House of the Day: 145 Bergen Street

looks great from the outside and love this area.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 1:47 PM

Listing says: "Three apartments are occupied by high rent tenants all of whom are ex-lease."

What the hell is "ex-lease"?

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 1:49 PM

Assume it means the leases have expired and the tenants are holding over month to month i.e. you can kick them out at any time

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 1:58 PM

you know this how, 2:06???

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 2:08 PM

Needs to be priced so that it is post-renovation at no more than $2MM (or maybe even 1.7). So, if it needs $400,000 in renovations, then it will need to be priced at about $1.3-1.6MM.

Otherwise, all you are doing is subsidizing your rentals.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 2:09 PM

2:06 -- the listing states:

"Parlor floor is now vacant and is easily reconnected to lower (garden) apartment by way of concealed internal staircase. Three apartments are occupied by high rent tenants all of whom are ex-lease."

It's a four family building, so 3 are occupied with high rent and 1 is vacant. If there's a rent control tenant, then the listing is fraudulent, and I doubt that.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 2:11 PM

Outside is beautiful beautiful beautiful. I don't know about the interior but this will sell for at least the asking maybe over. I love the area. Love the block.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 2:16 PM

i agree...this might go in a bidding war.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 2:18 PM

Being able to stumble home drunk from the Brooklyn Inn in 30 seconds is priceless.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 2:28 PM

I agree that post-renovation, needs to be priced around $1.8-2MM.

Need to find out current rent roll for these "high rent" apartments before determining proper selling price.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 2:32 PM

This house will be worth 3 million in 5 years.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 2:35 PM

2:32 -- think about what you just said:

"No real estate investor in their right mind would buy this house at this price. This is a price that only makes sense in comparison to other single residency offerings in this area."

So, its "insane" to buy this place as an investment, but it makes sense to live in??? You are the idiot. It's a bad investment, whether you live in or rent it out. It can't be one, but not the other.

Idiot.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 2:36 PM

This house will be worth $3 in 5 million years

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 2:37 PM

2:36, I actually think you are the idiot.

Pre-2000, almost no one thought of their home as an investment like they do today.

They were buying a place to live.

If more people start once again thinking that way, we'd all be a lot better off.

I couldn't care less if my property value drops. I love my home and plan to stay put.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 2:40 PM

" no real estate investor in their right mind would buy this house at this price"

a person can buy it all cash or all euros throw his friends and family in there for 5 yrs or so. Then kick em all out and sell each floor for 2 million.

Im no broker but lots of "avenues" in real estate. think outside your wallet.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 2:41 PM

It's fine if you want to say that it's a bad investment but I love it! Just be aware that you are counting on someone else saying that and buying it from you. What's happening now, is that people are looking at prices and figuring out the inherent value (as compared with rents), and determining that it's just much cheaper to rent. That's the situation with this place. If you can't live without it, go for it. If you want to be fiscally prudent, rent.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 2:49 PM

its far enough away from the brooklyn inn that the new owner likely won't hear the annoyingly loud drunkards standing on the corner latenight. that crowd at that bar has taken a turn for the worse lately...very sad...

hey mr. b, can we have an update on what's going on with that condo reno at 231 bergen? it feels like that thing has been on the market foreva...

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 2:51 PM

No lifelong renter I ever knew made out better in the end than someone who owned their home.

Who wants to be 60 and still renting??

Talk about a nightmare if health problems start setting in.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 2:52 PM

Why does Stoner describe properties like this one as a house? Sure it was built as a house in 1850 but today it is a four-unit multiple dwelling with tenants, one of which has rent protetion and is therefore a lifetime tenant.
A "house" does not have a stranger hanging around the third floor. You know?

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 2:53 PM

2:42 -- If you think of buying a $2MM house as buying a fancy car -- a consumable -- then you have a lot more money than most people.

I do think most people need to believe that they will be able to sell their house for at least around what they paid. For those of you that just want to enjoy a $2MM house, and don't care about taking a big loss when you go to sell it (like a fancy car), then this is the place for you.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 2:53 PM

Pre-2000, almost no one thought of their home as an investment like they do today.

Where are these arrogant rookies getting these facts from.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 2:56 PM

Lots and lots and lots of people in this city are rolling around in money, 2:53.

To many, 2 million dollars is spare change.

You really need to get out more.

