The Donald's Trump Park Avenue PriceUpper MADNESS

Donald Trump wrote the book on thinking big and kicking ass, and what he's doing with some of the remaining spreads at his Trump Park Avenue (at 59th Street) will either one day wind up as a celebratory epilogue, or a punchline. A few weeks back, Trump hired a Russian-speaking broker to market the converted hotel's re-envisioned duplex penthouse to his comrades, and then raised the price to $51 million to give the languishing property some juice. Now, Trump—with frenemy Dolly Lenz in tow—has jacked up the price on a trio of Trump Park Avenue apartments, including two more of the building's eight penthouses. The Donald don't mess around folks...

PH#23
Now Asking: $31,120,000
Last Week's Ask: $21,784,000
Increase: $9,336,000
First Listed: November 2005 (at $18.9 million)
Days on Market: 1020

PH#24
Now Asking: $31,000,000
Last Week's Ask: $20,433,600
Increase: $10,566,400
First Listed: January 2006 (at $18,375,000)
Days on Market: 935

#19A
Now Asking: $14,449,500
Last Week's Ask: $9,633,000
Increase: $4,816,500
First Listed: November 2005 (at $9,104,000)
Days on Market: 1020

http://curbed.com/archives/2008/08/18/the_donalds_trump_park_avenue_priceupper_madness.php#more

Trump is a douche

Your fired!

I miss the early 90s when the Donald was just barely hanging on by his fingernails.

Man, I wish I did not listen to Steve's advice and wait on the sidelines. Now I have been priced out of Trump Park Avenue FOREVER! I wished I lsitened to perfitz so I could have made a ton of money... DAMN!

#19A is where I REALLY want to live, and it's better to buy in a prime area like that, with good schools, than someplace like Williamsburg, so I'm going to see if I can buy #19A

#19A is a great unit. According to it's description on the Elliman, site, it is close to the express bus and the metro north. Because, if you own a $14 million condo, you no doubt ride the bus and not in the back of a chaffeur driven car, right?

http://www.prudentialelliman.com/574541

Historically speaking, people are willing to pay the same prices for different modes of transportation. So, following the 12X ratio, you are indeed going to be taking the express bus, unless you can find a car and driver for 12 times the cost of a subway pass. Because that's what transportation really is, getting you from point A to point B.

"Because that's what transportation really is, getting you from point A to point B."

Interesting point BGaria, so following the same logic and using the 12x ratio I could marry an ugly, dumb, crack-ho or I could find a smart super hot chick that cost me the equivalent 12x the crack. I most likely would pay 20x for the super smart hot chick, but that would be dumb because I would be over paying and should be perfectly happy with the crack ho? Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct. I knew that Steve wasn't wasting his time explaining the 12X ratio. It's already paying off by helping you avoid mistakes.

yes, I will be taking public transit - I'll need to economize wherever possible - I'll probably have to have lots of roommates, but it will be worth it

Wait, suddenly asking prices are data? (but only when they go up, of course).

Actual trump sales prices are down... check out the carnage at Trump Place on the other thread...

"Wait, suddenly asking prices are data? (but only when they go up, of course)."

Wait, didn't you just quote the massive declines in asking rents at 20 Pine? I guess asking prices are only data when they are declining...

Exactly, JuiceMan. Crack hos and super smart hot females are substitutes, so you should definitely stick to the former while we wait out this super-smart-hot-female bubble. They've been overvalued since at least 2004 and over time, they have a 0.7% return anyway. You can do better elsewhere!

bjw2103, as usual your advice is sound. Do you know any decent crack ho's?

No, I got suckered into overpaying for a nice girl. And I didn't even get an abatement!

> Wait, didn't you just quote the massive declines in asking rents at 20 Pine? I guess asking prices
> are only data when they are declining...

Because unless your negotiating power sucks, you can rent at those prices or below...

and the original claim from pete was that asking was still higher than previous... that is not the case here.

Apartments that they haven't been able to sell since 2002 and 2003... now THAT is the sign of a hot market.

Hey, if that is all the evidence the bulls have to cling to, nice job!

If I am not mistaken, Eddie rents. And in Brooklyn. Do you we need more evidence that he is a fucking loser?

eah, in these markets, if you own, you are the loser.

i agree with you on brooklyn, though ..

> eah, in these markets, if you own, you are the loser.

Well (if not sensitively) said....

> i agree with you on brooklyn, though ..

I don't disagree. I'm back in Manhattan in November...

> Do you we need more evidence that he is a fucking loser?

Pretty easy to tell who is frustrated these days...

I agree if you're a brand new owner you're not sitting in the best position.
If you have owned for years and have not tapped your equity; you're quite golden.

> If you have owned for years and have not tapped your equity; you're quite golden.

Nice rationalization, but, no, thats simply dumb.

Just because you're not in foreclosure risk doesn't change the fact that you are losing money as the asset declines. Being leveraged to the hilt makes it worse, but if you are 50% paid off and the market goes down 25%, you've lost 50% of your "equity". And if you want to play it down as a paper loss, well it also means your paper gain was just as bs.

Coming from the guy calling others losers, I have to say you have given us a very stupid excuse for losing money.

So, back to the original well (but not sensitively) said:

"eah, in these markets, if you own, you are the loser. "

bingo. doesn't matter what you made BEFORE, losses are losses...

