ideas posted sold a condo in 2008? Can you go back on bet on the Belmont Stakes for me?

ali r.
{downtown broker{

y - that is a good way to see a RE purchase in Manhattan
If one is willing to loose a 25-30% downpayment over the next 12 month, go for it ;-

Prudential Douglas Elliman's
CONTRACTS SIGNED for all of NYC for the weeks ending 3-6-2009 through 4-3-2009:

Average Sales Price: 1,029,091
Median Sales Price: $666,250

%Discount from Last Asking Price: 9.70%
%Discount From Original Asking Price: 19%

http://www.truegotham.com/archives/market-insight-manhattan-market-snapshot-36432009.html

front_porch, I mistyped-- I've actually been reading SE for more than a year, since the beginning of 2008-- I stumbled on Urban Digs and found a link to SE there. I went to contract in the summer of 2008, well above the price the (otherwise excellent) broker who represented me predicted when we listed.

who makes a large, illiquid, long term investment in a time of unprecedented economic uncertainty?
a. a very wealthy individual
b. a complete novice
c. a person who doesn't believe that we are in uncertain times or that real estate is relatively illiquid

have we ever been in an economy where the institutional money was so spooked that they moved into treasuries with a negative yield?

p.s. ever since i threw out a possible reduction of 75%--suddenly a reduction of 20-30% is classified as "only 30?"

p.p.s. just because a small group of people is continuing to buy doesn't change any of the above.

I would consider the NY Real Estate market to be somewhat sane when it goes back to late 2003 prices. Anything above that is bubble pricing. What i am finding is apartments that i am tracking still listed 50% above those prices. So the prices still need to come down 33% from current levels for me to consider buying.

but why 2003? a month ago, people were saying 2005. why won't they be saying 2001 a month from now? this isn't about the NYC real estate market. this is about the world financial system which is a topic that I, for one, do not feel competent to act upon. nor unfortunately do i trust any of our institutions, be that public or private, to have any greater knowledge than i do. why would you be inclined to take this kind of risk?

> Prices are not going to fall 75%. Absent an apocalypse.

I wouldn't have said 75% either, but EVERY TIME someone has said "no, the market will absolutely not fall x% unless the world explodes" we seem to end up hitting that number.... stock or RE.

Just a thought: I find it wrong that people keep comparing the rest of the US to NYC. For me the bubble in NYC was that people made enormous amounts of money and that stopped all of a sudden. The bubble in the rest of the country was based on mortgages that should have never been underwritten. So I don't think that NYC will follow the rest of the country. For me the most important question is when people will start making money again. So I don't believe that the lowest point will be reached in 3-5 yrs but rather later this year.

oh no...the dreaded "NYC is different from the rest of... argument?" have we not just seen that thoroughly and completely debunked? why do you think the money in NY stopped as you put it "all of a sudden?" You don't think that money was generated from mortgages and other crazy, nutso debt schemes that have now blown up in all of our faces?

The one thing you got right is the most important question: when will people start making money again? You think the answer is later this year? That's downright hilarious. First of all, 20+% of those people are not going to be employed by the end of the year (not overall rate but big money rate) and those that are left will get fractions of what they used to see.

Where is all the money going to come from? The only game left is the US gov't.

cc, where do you get the # from that there will be firings in the magnitude of 20%. My firm has started to hire again, the worst is over and I have heard the same from some other friends. Banks will make good money again: BK of GM/Chrysler will be a bonanza for banks, debt u/w is going extremely well etc. The banks are making money off these gov programs. Finally, I would appreciate if you could be more respectful. People can have different opinions and you are simply rude!

Always another sucker in denial.

Perfitz and SteveF denied all the way down to 20%. Of course there will be folks to keep denying all the way to the bottom.

Thats how bubbles work.

Look, let people have different opinion. This is what this board is for. I have noticed that the people who think that real estate will tank another 30-75% are on average pretty rude (exception is stevejxh). Not sure why. If I am interested in buying something now, than that's my problem.

the worst is over? what about geithner's statement re: $2 trillion hole in banking system? how will that be filled? do you not acknowledge that recent earnings announcements from major banks were filled with gaping holes? GS eliminates an entire month in which that happened to lost over $1 billion but that becomes a footnote? do you really think everyone is that stupid?

how many people have been lost from bear, lehman, and merrill? can we agree that those firms aren't coming back? ever?

carnegie, think of it this way. where did the NYC money come from? more widgets produced? I put up a chart that showed real GDP would have been negative to less than 1% for the past five years but for mortgage equity withdrawals. there's a $4 trillion hole, and it seems to keep getting bigger. yes, some people will be able take advantage of it.

