Caveat Emptor: Manhattan Still Way Overpriced!

eric_cartman, spunky won't answer because he can't. He's not interested in facts, just in name calling. If he wants a list of some apartments available in Chelsea and the West Village, he can go to nybits.com and get a listing for himself. Then he can compare the purchase prices for Chelsea Stratus to rentals at Chelsea Vanguard, Chelsea Centro, all of them.

JuiceMan's own post that proves it, and though we've become civil, he's hardly my best friend.

The fact is, on average it is twice as expensive to buy as to sell in Manhattan. Property prices will fall, in real terms, 50%. It's inevitable. Look at the numbers. They don't lie. Exactly how it will happen and how long to take is the great unknown, but that it must happen is inevitable.

Spunky takes great delight going to every thread where people post real information, and writing things like Warren Buffett thinks I'm a jerk. Well okay cool, that's fine. We've asked and asked and asked, and all he can do is hurl insults. But you know what, if I were a potential buyer and read this exchange and saw real numbers and real listings being countered with stupidity, I think I'd notice.

All the economics are on this thread. The whole reason why it has to happen is here. It has always happened this way. I wish it weren't true - I'm going to lose money, too, just not as much. We're watching the Ponzi scheme unravel at BSC, Merrill, Citigroup, all of them. We're watching it unravel around the country, anywhere where housing prices soared far above rents.

But Manhattan - it's special!

and I meant, "to buy as to rent."

I'm not a big poster (don't really have the time) but I have been enjoying steve's posts a lot lately. Want to through in my 2 cents though.

1. You need to consider that some people are irrational when it comes to the rent vs. buy decision. Some people will buy simply because they do believe that rent is "throwing your money away." You can sit down and show them the numbers but it doesn't matter.
2. I think you are discounting outside forces (foreign buyers, spoiled brats supported by their parents etc.) This (I believe) is part of the reason the disconnect between reported incomes in an area and the sales price(s) is as wide as it is. I have no idea how large this portion of the market is and under exactly what economic forces they are influenced by, just something to throw out that that might not be grounded in hard numbers.

Aside from that I would agree with 99% of what you said. I too agree that we will see prices come more in line with incomes. I have a chart on my office wall showing median income and median home prices (it's a countrywide chart but the principle is the same) and the large disconnect they developed during this past bubble.

TheFed, thanks. Some people are irrational. Sometimes most people are, and lots of banks and investors, too, which is why we got here. eric_cartman says it best when he calls it a typical Ponzi scheme: but all of a sudden, it collapses under its own weight.

Some people will buy because they think renting is throwing their money away; some people will rent because they don't want the bother, or they don't have the cash, or they're not sure they're going to be around. Those are microeconomic decisions unrelated to the macroeconomic argument, but since rents and home prices are correlated at almost 1 over all recorded history, the irrational exuberance argument seems not to hold.

I'm not discounting people with very low price elasticity of demand. I just can't quantify them. But my feeling is that in NYC most of them worked on Wall Street, and from my days at Bank of America and Price Waterhouse during retrenchments, a psychology fills the air that even if their jobs are safe they won't make any serious moves, because there's danger, and they certainly wouldn't want to be showing off.

steve, in Manhattan a 12x p/e would be a risk free investment with way above a risk free return - assuming you rent it out, immediate upside would include, principal paid on the mortgage, appreciation, and future rent increases. Investors would buy the crap out of real estate at these levels driving prices upwards. 12x is not a possible scenario. If you want to argue that some places have included too much appreciation in their list price, I'm with ya. But this example is loco.

Hey eric_cartman, have you added any value to this conversation besides being steve’s yes bitch? Do you have an extra large asshole for people to stick their arm in and use you as a puppet?

"a psychology fills the air that even if their jobs are safe they won't make any serious moves"

smell that stevejhx? yep... it's starting to get pretty dank here. smells like stinky fear.

the only serious moves they are going to make is the twitching at night as they stay awake worrying... worry worry worry...

JuiceMan, I'd like to think the biggest value I added today on this board is to elicit the confession from SteveF and inquierer that manhattan real estate is a ponzi scheme :-)

where do you stand on this?

and JuiceMan, you are reverting to the only set of debating tactic of all bulls on this board - insults, taunts, and emphatic statements not backed up by anything.

why dont you add some value by providing more data (like Steve), suggest alternatives (like MMAfia), or provide alternate frameworks of looking at things (like I did by drawing parallels with ponzi scheme)?

JuiceMan--Steve and Eric have extra large assholes for a variety of reasons. I guess this is what gay men do when they're not out there frantically screwing. Steve reminds me of a guy I worked with. When he first got out of rehab he was a force of nature. He was addicted to coffee and was frenetic as hell. This know all, frantic pace. Or, Steve is on meth and takes his energy out on posting about the housing market. Of course now he will ball up his fists and accuse me of attacking him. Another thing the undermines his claim to be industry. Anyone who can't take a hard core towel snap never was in finance/trading/whatever the generic banking term is today. Even the elderly women working the phones have thicker skin.

Very strange but it is entertaining.

and JuiceMan, you are reverting to the only set of debating tactic of all bulls on this board - insults, taunts, and emphatic statements not backed up by anything.

why dont you add some value by providing more data (like Steve), suggest alternatives (like MMAfia), or provide alternate frameworks of looking at things (like I did by drawing parallels with ponzi scheme)?

and JuiceMan, Eah: you guys are reverting to the only set of debating tactic of all bulls on this board - insults, taunts, and emphatic statements not backed up by anything.

why don't you add some value by providing more data (like Steve), suggest alternatives (like MMAfia), or provide alternate frameworks of looking at things (like I did by drawing parallels with ponzi scheme)?

When people look at this board and see strong data and frameworks being met by taunts and insults - guess who they will be influenced by more?

sorry - didnt mean to repost 3 times - something wrong either with my browser or this website .. apologies

Um..what are we even debating at this point? I made my points. You've made your points. Steve made his points. Now I am just here to snicker a bit/hurl insults/amuse myself until it's time for dinner.

I am not debatng whether to buy. I have already. Over and over and over. And I will next year. If NYC looks like total carnage, I will buy elsewhere. But, I dont' prefer to manage from afar so it will likely be in NYC.

cartman, the muppets are on at 7pm. You may want to leave Amway right now so you don't miss it.

Juiceman, is that your version of spunky's "pay rent"?

JuiceMan, I have disagreed with eric_cartman before - and recently - but really, the fisting visual is entirely unnecessary, don't you think?