Eddie, we're discussing a narrow slice of owners in NYC. You've made a lovely, sweeping generalisation. If it makes you feel better about renting than run with it. I suppose there is a few owners worse off than you.

Yes, yes, I know you're a millionaire on the sidelines with a trophy wife.

> You've made a lovely, sweeping generalisation

And the best part, correct. Doesn't matter which sector you are in, doesn't matter how you want to "slice" it up all you want. If you bought last week or you bought 52 years ago, if you hold an asset through a crash, you lose money.

Slice and dice all you want, you are in denial if you think that owning through a crash somehow doesn't lose you money.

And, careful with your accusations, you're the putz who went for a generalization and personal insult... when you're the guy who doesn't understand how markets work.

I see Eddie. I guess most people in media, hedge funds, physicians, insert high net worth job all own because they are silly with their money and don't understand markets in the very special way a renter from Brooklyn does.

So, you're going to rent forever then? Interesting plan.

eah, people must market time to be smart. Otherwise they are stupid.

Ask Warren Buffett who bought into BUD and then trimmed his stake with no gain prior to the InBev deal. Bad market timer that Buffett guy. Oh, and a bad human being too.

> I see Eddie. I guess most people in media, hedge funds, physicians, insert high net worth job all
> own because they are silly with their money and don't understand markets in the very special way a
> renter from Brooklyn does.

And people in media, hedge funds, physicians, and all the other high net worth jobs also bought tech stocks in 2000. Doesn't mean it wasn't a bubble....

Also, given that sales have declined over 30% in Manhattan YoY, it sounds like most of them have started to figure that out. Perhaps you should join the enlightened.

> So, you're going to rent forever then? Interesting plan.

Who said that?

Remember guys, sales decline of 30% is the measure of volume, not price. I personally see softness and expect continued softness, but would be suprised to see a 30% decline in price.

Agreed. I think its more like 20%... and there is a thread on exactly these predictions from a few weeks back.

That being said, when you add in leverage + inflation + what could be a couple years before increases return... its a lot more painful than just a one time decline would be...

Eddie, I am bearish short-term, but you're way off base here. Anyone that bought in, say 1996, and continues to own is not "the loser." Yes, they could've sold at the peak, which everyone knows is notoriously difficult to time, but they'd have incurred significant transaction costs, hassle of moving, etc. More importantly, why? If you own something you want to live in, and bought it at a price you could afford, your paper losses now and in the upcoming years are irrelevant to you, and just like the paper gains during the bubble are and were.

I am sitting on the sidelines for now, but would like to buy in the upcoming years, with the goal of owning for a long time. If I own the same place through several booms and busts in the future, does that make me a winner every time the markets are going up and a loser every time they're going down?

Newbuyer, cartman said "the loser"... in response to eah's calling me a loser.

I actually agree with you. I don't figure folks should be selling *just* to time the market, there are too many other factors involved (including time/effort, as you mentioned). But gains are gains, and losses are still losses.

That being said, folks should not be bragging about owning through a crash, let alone calling folks in better financial positions "losers". That is simply frustration coming from owning a declining asset.

> If I own the same place through several booms and busts in the future, does that make me a winner
> every time the markets are going up and a loser every time they're going down?

It means you had gains and losses. The goal is to maximize the former and minimize the latter, some short term losses would make sense as part of an approach for a bigger long-term gain.

But I think you already knew that. You yourself are taking a short term gain (in the rent/buy equation) and avoiding a short term loss (apartment values in crash), which would in theory maximize your long-term investment once you do buy. Whether buying post crash makes sense can always be debated, but there is no debate that selling in the year before a crash is better than the year after, and buying in the year after is better than in the year before. For other cases, one would take it on a case by case basis.

Certainly in the equity markets, it has been proven that it is impossible to time markets successfully.

There are also very significant transaction costs associated with repeatedly buying and selling, even if you could time the markets.

> Certainly in the equity markets, it has been proven that it is impossible to time markets
> successfully.

Not quite. I think you are confusing average performance of active managers vs. separating good vs. bad performers.

70% of active managers fail, but there are active managers who consistenly beat markets... from Peter Lynch to Buffett to Swensen.

The random walk theory taken to its most recent updates says you can beat markets consistently, but the cost of doing so can outweigh the benefit (your second point).

"If you bought last week or you bought 52 years ago, if you hold an asset through a crash, you lose money."

Are you advocating that you divest yourself of all real estate in the lead-up to any "crash"?

"If you bought last week or you bought 52 years ago, if you hold an asset through a crash, you lose money."

This could be the silliest thing posted on streeteasy, ever. The only way you "lose money" on owner occupied real estate is when you sell, the benefits of owning were less than if you had rented. If you make $1 more owning than if you rented, you made money. Everything else is gravy. Why is this so hard to understand?

"This could be the silliest thing posted on streeteasy, ever. The only way you "lose money" on owner occupied real estate is when you sell, the benefits of owning were less than if you had rented. If you make $1 more owning than if you rented, you made money. Everything else is gravy. Why is this so hard to understand?"

Bingo. That's why I was amazed at the implication that you should just sell everything in time. It's common sense (to the point that it's taken for granted - at least I thought so) that RE is a long-term investment. You don't panic and jump ship.