Both my bosses make over 500K each and I work in the Arts.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 2:58 PM

Ex-lease means there are no leases, not that it can be delivered vacant. The add and the info of reluctant rent controlled tenant are consistent.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 2:58 PM

"one of which has rent protetion and is therefore a lifetime tenant."

You are a liar.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 2:59 PM

I don't think there can be a rent controlled tenant -- the listing says:

3 high rent
1 vacant

That's four units, none of which is rent controlled.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:02 PM

Kuroko is a know it all.

And not a very nice one.

All of his/her posts are filled with misinformation and sounds of a bitter person who won't own property anytime soon.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:06 PM

Can't wait to cut and paste Kuroko's comments in 3 months when this sells for ask.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:10 PM

"The expectation that BECAUSE you have paid this premium you can expect that there are enough renters out there to pay a proportionate amount of your mortgage is absurd."

Kuroko- stop right there! Some may not want to rent and some may not have a mtg. This is America and we are all not financally equal.

long live captalism down with communism.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:11 PM

What Kuroko doesn't seem to understand (since week after week, he or she says that every house is a million dollars overpriced) is that if homes are routinely selling for these prices and people seemingly can afford them, that perhaps you are just not correct.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:19 PM

Let's be clear: even if you make $500K a year, a $2 million home is not "spare change." On $2 million, even if you put 30% down, your mortgage is still around $12K a month. You can't pay a $12K-a-month mortgage comfortably if you make $500K a year -- it's around 40% of your take-home.

Of course, you can rent out the other apartments, but then you're locking up $600K, losing all the investment income on that, and paying at least $3K a month (plus taxes, repairs, maintenance, etc.) to live in a one-bedroom apartment on Bergen St. There is no way this makes financial sense unless you're expecting the property to appreciate significantly in value over the next decade. Which it is simply not going to do -- the run-up in prices we saw between 2002 and 2007 was big enough to last at least another ten years. In inflation-adjusted terms, you're almost certainly going to be able to buy this place for just about $2 million in 2015. You really think it makes sense to shell out that money now so you can live in a one-bedroom?

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:26 PM

"Let's be clear: even if you make $500K a year, a $2 million home is not "spare change."

We must assume that someone making 500K a year has been making a hefty chunk for quite a few years now.

That means one of two things...that have a tremendous savings account, they already owned property (if they bought before 2000, they are LOADED) or they have more Jimmy Choo's than they know what to do with.

If you make 500K a year and aren't feeling loaded, you are doing something wrong.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:31 PM

"You really think it makes sense to shell out that money now so you can live in a one-bedroom?"

YES. Because you own a home. And you know what...in 2015 or maybe sooner, you won't even know it, but before you look prices will be going back up as they do in ALL major world cities and then you'll be fine.

No one is buying this house to live in for less than 10, 20 years or more.

Come on now.

If you buy this and plan to raise a family here, there is a 90% chance you will make serious dough in 25 years.

Potentially life changing dough.

I like those odds a lot.

Considering how many people throw money away on the lottery, I'd rather buy a house any day.

As someone else siad...you can't live inside your 600K savings account.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:34 PM

3:26= Kuroko

Save it for your pillow talk at night when you're explaining the reason why you renewed your rental lease for another 2 yrs.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:37 PM

Kuroko -- the point of the 2:09 post is that it is madness, based upon what rents one could recover. It assumes that the renters out there won't pay $5000 a month.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:37 PM

3:34 --

"If you buy this and plan to raise a family here, there is a 90% chance you will make serious dough in 25 years."

Every study that has ever been done concludes that investing in equities is a better way to "make serious dough" over the long term than investing in real estate. The last 7 years have been an unusual irrational bubble, and that is ending now.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:40 PM

youd be surprised how long you have to make 500k a year to buy a brownstone safely.

ive been doing it for 3 years now ( i started a company 4 years ago) all of my assets combined would be 600k.

600k of combined assets is nothing to sneeze at... but buying a 2 million dollar home is not an option.

2 million dollar home = 400k down (good bye savings & 401k), 50k in related costs, insanely high mortgage rates, and a shitload of risk (company dies?).

you must understand 500k after taxes and living expenses and everything else, your lucky to have 150k saved (of which 40k should go into a 401k).

it takes a LONG time of making a lot of money to really have SAFE leverage to buy such an expensive property.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:40 PM

3:40...

Here's an example...10 years ago I was making less than 100K a year. I bought a place in Hells Kitchen for 175K. Now I am making almost 500K a year and sold my place for 1.6 million dollars.