And the 12x rate was exactly right until about 2003-2004, when property prices went bizerk. This from the building where I used to live:

http://350bleecker.com/policy/sales.html

Apartment 3DEF sold on 08/04/04 for $1,282,000. It is currently on the market for $2,695,000.

http://350bleecker.com/newsletters/listing.html

Apartment LJ sold on 04/04/03 for $377,500. It is currently listed for $745,000.

In both cases that is an approximate increase of 100% in 4-5 years.

No one's income has gone up that fast, and rent hasn't gone up that fast. In 2001-2002 they were giving you free rent. It didn't start to go up until 2005, when property prices started to skyrocket. In 2005 I rented a 1-br 1-ba at the Westminster for $3,300. Last year - 2 years later - they were renting them for $4,600. Now they're down to $4,095, just 6 months later.

Sorry, eah, this time you went too far & I reported your post as abuse. And every other one like that will be reported as abuse. So please, if you're civil, then speak. But if you resort to vulgarity, begone.

what happened here

Urbandigs, we need to bring civility back to the argument. Some people post data and opinions, and other people post what eah did above. I warned him before about obscenity, but that was just too much.

It seems painful to people who can't provide reasoned support for these real estate prices that they have no facts or theory to support them. Now I don't mind a good Don Rickles insult every now and then, and I don't mind playfulness or even testiness, but we must maintain our civility, and not give into our lesser instincts because this is an anonmymous forum.

This is also a public forum, so we don't know who's reading it. Therefore, and since it's my thread, I would like to ask people to refrain from making any comments even remotely similar to some of the imagery and vulgarity that have just been printed by some.

Thank you.

Just so people understand, this is in bounds: "cartman, the muppets are on at 7pm. You may want to leave Amway right now so you don't miss it."

It's a dig, but it's amusing. Let us keep sex and scatology out of this. Eschatology is fine, scatology is out.

Now that I've gotten my composure back from eah's vulgarity, JuiceMan:

"In Manhattan a 12x p/e would be a risk free investment with way above a risk free return - assuming you rent it out, immediate upside would include, principal paid on the mortgage, appreciation, and future rent increases. Investors would buy the crap out of real estate at these levels driving prices upwards. 12x is not a possible scenario. If you want to argue that some places have included too much appreciation in their list price, I'm with ya. But this example is loco."

Actually, real estate is not a risk-free investment. In fact, the risk is very high because the asset is so expensive, and so illiquid.

Then, all of that "upside" - which is not immediate by any means - is factored into market rents. Go back and read the definition of imputed rent and you will see that all debits and credits are included in it. It is not debatable: it's the definition of "imputation."

I've given you real, Schiller-like prices on the same properties over a period of time. The increase in real price over 4-5 years is about 100%. The historical norm over such a period would be about 2%.

That means 98% of that increase is fake, caused by excess leverage and a short-term income bubble caused by the leverage that caused the housing bubble. It's all going away.

Watch Cramer: good investors don't ask how much they can make. They ask how much they can lose.

good question..i barely have time to read this post, but alas it's resorted to name calling. Why don't we all meet at a neutral bar in the city, have a few shots of jager, measure each other's wangs and get it over with already.

All kidding aside, so what about 100% appreciation in 4-5 years! So it happened and at least WE ALL CAN AGREE the same appreciation won't occur from 08-13, but come one guys...there has been plenty of anectdotal evidence and empirical data that suggests we are in a slow-down, stagnant pace...which should rebound by Q2 09. Lots of people on the sidelines are waiting to pounce..plenty of people have DP's saved up for their opportunity to either get into the market or expand their RE investments.

Steve, you seem fairly intelligent, but bro: "Property prices will fall, in real terms, 50%."

Come on, off with this bearish koolaid you're selling. You're not going to manipulat the masses; they source their info from various places...and you lose credibility with those bold statments. Let's also remember that 75-80% (don't have exact number, sure someone will correct me) of people in the NYC area...dare I say RENT. Psychology is at play and some of these people have been patiently waiting for their entry point.

Better question to ask the masses: IF RE is not the place to dump your $200k DP, where should yuo park your money is this volatile market? Even ING accounts are getting squeezed down to 2.5%? Do you start paying down principal -- a guaranteed rate you can live with?

That, JuiceMan, is why I keep on going back to 2004, when prices were in equilibrium. Which is what mshlee - who's afraid to post anymore b/c she owes me 16 apologies - said when she quoted Columbia U. economists: things were in line in 2004. Then they went haywire.

You say "investors would buy the crap at of real estate at these levels, driving prices upwards...."

Maybe true, but it would be an irrational decision: market rents are falling, so you'd just be losing money with no possible chance of getting it back.

curious007, I'm ending the name-calling. It's absurd.

The fall will be in real values, but maybe not nominal - it will occur over a period of time, during which incomes will also rise, as will inflation. I don't think anyone knows exactly what the mix will be, because we're not at the end yet.

Which accounts for all the market volatility, which I admit can be nerve wracking at times.

I'm not a doom-and-gloomer, curious007: I don't even think we're in a recession, judging by the amount of work I have. But Wall Street is in for big cuts, and that's what's been fueling this.

Guys, given how low some have stooped on this thread (and how long it's gotten) I think it's time to end it again. Last time was a failure - people just kept on posting - but it's all been said, to the point of tastelessness.

And I am very glad to announce that I'll be on a well-deserved vacation for a few days at the beginning of April, touring the real-estate ravages of San Diego and the Inland Empire, thinking of Spunky and all the rest.

this is so entertaining !
I have enjoyed reading Stevejhx disertations and the various rebuttals to them.
As for where we will be in 3 years time, if we knew that....
Hindsight is 20:20 vision. The future, thats another story.

"the fisting visual is entirely unnecessary, don't you think?"

steve, my puppet comment didn't have sexual undertones and had nothing to do with you. For the record, I don't care about your sexuality any more than you care about mine. I also agree that your sexuality has nothing to do with you how wrong you are about real estate :)

"Actually, real estate is not a risk-free investment. In fact, the risk is very high because the asset is so expensive, and so illiquid."

Steve, I never said real estate is a risk-free investment. I said Manhattan real estate priced at a 12x p/e is a risk free investment. Very different.

"I keep on going back to 2004, when prices were in equilibrium"

If prices were at equilibrium in 2004 (I don’t know if they were – I was in London paying my endowment mortgage), than at that point in time the market was severely undervalued. This means that a portion of the price run up was justified and it would be highly unlikely for prices to retreat back to those levels. Equilibrium in your terms is a overwhelming buy signal. Can;t happen.