whatever office is in charge of such things has estimated a net loss of 200-300k jobs for NYC. We were, as of the most recent statistics I have seen (about a week ago), at around 105k. and due to the bailout money, the pace has been slower than they expected, and the process will probably take longer. but that's a whole hunk of change.

banks have almost always made good money. just not off of a real estate bubble, and not such that their ranks became so bloated and relatively overpaid that they were the only ones who could afford to purchase. bank salaries trend at about 120%, in the past 4-5 years it has been off the charts, and based almost entirely on monies obtained related to the housing bubble (from securitization income to p/e being affected by perceived personal wealth).

if banks go back to a 2007 profitability level god help us, because it will mean that the current administration's effort to reinflate the bubble will have been successful, and will hit the next crash that much more deeply in debt.

I was a highly impressionable teen (who probably shouldn't have been reading the Economist) in the late 80s recession. I was certain that we would NEVER ever emerge from this, blabla and a total nihilist. I am not an optimist today. So I'm strangely unmoved by all this economic chaos - all we can do is keep working, saving, and spend frugally.

carnegie, don't forget that those people that made a lot of money in NYC earned a significant portion of it in deferred compensation that is now worth less than 50-60% of what it once was worth - so consider that gone. based on the expectation of those "inflated" levels of income continuing, in combination with easy financing, they were able to bid up the prices of homes, thus inflating values much in the same way as the rest of the country. the reality is that 1 out of 4 workers on wall street has been laid off and even when this thing turns around, it will take years for valuations to recover. not to mention that we're probably only in the 4th or 5th inning in terms of declines in home values in NYC

Carnegie...so you just think things go up forever, huh? Let me ask you something, did Cisco ever get to the same stock price it held during the tech bubble? Hmmm, no, it's a fifth of that level. Do you think BOA stock will get back up to the 80/90 levels we saw ML stock at? If not, where are these big juicy bonuses coming from?

You critisize CC for not backing up numbers, and then you, IT HAS TO GO UP, BECAUSE!
GM is going to be a bonaza? Are you insane? I have friends at several of the large I banks and almost all of them are sitting on their hands with not much to do (although they are certainly pretending to do so, so they keep their jobs.)

Banks making money off the gov programs? So you're cool with Wells Fargo posting a $2.3B profit, and the next day saying they need $25B in further aid? That seems kosher? If that's not the apocolypse, than what is?

wake up, cause odds are you're going to be one of the 20 - 30% fired if you continue to ignore the severity of these times.

I should be too old (and wise) for my anger at the people in high and low places, but this seems different to me as it took speculation to the masses, and the masses are SO easily manipulated. Regulations should be there to protect people from their own stupidity.

so you are correct, 10023, there's little that we can do other than forge ahead, and it undoubtedly is a more restful place to be. and i'm sure we'll get out of this someday. i'm just hopeful that the increased attention that information pathways make available may result in some recognition of culpability.

i have always been of a mind that we are too blame centric in our country but i simply cannot get the moyers/black interview out of my head. the example he gave of carefully investigating a plane crash resonates for me plus it strains credibility to think that people involved didn't understand the real risks associated with 30 to 1 leverage at major financial institutions. listening to poor carnegie above just reinforces how desperate we all are to believe that this is a minor blip and things are ready to return to "normal."

We don't know what the new normal or equilibrium will be. Time will tell. People love deluding themselves.

"all we can do is keep working, saving, and spend frugally."
Amen.

If we have a job, savings to add to, and expenses we can still afford.

For all others, hopefully more calls for reform will be heard, like the following:

http://baselinescenario.com/2009/04/22/the-missed-opportunity/

and perhaps vote/agitate for more oversight of certain financial practices.

carnegie, you keep referring to this year being good for bonuses and people making money 'again'. what makes you so confident? imho the best people can hope for bonus wise is flat YOY and realistically they will be down >20% YOY again.