Just bought a house in North Slope for a little under 3 million.

My mortgage is only a million bucks (put down a million from my home sale purchase and another million in savings), which is nothing considering mine and my partners salary.

We still have appoximately 750K in savings and have two tenants which pay $5,000 of our mortgage.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:44 PM

Why isn't it delivered vacant?
If the tenants can be nicely asked to leave and the seller can offer the house vacant, he could ask a higher price. Then the buyer could either rehab the units and re-rent or convert the house back to a single-family.
I am alwys suspicious of properties that the agent describes housing "high rent" and month-to-month tenants. If I am going to pay a high price, I want it delivered vacant. Period.
Even a renter with no lease at all who refuses to vavate can cost you legal fees and months in court.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:44 PM

This is actually an interesting price for what one poster accurately described as a multiple-unit dwelling. Assuming (a big question mark) that you could legally evict ally 3 tenants, you'd then be looking at a gut reno if you wanted to use this as a 1-family, because it is a GREAT location (possibly my favorite part of brownstone Brooklyn).

Could you gut this place for under 1 mm? That seems to be the question. Otherwise, as another poster also correctly noted, you're going to be living in a 1 br with 3 tenants...

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:46 PM

You missed out on serious appreciation in 2007, Kuroko.

I BOUGHT in 2006 and sold in early 2008 and made 85K on the sale of my STUDIO!!!

You sound like you bailed way too early.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:47 PM

"all of my assets combined would be 600k"

3:40 I think you suck at business just by reading your comment. You have not been earning 600k a yr for 3 yrs.

thank you very little for your imput

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:50 PM

85K is not chicken scratch on a 250k studio owned for 18 months with zero work done on it.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:57 PM

Why would you own then sell and then rent?
Isnt that what they call "ass backwards"?

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:59 PM

FYI:

Anyone see this: The CEO of Freddie Mac said housing price drops are only 1/3 done!!!!! 2/3 more of the way to go!!!

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/real_estate_/index.html

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 4:01 PM

By her comment at 3:55, it is safe to say that yes, kuroko is missing a chromosome or two.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 4:02 PM

3:50... 600k and zero debt.

if you think you could do much better... you probably subscribe to the Wesley Snipes school of income tax payment, and your likely not too familiar with a Net 90, nor the effect of a variety of other things on income.

1.5 million after taxes is 900k, subtract net 90's, then subtract 3 years cost of living (rent, food, travel, etc...).

not a problem your familiar with im sure.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 4:03 PM

"Anyone see this: The CEO of Freddie Mac said housing price drops are only 1/3 done!!!!! 2/3 more of the way to go!!!"

Well since they haven't dropped at all yet in New York, what's two thirds of ZERO??

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 4:03 PM

You are really bitchy, Kuroko. It comes across in every single one of your posts.

Did renting for the past 2 years make you this nasty or have you always been like that??

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 4:06 PM

anyone who bought in 2000 and sold in 2006 is a fool.

also doesn't sound like a very stable person, if you ask me.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 4:08 PM

Who cares if it isn't empty? If the tenants are market rate and don't have leases, then a buyer could ask that it be conveyed to them empty - or choose to start owning with tenants in place. No problem.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 4:09 PM

Kuroko:

You really need to read this:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime

Pretty great article.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 4:11 PM

3:59

if the cost to rent is less than 60% of the (monthly mortgage intrest \ maintenence & taxes) subtracting any rent income you would pay on the house... your gonna be better off putting your money in the market long term than the house.

so, if you pay out 8666 a month (after a 400k deposit) on a 2 million dollar home, + about 1500k a month in maintainence and taxes, your paying 10k a month on that home.... subtract your tenants rents... 7k... now your paying 3k a month.... since you can expense your 3k... your actualy out of pocket cost is gonna be about 60% of 3k... 1,800k.

if youo can rent a place that is nicer for 1800k... youve pretty much lost... since you could have instead put your money into the market and earned better returns. (also note how hard it is to get 7k a month out of 3 units in brooklyn.)

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 4:12 PM

Existing tenants = prior owner's problems you are buying from him.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 4:12 PM

you can't find a studio for 1800 a month.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 4:15 PM

3:44 -- if you are boasting about your good fortune, congratulations.