Out of curiosity, for our investors out there (spunky, csn, mh23, others?) did any of you buy in 2004 or earlier? How long did it take to breakeven on a monthly cost basis? Was it immediately as steve suggests? I find that difficult to believe.

steve, are you a cpa turned lawyer or tax attorney...just curious, thanks.

Last post for JuiceMan, and this thread is officially closed, at least for me:

JM: I didn't think you were making a sexual reference; it was just a distasteful image. eah made the disgusting (and reported) comment that lowered the quality of what should have been serious debate about important issues.

"Manhattan is a risk-free investment at 12x p/e." You're implying that I mean that there will be a sudden, precipitous fall in property prices. I do think they will fall, and fall hard, but I also think that it will take time to get to that level overall, and over that time increasing income and inflation will also affect nominal prices. So I think the parity will be at 2004 real prices adjusted for increased income, and it will take some time to get there overall. The mini-slump of 2001 took real prices down in a short period; the major slump after the last property boom lasted ten years, over which time nominal prices fell by 25%. It ended in 1998.

It's a shame that when I was on the Board of Directors of 350 Bleecker Street I opposed publishing sales data, because it has become a vital gauge in what's happened to prices over time. When I bought my 2-br 1-ba apartment for $218,000 in 1998, people thought I was insane because the price seemed so high, because back then you could only get a mortgage for twice your income with 20% down. In fact, it was the one time in my life when I hit my mother, who criticized me for paying so much money for an apartment "that didn't even have a separate dining room." I basically was investing all the money I had at the time.

In the ten years before I bought, prices deflated, and I paid less than the person who had purchased the apartment at conversion in 1987. What's happened since then - in just 10 short years - is that, nominally, prices have increased sevenfold.

Here's an earlier example: on 07/03/98 apartment 5J sold for $185,000.
Today, the same apartment on the ground floor - halfway sunken underground - is listed for $745,000.
On 10/06/07, 5K, the identical apartment next door sold for $775,000.

Let's take a price progression of virtually identical apartments, except for 04 when a 1st (actually 2nd) floor apartment is used instead of a 5th (actually 6th) floor apartment:

07/03/98 5J $185,000
05/13/99 5R $235,000 = 27% increase
11/18/00 4L $325,000 = 38% increase
06/21/01 5N $350,000 = 8% increase
04/15/02 5M $350,000 = 0% increase
05/21/03 5L $422,500 = 21% increase
07/16/04 1R $485,000 = 15% increase
[no comparable sales in 2005]
01/04/06 5L $662,000 = average 18% increase in each of 2 years
10/06/07 5K $775,000 = 17% increase

You can clearly see the effects of the dot.com 9/11 downturn in 2001 and 2002. But never, ever in the history of the world have property prices increased so far so fast and stayed there. I believe it was due to the easy credit terms and low interest rates available, and Wall Street bonuses earned on the easy credit and low interest rates available, by selling mortgage bonds and doing M&A and private equity deals spurred on by low interest rates and easy credit - in the case of investment banks, not only low interest rates but 100x leverage, which brought down Bear Stearns. There was also an anticipation of future price increases built into those prices, which caused them to rise even more.

Bubble psychology.

You're right, there's a lot of extra wealth earned by people like me who bought and sold multiple times during that period, and then got out. But if market rents are falling - as they are - in rental buildings, and as urbandigs said they're starting to give free months' again, then people who bought individual units to rent out in recent times aren't going to be able to break even, and they'll be forced to sell.

This building is a co-op, so renting is tough, but if you bought a 1-bedroom unit in 2004 and use the 12x p/e ratio, then a $485,000 would yield you a market rent of $3,368.05. That happens to be approximately what many comparable 1-bedroom apartments are going for right now. Rockrose has a 1-bedroom unit available at 100 Jane Street right now for $3,255.

Why would anybody in their right mind pay $745,000 for the LJ unit currently for sale in that building, which would give you mortgage payments of $4,167 + $740 in maintenance = $4,907 per month, when you can rent the exact same thing for $3,255 in a better building, not facing the street, when literally you look out your windows and see people's knees?

Why would you buy it to rent out and lose $20k a year? You look at all the "positives" that you get from owning, but as I said, those "positives" are all included, by definition, in the market rent charged at rental buildings, which are in the business of renting. Just like mshlee's comments about bond prices factoring in expected future inflation, market rents factor in expected forward return on investment - including increased asset prices - in the rent, and are more closely tied to incomes and demand than property prices because of the absence of leverage.

You also forget what happens if a) a tenant trashes your apartment; and b) a tenant needs to be evicted, which can take you up to a year, during which you get no income; and c) you have an apartment vacant for a month or two between tenants. You just look at the "happy things," JuiceMan, you don't look at the "sad things." You don't look at your potential downside, only a rosy-eyed, fantastical upside. You think that property will continue to increase in value at the rates cited above, when THEY CAN'T because leverage is drying up, mortgages are being re-regulated, incomes are falling because of Wall Street, and property prices are insanely out of line with rents, which they NEVER are over the long-term.

Look at that 12x figure for buying an apartment in 2004, and the price that property is currently renting for, and you'll that that figure is accurate. It's what the figure was in 1998 after a 10-year decline, and it's what it is today if you use 2004 prices, which is where the rental market is.

It will take time for all these things to happen, but happen they must because they always have, and the figures are in current market rents. If you're investing in properties to rent out at these prices, then you must be expecting tremendous upside potential in asset prices which are NOT currently factored into rental prices. It is an unwise decision.

RClavi, none of those things: an economist by training, a financial and computer auditor and management consultant by experience, and a translator today of the things that I used to work on. I get to work at home, have no pressure, and make very good money at it. :0

If you're planning on investing in "investment property," I suggest you do some serious research about it before you do. Imputed rent = market rent is a definition. Imputed rent takes into account all the debits and credits involved in a transaction, including forward-looking and opportunity cost and owners' profit. That's why 12x market rent gives always gives you the current value of a property based on current rents. It fails in the short-term, but never over time. And since we're at about 24x market rent right now, property prices must fall.

That's it for me guys. Enjoy the analysis. Nobody's come up with different figures or different theories, other than, "I have a hunch...."

I'd say more like: "You have a dream."