oh, naive Carnegie - posting modestly positive commentary on the market. Let me clarify the orthodoxies of SE that you must subscribe to:
1) Wall Street will NEVER come back. The best we can hope for is that employment levels will perhaps bottom at 50% of 2008 levels, and those who do remain will be lucky if they receive so much as their base salaries, perhaps a trinket 10% bonus. The fact that those who are actually on the street and know how profitable their divisions have been this year pales in comparison to the conjecture of those on this board.
2) There is no such thing as positive news - ANY earnings news, or gov't statistics are either completely fabricated, or so full of loopholes and seasonal factors as to render them meaningless. Unless the news is negative - then it is directional correct, but of course the magnitudes are drastically understated by the same factors as above.
3) NYC is maybe 6 months away from rampant crime, homelessness, and general Blade-Runner like conditions.
4) Tax deductions are illusory - your actual tax bill may be less after you deduct your mtge interest, but I assure you that is not really the case.
5) It may appear that certain properties are indeed closing, but that is just broker-spin. If you adjust for the buyers whose IQs are below 40, have just come into huge windfalls, and are under the demonic control of said brokers, there are zero sales happening.
6) NYC is in no way, shape or form different from any other market in the United States. The overall wealth, co-op financing rules, vacancy rates, long-term crime trends, demographic changes and appeal to foreigners have no impact on our market whatsoever. We are all no-doc, 100% leverage, neg-am flippers.
7) Only on the very day that Columbia, Steve, NYC10022, etc. sign contract will the market have reached its absolute nadir. Prices will remain at that level for approximately the 2 months it takes for their contracts to close, and promptly soar 20%.

Printer, can your division in your bank give us back the trillions loaned to the banks?
No?
then STFU

Printer's droll too.

printer is hilarious. my favorite is the NYC is immune; doesn't he realize that if we all disappeared tomorrow , the rest of country would either cheer or yawn.

cc, what does that have to do anything with the points printer made?

carnegie: oh wise one-- please educate us on the following "BK of GM/Chrysler will be a bonanza for banks."

point #6...which i presume he has posted sarcastically. people are now late in record numbers on conforming loans---thinking that somehow many in nyc co-ops are not in lousy financial shape is downright silly.

Oh, and I forgot legal fees for Dewey and Weil...

but what about the losses for the banks and other investors in GM & Chrysler? Have those already been written off? What about the billions of dollars of purchasing power that will disappear along with the bulk of the auto biz jobs?

What products do we produce in NY? What services do we render? We used to be able to walk around congratulating ourselves on all the wealth that we created; unfortunately, it has all disappeared.

Weill's other departments aren't doing so hot. I don't know about Dewey. Yes, some people always profit during down times. The repo man is hiring.

aboutready, the point is that cc posts a lot of hot air. I don't think he/she knows the banking industry at all.

tell me oh wise one again about how the investors in GM & Chrysler are cackling over the great opportunity facing them. Educate us all.

cc, we are talking about banks here. Many banks are fully hedged against GM/Chrysler losses. So, cc, what is your profession that makes you so wise?????

In a way, we're all culpable. While there's still money to be made, we're all going to try to make it even if the making of the money is not quite 100% ethical (include the medical profession in that accounting). We are all going to negotiate as much money for ourselves as the market will bear, while trying to pay as little as we can for goods and services.

ah...the old hedgeronee...so who is the lucky counter party this time? no doubt, they are hedged as well? hedges upon hedges. risk free high return investments. sure fire way to get rich. oops. i think we've heard that sad tune before, no?

you say "we are talking about banks here" like "hey, we're talking about sound, fiscally prudent investors, etc." are you just trying to kid us or do you actually believe this?

now...its time for you to patiently explain how the few bad apples have been weeded out and all is well again in banksville. except for that little nagging balance sheet problem. but...well not to worry, that will work itself out.

i don't think there is anything unethical about trying to get the best deal you can. clearly, ethics is and always will be in the eye of the beholder but lying and cheating are not ethical nor (as we've so painfully seen) long term practical.

Then you see things entirely in black and white, cc. Let's just say that I have more than an affinity for the old "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability"...

nyc10023, I like that saying. Makes me reflect for a moment.

yes, but there's self-interest, and then there's self-interest.

carnegie, where's the future income streams? that's what I don't see. yes, there will be some restructurings and acquisitions. in the short term there's quite a bit to be made from the government's financial wizardry, as well they intend. that doesn't seem to me to be taking the banking industry back to 2003 profitability levels, much less 2006. hedging can be fun, but i would guess that for all the ones that time things perfectly, some are going to be terribly burned. they (except for the great gs) didn't do so well vis-a-vis the real estate, no?

and the negatives are stunning. losses are quickly mounting in 2006 prime and will soon be devastating. credit cards, autos, cre, student loans all to become large net losses unless the gov't bails them out too. and someday, we're going to have to pay for all this. take a look at price choppers thread and market movement with comps. 40% off peak left and right.

absolutely not...I was not clear. everything is cast in shades of gray which is why i don't think we can legislate ourselves out of this mess. people have to take responsibility for their actions which is much harder in practice than theory. i have certainly rationalized some actions over the years that i would not want made public. is cheating on your taxes (a little) different than what bernie did? i say yes, others may say no, just a matter of degree. is packaging loans from people who you know can't repay the money bad...I say yes, others may say, caveat emptor.