If you are claiming that buying in Hell's Kitchen for 175k in 1997 is comparable to buying in Boerum Hill for $2m + renovation costs in 2007 -- that's just silly. If it escalated in the next ten years the way your apartment did in the last ten, it'd be selling for $30 million. Even in NYC there aren't many people who can pay that much and have a desperate need to live in Boerum Hill.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 4:16 PM

It might not escalate as much in the next 10 as it did in the last 10, but I can tell you one thing that isn't changing.

Rents are not going down anytime soon and I don't plan to make someone else rich for my whole life.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 4:18 PM

renting is for suckers.

can't afford a brownstone, but a studio or a 1 bedroom and work your way up.

you don't start out with a million dollar pad you whiny losers.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 4:22 PM

"you can't find a studio for 1800 a month."

Remove head from ass before looking and you will have better luck.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 4:23 PM

"Wesly Snipes school of income tax payment" yes please try comedy because that bullshit your slinging here and in real life aint cutting it. You suck real hard at business.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 4:47 PM

I would take real estate advice from the homeless guy that hangs out in front of Key Food on 7th Avenue before I ever dreamed of taking it from one of you.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 4:50 PM

4:12 makes this look much more attractive than it is.

For an investor: 4:12 assumed 6.5% jumbo loan -- which is probably too low -- but let's use that number. 400k is tied up here, not making money in some other investment. If you'd make 6.5% after taxes elsewhere, that's another 2166/mo you've lost -- an opportunity cost, but a cost of owning here nonetheless. So your costs are over 12k/month. To break even you need to rent your unrenovated floor through apts for 3k each. To make money, you need to get more than that, which isn't happening in the near future. As an investment it's a loser.

If you want to live in one apartment, and you enjoy being a landlord, so you don't need to charge for your time as a real estate manager, then it looks a bit better, because you get the full benefit of the tax subsidy. You have 12k/month expenses, less about 6k/month rental income at a more realistic 2k/mo/floor. So you are paying 6k/mo for your unrenovated floor through. The government will cover about 2k of that through the mortgage deduction. So in the end, you are paying about 4k/mo -- only double what your tenants pay. Ah, the glories of homeownership!

If you plan to live in the whole thing, you need to add renovation costs. If you can renovate for 500k, the place will cost you 15k/mo or 180k/year, using the calculations above (and assuming you can find a super-jumbo loan at 6.5%, or if you use your own money that you don't have any better investment paying more than that). If you want a 1m reno, it's 18k/mo or 220k/yr. The tax subsidy for owner occupants will give you back about 25k of that (less if you are high income). So you are paying the equivalent of renting at 13 - 16k/mo.

If you were completely in love with this neighborhood, you could manage that (barely) on an income of somewhat over $500,000, if you don't have kids in private school and you are willing to live (otherwise) as if you were making $100k. Or it's doable if you've made a killing in Manhattan or inherited a chunk of money from someone who did. But does it make sense? Seems to me that it to buy this purely to live in it, you should have an income closer to $1m than $500k. And at that income I have to wonder whether you want to live in Boerum Hill anyway.

If you are paying all cash, it doesn't cost much in monthly cash outlay -- just taxes, renovation, headache, and heat. But what opportunity costs! $2.5m invested should give you at least 125k effortless income per year. Isn't there something better to do with 125k/year than spend it on this house?

And if you are planning to sell it, you need to consider how fast the income distribution drops off: will there be enough people making $2m/yr and looking for houses in Boerum Hill to sell the place in 5 years?

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 4:56 PM

I hate to say it but this is the time to buy in the suburbs. The city is over-inflated at the moment. There are few bargains.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:02 PM

The amount of misinformed crap on this site is just astounding.

"You can't find a studio for 1800 a month." In Boerum Hill or Carroll Gardens? What a joke. There are piles of nice one-bedrooms for anywhere between $1800-$2100 in those neighborhoods. As for 4:18's idiotic "Rents aren't going down anytime soon" -- rents in Brooklyn have risen much less than housing prices over the past five years. Just do the math: that means that, relative to buying, renting is a lot cheaper today than it was five years ago. It also means that people who buy today aren't going to be able to earn back their investment via rents.

Everyone always says that renting "makes other people richer." In the decade I've lived in Brooklyn, I've lived in two gorgeous apartments in two great neighborhoods. I've paid somewhere between $170K-$200K in rent, while building, via investing, savings in the high six figures, and zero debt. Now, I know that doesn't make me rich, but I don't see any evidence that my landlords are getting wealthy off me. I've spent zero dollars in interest, and buying places that were as nice as the ones I've lived would have cost at least $500K over ten years, versus the $170K I've spent. There's no question that buying in the late 1990s or early 2000s would have been a great investment. But that doesn't mean real estate is always the right investment, let alone that buying real estate after the biggest price run-up in NYC history is the right investment.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:03 PM

who cares what you can afford.

just buy it!!!!

it's brooklyn!!! yay!