JuiceMan, you'd asked about my loan sitch: I haven't locked in a rate yet (going for 30 year fixed), but they are pretty good (though went up in the past couple days). I likely have a stronger financial profile that a majority of people in my price range (up to 1M), as I have excellent credit, a relatively safe job/salary, and am putting 50% down to stay under the jumbo limit. Still, one lender I have a longstanding relationship with has said they probably wouldn't lend if I were buying a co-op, so it definitely IS tougher out there.

I'll miss you Steve.

Juiceman I have no idea what stevejhx is talking about. Once again anyone can manipulate numbers and bring up unrealistic senarios like steve. My investment properties are all cash positive. I bought them when everyone was telling me they were over priced. In fact I have over paid for some of my best investment properties that I bought back in 99 and 2000.
That cash flow example that stevejhx gave was purely comical and clearly demonstrates how much bullsh**t stevejhx is full of. Interesting how he continues to comment how rentals are going down. They might go down a little this year who the freak knows but they may go up in May through September. I have no idea. all I know over the next 15-20 years which is how long I plan to own the my properties I anticipate that rents will be higher in 2025 than they are today. I would also assume that my properties will appreciate during that period of time. Will they appreciate each and every year probably not in fact the unthinkable may happen and they may actually go down a year or two or even three. Who knows but I certainly am not smart enough to time a bottom or a top in Manhattan RE. Maybe I should start using steve's Holy Grail 12 to 1 formula to pick tops. I do beleive over the long run my investments and property I live in will work out just fine. In reference to real estate being not as liquid as stocks to me that's a good thing. For those that love to day trade stocks, and rent than owning real estate may not be for them. For me I love it.

Spunky...that is my exact investment philosophy. You CANNOT time the market. You can make educated guesses and roll the dice which we all get caught up in. The only thing that is a defenite is time. The younger you are the better off you are. Buy as soon as you can. Hold for as long as you can and you will build tremendous wealth through tax dedductions, income and appreciation. Rents will never be in equilibrium with prices there is no P/E for real estate, rents will always play catch up. If they didn't than everyone would be an investor it would be so easy. If you cannot help yourself and need to 'time" the market than I recommend looking at 2 areas money supply and inventory supply. Both are self explanatory. if we have increased money supply as is happening now we get higher wages, prices etc and if we have low inventory...well you understand. The immediate future shows both so now is an excellent entry point. Either way if you enter now or 5-10-20 years from now I will be enjoying you creating demand AFTER I've already bought

Another point rents/wages catch up very quickly to prices. But it doesn't last long as prices again charge ahead and the cycle continues. Kind of how the world is repricing oil. Remember the younger you buy the better.

Could not agree more, SteveF.

Oh, SteveF, the Ponzi Man Himself! This is worth coming out of retirement for.

An increase in the money supply causes inflation, not wealth. Wealth is caused by an increase in productivity.

Wages do not catch up to prices, except in an inflationary period. We are not in that.

"Buy as soon as you can. Hold for as long as you can." That's funny. Just like what happened to all the fools who rode the dot.com boom all the way up to 0.

"tax dedductions, income and appreciation" are already factored into market rents, by definition.

"there is no P/E for real estate." Yes, in fact, there is: you earn the right not to rent someplace. Your earnings are what it would cost you to rent where you live. Over long period of time, the average ratio between the price you pay and the return you make in real estate is 12x annual rent. It's low because residential properties do not yield income.

Income properties on the other hand, do, but only if when you buy it your gross out of pocket expenses cover your gross rent revenue. If as now your out-of-pocket expenses are twice your potential gross income, you'll NEVER make money, not even over 30 years.

I hate to go personal, but BOY ARE YOU DUMB. :)

eah thanks you get it. Stevejhx...the greatest compliments are provided by insults. If you thought I was dumb you wouldn't have replied. You would have brushed me off. But that is some paragraph so you must really care. I thank you for your adulation. I stand by what i said you believe what you want to and have a nice life.

spunky, I agree with you. I think stevejhx has highlighted some sound points regarding the rent vs. buy spread and feel the analysis is useful. However, what he has proved to us is that:

1) flipping in Manhattan is over, appreciation cannot continue at its current levels
2) if you are going to buy to own, have a 5+ year time horizon and expect some volatility
3) if you are going to buy to rent, pay attention to rent vs. buy spreads as a way to justify your investment
4) long term investors will continue to be fine

All good advice presented in an entertaining way, however not really new or ground breaking. Further, the entire equilibrium discussion is extremely misleading. It provides for some dramatic discussions and “reasons” for prices to fall dramatically but if you really look at it for Manhattan, it is an economic impossibility.

The market may be out of whack as steve says it is, but he has chosen to focus on price as the only corrective measure. To that point steve, before you go into another rant about how you have proved your point and no one as provided any data to contradict you, keep in mind that throughout your posts you have made it clear that it is impossible to estimate what things such as savings, incomes, etc. will do over the next few years (and where they are now). The only way to “prove” your theory right or wrong is to model this, which you yourself have said is impossible. I only say this because I thought your last post was quite well done until the last line said:

“Nobody’s come up with different figures or different theories, other than, "I have a hunch...."

You haven’t proved anything except for the 4 points above, which I’m pretty sure most folks on this board already understood. It is good to have a high opinion of yourself, but let’s be real. Have a good vacation.

Remember the title of this thread, which seems to be bothering the h*ll out of some people: CAVEAT EMPTOR.

Anybody out there who agrees with spunky, eah, steveF, just go to wikipedia.org, "Housing Bubble":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_bubble

The FDIC defines a bubble as a 30 percent or more increase in inflation-adjusted home prices during any three-year period. In 3 years, they're up 100%. In 10 years, 700%.

"If you thought I was dumb you wouldn't have replied." Why? Why would I let you post more nonsense on my thread? Find me one authority - besides yourself, eah, spunky, etc. - who says that home prices have no correlation to rents, or that they don't have an imputed p/e.

NO SUCH AUTHORITY EXISTS!

I never said prices have no correlation to rents. My point was to buy responsibly and/or buy often to hedge against one bad property. No one bets right every time. There are dogs. You have to keep moving: investing in stocks, buying property, holding some or flipping if the market is right, good old cash stashed away. Build wealth. You could stay poised on the edge of any asset class if you debate it too long. Eventually you jump in or you walk away. But what a sad, sorry life to sit on the sidelines.

Juiceman: I agree with your 4 points, though I'm not sure 5 years is enough time.