10023, my husband is a recovering Marxist.

what made him see the light?

I don't necessarily have counter arguments, but it seems that a lot of people here post a lot of hot air. Anyone can say that the sky is falling, but it's really only helpful when they back up what they say, like aboutready. I really am trying to make a decision about buying now, and some of the hysteria is just as unhelpful as brokers telling me that I'm looking at the deal of the century---based on what exactly?

More job loses and tax hikes concern for me with respect to future pricing. On the other hand, I do think that MAnhattan is somewhat different, not only b/c space is so limited, but b/c coop board requirements had to presumably have prevented people from getting in as over their heads as they did in other places (i.e. not forced to sell)... but still, I'm totally confused. I want to just buy a simple unit to live in, but it would really hurt me to see my 30% down payment go up in smoke. But really, how likely is that to happen.

he hasn't really, we give but our needs pretty well take up most of his income, extra has to go to savings. so as managing partner at a law firm he has recently developed raging ulcers. making employment decisions has been brutal.

for the record...I am not saying the sky is falling.

I am saying, I haven't a clue what's happening and I don't think anyone else does.

Its all about uncertainty. Things are happening that were unthinkable. That doesn't mean the sky is falling. It means to me that tother things that were unthinkable could also happen.

Please, please....I have been a lifelong NYer...don't buy into this we are different crap. We are all part of an economic system---so far, many of us here are at the tippy top of it...a great place to be when things are good, not such a great place to be when things appear to be bad.

Why can't you wait 6 to 12 months and see what develops. Maybe it will be great and everything will level off. What will you have lost by waiting?

eesh...partner at a law firm and a closet marxist..ulcers are the least of it.

CB123, let's say I'm wrong. The efforts will delay things long enough that bad assets on the banks' book has the time to become, if not worth 100% of whatever value they've been assigned, worth much more than they are now. deflation has been reinflated without any awful consequence. and unemployment ceases to rise, ending at about 9%. I think all of those assumptions are wrong, but I hope I'm wrong and the first time I spot really positive news, I promise here and now to post it. (btw, I thought durable goods orders was going to be that post, but then I found out that they were only better than the prior month because the prior month had been revise down sharply. positive news is a fast-moving target.

OK, so I'm wrong. But if you wait one year, with those assumptions, I am no seer but I'd bet that there has been no increase in prices, and the Fed has maintained low interest rates. They have to. Too many loans need to reset and recast. They'll just start printing. No harm waiting, that's my point.

I have this feeling you're right. I think what it comes down to it, I think that I'm having trouble delaying gratification. I sold a small apartment a few years ago and have been trying to get back into Manhattan at a price I could comfortably afford for like the past 3 years. This is just the first time in a long time that I could actually afford a place that I can live in -- modestly, but at least like an adult.
If you're familiar with the 12 step model, it's like I need to call my apartment sponsor to talk me out of making a deal when the urge overwhelms me. I think this might be the purpose that SE is serving for me. :)

cc, i guess you don't buy the egalitarian notion that everyone deserves representation? just joking. he does alot of pro bono work, political asylum, torture victim stuff, things like that although he'll pick up other pro bono areas as well.

that response was to cc, now to aboutready, too. Ugh..I just know you guys are probably right.

cb123: feel free to check in whenever you need to...keep looking and learning....but no buying, not yet. don't undersestimate the pleasure of looking...just keep your standards really, really high. you never know, you might the right one.

CB123, I sold in 2004, and I've been dying to get back in. But I've always thought it was kind of fun telling people that we live in Peter Cooper (even though I'm less than fond of the physical location myself). They frequently look very confused. I just shrug, and say, hey it works for us.

Great 12 step reference, btw.

I actually made an offer on something, but have not signed. Think I'll take a deep breath and hold off. Thanks.

That's excellent, aboutready. I bet they're not confused now...

What happened to carnegie's brilliance? I already miss him.
Come on, tell us how we dont understand banking...just like the bankers didnt understand banking i guess when it came to being so overleveraged...
I'm sick of these fruit cake bankers, just like the brokers on this site, spouting garbage.

Why is change so bad? That's what this whole thread really comes down to. And it's clear who is afraid of it the most...those saying, "nope, everything will be back to normal in 3 - 5 years, TOPS"

Denial...tsk tsk

perhaps he's having dinner...served by the staff. we may hear from him after his brandy and cigar.

Only the finer things for our old friend carnegie
LET THEM EAT CAKE!