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:04 PM

"If you were completely in love with this neighborhood, you could manage that (barely) on an income of somewhat over $500,000, if you don't have kids in private school and you are willing to live (otherwise) as if you were making $100k."

Hear, hear. This is exactly right. If you make $500K a year, you can afford to spend $12K a month on a Boerum Hill property if you don't mind living day-to-day like you make a lot less. But is that really the point of being rich? So you can buy a house on Bergen St. and have to live in okay fashion?

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:08 PM

I live in the area, and $2 mil strikes me as high. As above posters have stated, both intelligently and not, purchasing it for rental income alone doesn't justify the price. Someone would purchase it to live in, either a duplex or triplex/simplex with some rental income supplement, or whole house. That requires some major renovation. $400,000 at least!

It's a nice block, but it has a bus that runs along it, 24/7. $2.4 million, plus the headache of renovation, strikes me as high, but every time I say "they'll never get that price!" it goes over asking.

Sigh.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:08 PM

"but every time I say "they'll never get that price!" it goes over asking."

EXXXACTLY!!!

so clearly some people have more money than you all think they do.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:12 PM

Paying rent or paying interest to the bank -- the money is just as gone either way.

The only way you make money owning is if the price of the building goes up. It's not about "not throwing your money away". It's about buying low and selling high.

Right now, owners pay about double what it would cost to rent. Owners in Brownstone Brooklyn pay about 3 times what they'd pay in nice suburbs. Housing prices have gone up at historically unprecedented rates for 5 years. None of these are indicators that prices are low.

If you are buying to INVEST, the question is where the new value is going to come from:

(1) Owners will pay a higher premium to own. That's mainly what's driven the prices of the last boom. Even at the peak of the 1980s boom, owners expected to pay LESS than renters for the same house in NYC. Now new buyers pay way more. So how much higher do you think the premium for owning is going to go?

(2) NYers will pay a higher premium to live in Boerum Hill instead of S. Orange or Westchester. Some premium -- obviously. But ever increasing premiums? At some point, either the suburbs or Boston/LA/SF/Chicago/Philadelphia will start to look reasonably priced even relative to the extensive charms of Brooklyn.

(3) Supply is going to disappear or demand is going to soar. The number of upper middle class or better housing units in Brownstone Brooklyn has soared in the last few years, through renovations, expansion of the acceptable areas to live, conversions of non-residential buildings, decontrol and new construction. And there are still plenty of people who paid nothing who might conclude that selling out at $2m would finance a pretty nice early retirement in Vermont, the North Shore, or Italy, and plenty of renters who can be forced out by owners willing to do more nasty work than this seller is. So supply isn't going away. Demand is up, but the days of rapid Wall St growth are taking a break at least. How is demand going to increase faster than supply?

(4) Rents are going to go up enough to rescue current prices. Rents are going to go up. Inflation does that. But they can't go up much faster than income, because there is a limit to how much people are willing to double-up. And income hasn't gone up for 85% of the population for 2 decades. So if this is your theory, better make sure you are in a super luxury market. And that the Wall Streeters continue to make money -- and continue to want to rent!

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:18 PM

Don't sigh. People who have more money to afford to buy it and renovate it to live in aren't you. It's ok - you earn more than a lot of other people. Just becasue these brownstones are nice doesn't mean everybody needs to live in one. I like 'em, but I like a lot of things I don't (and won't ever) have. Feel good about the life and home you have.

Others will buy it to rent out, and depending on where prices go (an unknown, really) may do well on the investment, or may (likely) do poorly. That's their choice, and one you would not make.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:20 PM

"I hate to say it but this is the time to buy in the suburbs. The city is over-inflated at the moment. There are few bargains."

You REALLY need to read the article that 4:11 posted.

BADLY.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:20 PM

@ 5:12 - any don't mind losing it, or are very optimistic about selling the Brooklyn Bridge to the next guy.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:21 PM

Property values also go up when you improve said property with sweat equity. Just like the good ole days.

Or have you all forgotten that?