But I have never said that "price as the only corrective measure." Ever. In fact, I repeatedly say that no one knows what the combination of factors will be. REPEATEDLY. That price will be one of them is certain, and I think a large part. It also depends on how long it takes: it was 10 years in 1987, but it seems to be happening faster now. The longer it takes, the more time incomes have to catch up with prices. But unlike in previous downturns, there is now an ample supply of market-rate rentals, condominiums, new developments that still aren't developed, so this is radically different in that sense from 1987, when stabilization still affected the availability of rents and most new property were co-op conversions with large underlying mortgages.

I can't "prove" how it will play out; no one can. I can state that long-term historical norms are never violated for long periods of time. My advice was that if you don't have to make a move right now, stay put until it becomes clear how things are going to work out.

eah, I never heard of dollar-cost averaging as a strategy for purchasing an illiquid asset. If you can buy and cover your gross expenses with your gross income, then it makes sense. Don't count things like tax benefits and future appreciation into that equation, because they're already imputed into market rents.

You agreed fully with SteveF when he said, "Rents will never be in equilibrium with prices there is no P/E for real estate, rents will always play catch up."

That's the same thing as saying that "prices have no correlation to rents" because that correlation is in the P/E ratio.

I do need a vacation....

This is all sustainable because many people borrow from relatives in order to scrape together down payments and make it work.

...speaking of vacation--how will I recognize you in the Pines?

you do need a vacation because clearly you talk nonsense yet there are some points that you bring up are interesting and occasionally useful. For the most most it's all fluff and manipulation of facts and figures that help pave the way to support your feeble arguments

afmarino, if your relatives have $2 million to plop down, let me know who they are. I can always use a 0% loan.

recognize me in the Pines? I'm the attractive one.

Oh, Spunk, tell me what's wrong with the numbers and where it's all "fluff and manipulation of facts and figures," then somebody will start to pay attention. Otherwise ... you just like to annoy people.

"You CANNOT time the market."

I've heard people say this a lot with regard to real estate recently and I think it is silly. It's akin to saying that price doesn't matter. The inability of anybody to time the market is a concept that is rightfully applicable to the stock market, but for the vast majority of individuals not applicable to real estate. It's been applied to the real estate market by brokers who want people to think the only sound financial option at any time is to buy.

The first problem with the approach is that most people can't diversify in real estate. The reason it doesn't make sense to time the stock market is because you can diversify your investment portfolio so that you are in effect invested in the entire market and able to reap the gains of the entire market. In real estate, most people generally invest in one house/apartment, in one neighborhood. Even if the real estate market as a whole improves over a certain time period, the market in the city in which you live may not. If prices in your city seem out of whack, don't buy. It doesn't help you that the market in Phoenix is booming. Of course, this isn't necessarily easy to figure out, but you have to make a good faith effort. Telling people that they shouldn't time the real estate market and should buy as soon as they can is the equivalent of telling people they should run right out and buy as much as they can of one individual stock. Nobody advocates this. When purchasing an individual equity (which layman generally shouldn't do in any case), you always consider the price. If the equity is overpriced, you don't buy it. But if you make the same evaluation with respect to real estate, the bulls will tell you that you are being silly.

Even if the real estate market in any city over an extended time frame outpaces inflation (which has been much discussed in this thread), people generally can't invest in real estate for an indefinite time horizon. Family circumstances change. Economic circumstances change. Quality of life considerations change. If you get transferred to LA, you can keep your investments, but you probably can't keep your apartment. In the stock market, you can buy an index fund and hold it for 15 - 30 years. It's rare that you can do the same with an apartment in Manhattan. You have to pay attention to what the real estate market is likely to do in your time horizon to own. If your time horizon is only 5 years, and the market doesn't look great for the next year or two, buying doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter what happens over the long term unless you truly have a long term outlook. Many potential real estate purchasers in Manhattan do not.

All that being said, one has to think in broad strokes. Even in a market that is poised to crash, there may be some apartments that are fairly priced. Furthermore, nobody is going to be able to figure out where the bottom is until it has passed. I don't, however, think it is impossible to figure out in general terms when things look bleaker than they have in the past and may have peaked and when the market may be in the vicinity of a valley. I think every buyer has to at least try to figure out those things. If that constitutes "timing the market" so be it.

Otherwise ... you just like to annoy people.-stevejhx

Wow! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black

steve, 11201962 is a stalker. Remember what I said about being careful how much personal information you share? As we speak, 11201962 is collating your trash and sniffing your old newspapers while cutting himself with glass. I can almost here him chanting STEVE-O, STEVE-O, I MUST HAVE STEVE-O.

spunky, it's my thread - you're the guest. if you find me annoying, just don't read.

billshiers, all well said - especially about the stock market, which is highly liquid - but the correlation between rents and purchasing prices is nearly exactly 1:1 over time, and over time a property will cost 12x annual rent to buy a property. That is, take two virtually identical apartments, one for rent and one for sale, and on average it will cost 12x annual rent to buy the place.

The reason is the 40x rent, 28% housing cost standard ratios that are used. They limit rent and housing price increases to increases in income, which goes up at the rate of increases in productivity plus inflation. Spunky and Friends say that real estate is worth owning just because it's pretty, that it doesn't matter how much it costs it's always a good thing to have, that you get all these great deductions that if they knew what they were talking about they'd know were already imputed into market rents.

The real thing they want is to offload their investment properties at the top of a sliding market, saddling somebody else with them. Basically, they want to do what I did in South Beach 2.5 years ago.

But they're too late. You have to sense the top before it gets there. Unlike stocks real estate is an illiquid asset, you just can't push the button and "sell."

So, they're stuck. They all have properties on the market trying to offload, or else they're real estate agents, which is why they're trying to sabotage any thread that they fear will threaten their business - with the inevitable.

what do you call the outcome of a meeting with someone who's screename is their date of birth with someone who's as obnoxious and annoying as stevejhx? Anyone care to come up with an answer

"what do you call the outcome of a meeting with someone who's screename is their date of birth with someone who's as obnoxious and annoying as stevejhx? Anyone care to come up with an answer?"

The answer is obvious: SPUNKY!

JuiceMan, spunky is a cyberstalker. I haven't given out my personal information to anyone, nor will I. I don't hide my identity, nor do I publish my phone number or social security number. As I said I have websites with my name on it, I perform in clubs under my own name, I've been on TV under my own name. We all know where Woody Allen lives, too: with a girl reputed to be his stepdaughter. Yuck.

once again stevejhx you make absolutely no sense but you're very very entertaining. Enjoy your meeting with 11201962.