As a matter of fact, I was working. Going home now.

oh...poor you....working so hard on such an important big deal. the staff awaits.

Hey Carnegie let's play pretend with bank profits and new york real estate won't tank at least n50%

Bank Profits Appear Out of Thin Air

*
Article Tools Sponsored By
By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN
Published: April 20, 2009

This is starting to feel like amateur hour for aspiring magicians.

Another day, another attempt by a Wall Street bank to pull a bunny out of the hat, showing off an earnings report that it hopes will elicit oohs and aahs from the market. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and, on Monday, Bank of America all tried to wow their audiences with what appeared to be — presto! — better-than-expected numbers.

But in each case, investors spotted the attempts at sleight of hand, and didn’t buy it for a second.

With Goldman Sachs, the disappearing month of December didn’t quite disappear (it changed its reporting calendar, effectively erasing the impact of a $1.5 billion loss that month); JPMorgan Chase reported a dazzling profit partly because the price of its bonds dropped (theoretically, they could retire them and buy them back at a cheaper price; that’s sort of like saying you’re richer because the value of your home has dropped); Citigroup pulled the same trick.

Bank of America sold its shares in China Construction Bank to book a big one-time profit, but Ken Lewis heralded the results as “a testament to the value and breadth of the franchise.”

Sydney Finkelstein, the Steven Roth professor of management at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College, also pointed out that Bank of America booked a $2.2 billion gain by increasing the value of Merrill Lynch’s assets it acquired last quarter to prices that were higher than Merrill kept them.

“Although perfectly legal, this move is also perfectly delusional, because some day soon these assets will be written down to their fair value, and it won’t be pretty,” he said.

Investors reacted by throwing tomatoes. Bank of America’s stock plunged 24 percent, as did other bank stocks. They’ve had enough.

Why can’t anybody read the room here? After all the financial wizardry that got the country — actually, the world — into trouble, why don’t these bankers give their audience what it seems to crave? Perhaps a bit of simple math that could fit on the back of an envelope, with no asterisks and no fine print, might win cheers instead of jeers from the market.

What’s particularly puzzling is why the banks don’t just try to make some money the old-fashioned way. After all, earning it, if you could call it that, has never been easier with a business model sponsored by the federal government. That’s the one in which Uncle Sam and we taxpayers are offering the banks dirt-cheap money, which they can turn around and lend at much higher rates.

“If the federal government let me borrow money at zero percent interest, and then lend it out at 4 to 12 percent interest, even I could make a profit,” said Professor Finkelstein of the Tuck School. “And if a college professor can make money in banking in 2009, what should we expect from the highly paid C.E.O.’s that populate corner offices?”

But maybe now the banks are simply following the lead of Washington, which keeps trotting out the latest idea for shoring up the financial system.

The latest big idea is the so-called stress test that is being applied to the banks, with results expected at the end of this month.

This is playing to a tough crowd that long ago decided to stop suspending disbelief. If the stress test is done honestly, it is impossible to believe that some banks won’t fail. If no bank fails, then what’s the value of the stress test? To tell us everything is fine, when people know it’s not?

“I can’t think of a single, positive thing to say about the stress test concept — the process by which it will be carried out, or outcome it will produce, no matter what the outcome is,” Thomas K. Brown, an analyst at Bankstocks.com, wrote. “Nothing good can come of this and, under certain, non-far-fetched scenarios, it might end up making the banking system’s problems worse.”

The results of the stress test could lead to calls for capital for some of the banks. Citi is mentioned most often as a candidate for more help, but there could be others.

The expectation, before Monday at least, was that the government would pump new money into the banks that needed it most.

But that was before the government reached into its bag of tricks again. Now Treasury, instead of putting up new money, is considering swapping its preferred shares in these banks for common shares.

The benefit to the bank is that it will have more capital to meet its ratio requirements, and therefore won’t have to pay a 5 percent dividend to the government. In the case of Citi, that would save the bank hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

And — ta da! — it will miraculously stretch taxpayer dollars without spending a penny more.

The latest news on mergers and acquisitions can be found at nytimes.com/dealbook

the obama administration is starting to paint themselves into a corner with their tacit approval of this nonsense. For me personally, the more they screw around, the more convinced I become that things are far worse than anyone in authority is letting on. Where is our promised transparency? Am I the only one as confused by statements/events as when paulson was in charge? Tell me something real that I'm missing.

how'd you like the Ken Lewis testimony that shareholders weren't made aware of MER's problems because Paulson told him to suppress the info? that was, fairness leads me to point out, the prior administration, but Timmy was there at the time.