Good posts, Juice Man. Interesting piece in New York Magazine, that can be linked from Streeteasy. It talks about how tribeca 1 and three bedroom apartments appreciated over 25% in 2007 while Park Slope went down slightly for similar units. It goes back to what I was saying. They are both "shelter", however factors exogenous to an apartment in Tribeca have made them more desirable (great public schools, (which are a valuable feature that should be inculded in your calculations Steve. Private schools are over 20k per year per child), location to river park, deniro hotel, mr. chow, etc.) Now, those things may not matter to you because you want "shelter", but they do to people with money that can afford "shelter" that has those perks.
Steve, many people who own in Manhattan do so because of reasons having nothing to do with economics whatsoever. Those who do factor in neighborhoods, schools, etc, so any downturn will not be felt acutely in all areas. I understand very well you elasticity argument, and yes, if people don't have the money they can't buy. I would simply argue that there are real fundamentals, or value, that have driven up prices in certain parts of Manhattan. Please don't repeat your formulas I get them. There is a new development going up on Franklin street that will be selling for 2,200 a foot and up beginning in April. It will be designed by a world renowned architect and have bandb interiors, you don't care about "marble floors" but many buyers do. It may not be rational, but there is perceived value in them and people pay for them. I know you are not talking about the high end, so don't repeat that response either, please

mh23, I'll answer whatever I want, thanks.

I've already agreed with you that different parts of the city bear different prices. Tribeca is not Inwood. Nobody is saying that it is.

mh23: "Many people who own in Manhattan do so because of reasons having nothing to do with economics whatsoever."

1) Precisely how many people are there in that category, can you tell me? 6? 10? 100,000?
2) Then, the same could also be said of almost any place else in the world, such as custom-built homes in Bergen County.
3) Finally, no one can afford to live anywhere beyond his means.

You've not shown me any evidence that what you are saying is true for the entire market in Manhattan. I've already agreed that it is true for the very high end, whose price elasticity of demand is about 0: Warren Buffett can buy whatever you want.

Your argument endless hinges on the fact that they're building these places, so they'll be sold. That is not true for the market as a whole. And it can't be. So instead of saying that "will be selling for 2,200 a foot and up," talk about things that MOST people can afford. And by "most people" I don't mean Harry Potter or Ralph Lauren's daughter. I mean people who still have to work to live.

Because most of the people that used to be able to afford some of those properties, no longer have jobs or soon won't.

I also think that Steve's analysis neglects to consider the makeup of buyers in given neighborhoods. For example, those neighborhoods, and units that cater to families are likely to be owned by people who will be using them for a long time. They are unlikely to be flippers. Clearly, if they have no money they will have to sell, and if there are no buyers, prices will come down, but I don't see that happening for units that are say three bedroom and up. If someone needs to sell, a buyer will step in, there are just not enough of them. For studios and one bedrooms, there you may have a situation where people bought as a starter apt. looking to flip for big money. They may have to sell due to life changes, and depending on market conditions, they may have to sell for some type of loss. Finally, and I mentioned this before but have not had anyone counter my argument; there may indeed have been fundamental changes to Manhattan over the past ten years that totally changed the underlying value of owning. If so, the fundamentals might warrant something close to the type of appreciation we have enjoyed over time.
As an analogy. Let us assume that, for years, a certain is considered useless other than for building roads. It sells for a price worthy of a rock that can be used to build roads. However, one day someone discovers that these rocks, when heated, give off a smoke than can be used cure cancer. Well, the rocks will shoot up in value based on their new utility. While the analogy is not perfect, it serves to illustrate what I mean when I say that a person who bought on say Perry Street in 1997 has seen the area around them utterly transformed, thereby making thei "shelter" more valuable.

Prior to about 50 more posts ago that stevejhx made.

Last post for JuiceMan, and this thread is officially closed, at least for me:-Stevejhx (a.k.a. BS artist)

Well, Spunk, people keep on posting on it.

Why would I want to let you get in the last word?

mh23 - what is the name of the new development going up on franklin st?

Go to Curbed and you will see the piece .

5 Franklin Street

mh23: "I also think that Steve's analysis neglects to consider the makeup of buyers in given neighborhoods."

No, I already told you: when my grandmother lived in Chelsea it was an Italian slum. Today it is one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the city. The 12x ratio for those of us who work for a living remain; just the underlying incomes of the people choosing to live in Chelsea has changed.

FYI my great-grandparents were very wealthy (alas, I didn't get any of it) members of an elite NY family. They lived in Stuveysant Heights, which is now part of Bedford Stuveysant. Back then it was an extremely wealthy area - F.W. Woolworth lived down the road. Now you can buy the brownstones there for a fraction of what they would cost anywhere else. A lot has changed since 1910.

I in fact lived on Bleecker Street in 1998, 2 blocks from Perry. I walk down there from time to time. It has changed somewhat, it's just not 700% better.

Your arguments have nothing to do with economics, everything to do with misty-eyed romanticism that NYC is such a great place. Yet you're moving to Bergen County....

I just heard a police report that they found an unidentified person in a Chelsea ally mumbling incoherently. Seems this gentleman was surrounded by open trash bags and had the numbers 11201962 etched into his forearm. They haven’t yet been able to explain newspapers and used toothbrushes in his pockets, but they did successfully confiscate a computer, a Chelsea building floor plan, and 100 tickets to an upcoming comedy show.

steve: "when my grandmother lived in Chelsea it was an Italian slum. Today it is one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the city"

sorry, no. chelsea is at a steep discount to: west village, tribeca, soho, prime uws/ues, even east village to a degree. new buildings are going up there for one reason - land is cheaper than more desirable downtown neighborhoods. it may change, but will NEVER be a west village - no inherent charm in the area, more of a mid-town feel to it. also still has some parts that are absolutely terrible (penn station, fashion district).

mh23: I think your analysis of the unquantifiable factors driving the Manhattan market is spot-on, but I think you underestimate the extent to which some of the same factors can drag a market down. Recessions curb spending, schools decline, services and safety erode, neighborhoods lose their cohesion and their cache. It's not an arithmetic equation, and it's not as simple as "what goes up, must come down", but the things you cite as assets for Manhattan do cut both ways.

The quality of the apartments for rent do not appropriately compare to those that you can buy. You are quickly dismissing the quality differences. It does not represent the real world of Manhattan. You cannot even sublet for long periods of time in most co-ops in the city. So there are very few renters in co-op buildings. A rental building has an entirely different quality level both in the common areas and the actual apartment interior itself. Particularly in the downtown market. Now if those quality differences don't matter to you Steve then enjoy your rental. But otherwise I think you are just missing the point.

briguynyc: well said, this has been my point exactly, and steve just disregards it

I can't find one apartment I actually want to rent in the neighborhoods I want to live (east village, west village, LES or nolita)

West 81st. I agree with you. If Bloomberg fails to address the issues that you listed, that will negatively alter the fundamentals of Manhattan real estate. However, I have faith that Bloomberg will be able to do now what he did in 01-03, make the appropriate cuts while at the same time creating an environment where quality of life can continue to improve. If, say Dinkins or Koch were mayor, I would be more concerned.
Brig. I agree. I made that point as well. Part of the premium that pay pay to own is to live in better space that they can control and design, regardless of income level. Again, Steve thinks "shelter" is fungible, I disagree.

JuiceMan - keep calm! I'm safe!

evillager: Actually, 10019 (midtown west) is the most expense zip code in Manhattan, at $1,813.10

10013, tribeca / soho, is $1,431.

10011, chelsea / w village is $1,228

10014, w village is $1,216.

Penn Station is not in Chelsea. Historically, Chelsea stops at 23th Street. Real estate agents changed that so they could sell what you rightly call crap for a higher price. It used to be called Chelsea North and Upper Chelsea. It's a hellhole.

Most of Chelsea is not as nice as the West Village, true in terms of quaint, but the housing stock is newer in Chelsea, which is why it commands a premium. More condos.

briguy: "The quality of the apartments for rent do not appropriately compare to those that you can buy." Actually, yes they do. Step into a Related Rental or a Rockrose Rental and you'll see how nice they are. Chelsea Vanguard, ditto. Plus a lot of people have bought apartments and rent them out, so what you are saying can't be true.

evillager, try the Archive or 100 Jane. But what you want to do is not what everybody wants to do. Thankfully.

10009, your beloved east village, is the cheapest of them all: $1,066

From Miller Samuel, via nytimes.com.

Comment of the day "I in fact lived on Bleecker Street in 1998, 2 blocks from Perry. I walk down there from time to time. It has changed somewhat, it's just not 700% better."

JuiceMan: Numbers etched in forearms is a highly offensive and unacceptable topic. You have been reported and I require that you not mention me in any way in this or any other forum.

11201962 is, by the way, a famous marine license number.

I've been reported? Golly gee batman, can I mention to the CIA (after they tap my lines based on this heinous incident) that 11201962 is trying to use streeteasy as a dating board?

See why we have to keep things pleasant, guys?

Who does Juiceman have to report to?

fin

oh okay I wasn't sure if it was fin or someone else. Thanks for the clarification.

Just so you all know, these threads are indexed on Google. Which is just one more reason to keep it nice.

stevejhx what do you think about juiceman being reported to fin

Or what do you think about juiceman having to report to fin?

Spunkster, I have no idea what it means.

My mistake 11201962. I called streeteasy and they do have plans to add another tab called streetharmony.com. It should be a great place for all of your dating needs. Rumor has it that you'll be able to search for dates by square footage, maintenance fees, and you will even be able to see all of the people that have bought that date before (and how much they paid). Pricing is a bit steep, but steve’s rent vs. buy analysis tool will be built in, and you should have no problem navigating the site.

Boys, boys, boys. I do understand how a Jewish person could be offended by the tattoo comment, though it does pale in comparison to eah's comment yesterday, which was downright vulgar. However, we are trying to be nice except in certain situations when that is absolutely impossible, like when spunky is trying to make a point.

I'm still trying to figure out who the hell is fin?

"I do understand how a Jewish person could be offended by the tattoo comment"

What the fuck steve? Are you serious? I was thinking Jack the Ripper and your thinking Hitler? Don't put words in my mouth, you are treading on dangerous grounds and you are being very presumptuous.

JuiceMan, I didn't say that that's what you meant, but remember that nuance isn't possible here. That's actually what went through my mind when I read it, but I'm not Jewish so didn't find it offensive. Then, when I read the response, I saw how it could be interpreted.

Which is why we all - me included - need to be cautious about what we say. We're being indexed by Google.

Steve you really need to get up from the computer sometime. How many open houses have you been to in the past 3 months? Co-op do not allow owners to sublet for long periods of time. 75% of the Manhattan buildings are co-ops I have read. You can find one off examples maybe of OK rentals, but that does not reflect the overwhelming supply in the NYC market. You really do everyone a disservice by being so uninformed about the actual quality of apartments in the marketplace. A few quick searches do not produce a quality sample. You have to get up, go out and look. Once you have done that a bit you can speak a bit more about rental quality vs. purchase quality apartments.

How many open houses have you been to in the past 3 months?

0, because they're all overpriced. I stopped looking 2 years ago - why waste my money?

Co-op do not allow owners to sublet for long periods of time.

Some do, most don't.

75% of the Manhattan buildings are co-ops I have read.

None of the new construction.

You can find one off examples maybe of OK rentals, but that does not reflect the overwhelming supply in the NYC market.

How many rental buildings have you been to in the past 3 months?

briguy, I've been watching the NYC real estate market for the past 10 years.

Steve- can you please post a PDF of you 2007 W-2. Thanks.

Steve watching it from your pc is very different than seeing things in person. It might help you understand the way real people place value on "shelter". I agree that prices are high but I find your modeled attempts to calculate the correct prices of NYC apts weak. You are often comparing apples and oranges. I have been looking at both rentals and coops downtown. I don't believe the economics of new construction can be easly compared to purchasing into a well establishes coop either. Mix and match any stats you want Steve. It just does not help clarify things.

briguynyc, it's interesting to me that more people aren't noting your observation about the quality of the rental stock, perhaps it is because they aren't actively looking. I happen to think the market is a little ahead of itself, but after looking at, I don't know, 30-40 places (both to buy and rent), at some points I actually felt the rent vs buy numbers were skewed in favor of buying, largely because the rental options were almost universally suboptimal. In any case, I imagine the market will correct in Manhattan, but probably not meaningfully, and I feel like I have a reasonably good feel for the rentals in the neighborhoods I like, and my conclusion is that I will probably buy precisely for the reasons you describe, with hopefully the added benefit of a more competitive market for buyers.

briguynyc: I agree with most aspects of your analysis, but there are a few things that puzzle me:

1) We all seem to agree that, for many reasons, established coops should be a much more stable market than condos. It seems, though, that those coops have risen by roughly the same degree as condos in recent years. Doesn't it stand to reason that if the condo market has helped push the co-op sector up to dizzying heights since 2003, the two types of property will tend to move down in tandem too?
Ultimately, condo and coop sellers have to compete for a lot of the same buyers (those who may have a preference for one property type, but who can and would consider the other type at the right price). The coop sector clearly has more protection against distressed sales, but a certain number of coop owners are going to sell each year, either by choice or necessity. And many of those sales will be priced not just against the small number of coops that are priced at distressed levels, but also against a potentially much wider pool of distressed condos.

2) You're right that the pool of available rentals is weak. But a combination of new construction, deregulation and a slumping local economy (a plausible scenario at least) could change the rental landscape quite quickly. There seem to be a lot of condo owners/buyers/developers who figure, "I can always rent it out." Well, maybe. But if enough people count on that option as their worst-case scenario, the floor can drop out rather quickly.

shapeshifter: $1,000,001, in good tips alone.

briguynyc: After living in nyc for 10 years and having gone to hundreds of open houses over the years, I think I'm fairly familiar with what is available on the market and how much it costs; beyond the marble countertop or two, it doesn't change that much.

In fact, my Schiller-like model for housing prices - taking the change in the cost of the same unit over time - is based on a building I used to live in and on whose board I served, and I've physically been in almost every apartment there. Ergo, I know what I'm talking about. (Ditto 99 Jane, where I've been to dozens of open houses.) I haven't compared downtown because I don't know it as well, and as I told eah, I've never even been to Washington Heights.

You say, "I don't believe..." but you don't give me any other way to do the comparison. Give me a different way.

You say, "I find your modeled attempts to calculate the correct prices of NYC apts weak." Well good for you! But it happens to be the way that every economist on the face of the earth does it (imputed rent), and it is absolutely, 100% correlated to the 28% total housing expense 40x income rental ratios. Therefore, it must be true, because 1) no one will give you money if you go over 28%, and 2) no one will rent to you above 40x income.

So you can believe and believe and believe, but short of sticking your finger in the air and seeing which way the wind is blowing, you haven't given me anything else. Not even the back of an envelope.

unnamed, just go to nybits.com, where you will find that "the rental options were almost universally suboptimal" is entirely untrue. What is "universally suboptimal" are multimillion dollar asking prices for 5th-floor walk-up tenements.

West81st: 1) You're right. 2) You're wrong. Nybits currently lists 1,443 available rentals in mostly no-fee buildings in Manhattan. Streeteasy lists 26,691 total rentals, of which 1,648 are no fee (similar to the nybits listings).

Are you truly going to say that of the nearly 27,000 total rentals available, not one of them is nice? Streeteasy lists 6,899 units for sale in Manhattan, not in contract.

If market rents are 1/2 owners' carrying costs, and there 3x as many rentals as sales, what do you think is going to happen to property prices in this market?

West81st- Bingo on the condo - coop comp issue. The number of condo sales is close to the number of co-op sales. Q4-07 from Miller Samuel. 1,232 Condos, 1,286 co-op. Yet there are more than twice as many co-ops available.

I believe this is the speculative and cheap money impact in Manhattan. Condos with a greater demand and a greater number of potential buyers who can qualify to purchase have driven up resonably comparable (in some cases not comparable) co-ops.

stevejhx: And I thought I was agreeing with you. You're a tough guy to please.

I accepted briguynyc's depiction of the current rental pool because I think he's likely right but mostly because, for the purposes of this discussion, the strength or weakness of the rental pool TODAY is much less important than the ongoing interplay between the rental and sales markets. If sales hit a significant slump, the rental pool should improve rapidly, whether one considers it strong or weak today. That was my real point.

Anyway, it makes sense that the rental pool SHOULD be very poor at the moment, based on your own assertion that the sales and rental markets have been out of equilibrium for at least four years. The logical results of this arbitrage opportunity are:
1) That property owners with a choice have been motivated to sell rather than rent, because sales have been more lucrative (though they may have chosen to rent their properties out anyway, anticipating further gains);
2) That attractive rentals are snapped up quickly, because they are underpriced relative to similar sales.

After four years of that process, you would expect the rental stock to be pretty weak. For reasons you have already cited, it may be rebounding, and should continue to do so.

West81st, I think I may have misunderstood what you said when you said, "You're right that the pool of available rentals is weak." Briguy is talking about the quality of the rentals, which I disagree with. There are plenty of very nice ones, such as 24 5th Avenue, where it costs a fraction to rent an apartment as it does to buy one in a neighboring building.

Apologies there. Also, I was talking about pure market rent buildings, which there are lots of now that there didn't used to be. The truth is that rents DID go up - and go up a lot - from 2005 - when I got a free month's rent from the Westminster - through the end of 2008, when I got a 6% increase in my rent whereas in the past it had risen 1/4 point above stabilized. They went up I believe because no one could afford to buy again. Unfortunately, now no one can afford to rent, so they're going down again.

And fast. This time they're going down because property prices are soon to be collapsing: watch the rising number of listings on this website every day. Banks won't lend money. And yet there are people - see my post on "Why isn't this selling?" - who want to sell for 3x what the imputed rent of the property is: $1,550,000 for an apartment that would rent nearby for $4,500, which working backwards (which is what imputed rent is) implies a sale price of $500,000.

end of 2007, BTW.

Pez, there are a lot more condos available than you know: developers just don't list them all at once, or sometime at all.

The market, however, is dropping faster than I thought: Archstone Brooklyn, a luxury rental in Brooklyn Heights, part of the huge Archstone group, now DOES NOT REQUIRE A SECURITY DEPOSIT for people with good credit.

Where, ever, have you seen that? It's still overpriced for what it is, but I bet you could even get a few months' rent shaved off if you said pretty-please.

Stevejhx does your normal day consist of writing on this thread, seeing your psychiatrist, and doing some translational work while squeezing in a gig here and there at the local comic club? In the evening when your not on this board do you have a good time going to different movies and shows screaming out loud fire and watching the reaction of the audience while you get up bolt for the exit. You are a funny little man indeed.

spunkster, thanks for being so concerned about me!

Usually when I observe someone acting in an irrational manner I get concerned. Spending the majority of the day on a message board like you do is indicative of sick behavior.

You must be aware that you have a problem. Don't you have any friends, or family you can speak with.