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:24 PM

Oh come one, 5:20. There's a big difference between new suburbs of cheap houses outside other cities, and the old suburbs with beautiful homes surrounding NYC (Westchester, lots of NJ, some on LI, though its not my favorite place) that will remain healthy places to live, due to the housing values, the easy commute by train to NYC jobs, the schools, etc. Even if there are a few foreclosures here and there, these suburbs aren't turning into ghost towns.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:26 PM

There are suburbs that are suffering bigtime right now. We just don't hear about it.

There is inventory on parts of Long Island right now which even in the best of markets will not sell for over 2 years.

Same with parts of New Jersey.

They say prices still have another 20% to go in the burbs.

I'd be TERRIFIED if I lived there.

Thank god I don't.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:29 PM

Thanks 4:12

Then ass backwards means you and your tribe and Kuroko is your prime minster.

My advice to you and your people...
Next time buy a home that you can handle so you're not forced to sell prematurely, then rent for 3 years.

Now you're damned to forever surf RE blogs spreading crap with numbers sprinkled on top, and all you're bascially saying is that you firgured out it's safer to help someone else pay their mortgage off. Wuss

Oops sorry about the wuss comment.. hey did I tell you that I have a lovely 2 bedroom apt avialable. Are you interested?

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:32 PM

Maybe, but they aren't the suburbs with beautiful old homes, conveniently located on train lines with short commutes into the city. They are ones with less desirable housing stock and/or lousy commutes, and lousy schools.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:33 PM

The second kid is still phenomenally expensive in Brooklyn, and the suburban schools and cheap bedrooms look more attractive with each $1m increase in the price of a brownstone.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:33 PM

"They are ones with less desirable housing stock and/or lousy commutes, and lousy schools."

So basically 70% of them.

Ok.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:34 PM

"The second kid is still phenomenally expensive in Brooklyn, and the suburban schools and cheap bedrooms look more attractive with each $1m increase in the price of a brownstone."

Bye Bye. have fun in Montclair!! Their new slogan...Buy now! Next year your home will be worth half!

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:35 PM

30 years ago when I first moved to CH, it still felt a little adventurous -- not very, but clearly the mainstream hadn't read Jane Jacobs yet and still yearned for the silence of the 'burbs.

If I were starting out now, I'd look for a beautiful, undervalued, suburb with a walkable center and a train station, and a fashion problem -- much like Brooklyn c. 1970.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:39 PM

"Paying rent or paying interest to the bank - the money is just as gone either way."

Dumbass of the day.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:41 PM

"the suburban schools and cheap bedrooms look more attractive with each $1m increase in the price of a brownstone."

I tend to agree. And I've never lived in a suburb yet. And if there's some softening in price there, then it is a good time to buy. As long as the homes, the commute, and the schools are good in that town.

And, 5:34, why would you seek out one of the ones where that wasn't the case?

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:41 PM

4:56

You're absolutely correct, but talking to the people on here is like beating your head against a wall.

Your well thought out arguement will be retorted wtih something like
"renting is for suckers, i don't want to make someone else rich"

But then again, some people just don't know how to invest money properly, so they thinking being mortgaged up to the hilt to buy a brownstone will somehow pay off.

Yes, lots of people stepped in shit and bought upper west side apts for 200k and sold for 1.5 mill, but i can't see your Park Slope house ever selling for 80 million dollars. Sorry.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:47 PM

"Paying rent or paying interest to the bank - the money is just as gone either way."

Dumbass of the day.

-- hm. Unless you are the bank, seems right. You pay $, you get place to live. You stop paying $, you lose place to live.

Market goes up -- landlord makes money. Market goes down -- renter makes money. Market goes up, down or same -- bank makes money.

What's so dumbass?

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:52 PM

5:47 what's your point you've never seen a brownstone sell for 10k neither.

Can you imagine the rent my great grand kids will collect from yours when brownstones are 80 million? Can you say
"Ka-ching" !

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:56 PM

Then again when Remsen Street brownstones were just breaking $100,000 who would have seen them selling for $5m? Maybe by 2012 only centi-millionaires will be able to buy houses in Brooklyn. Lots of people make lots of money in NY, and none of them got rich by throwing money away renting.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:56 PM

Renters = fucknuckles

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:56 PM

@ 5:56

5:47 here. Your great grand kids will not be collecting anything from my great grandkids. I own a brownstone in Manhattan, you know, one that costs double yours :)

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:59 PM

"Maybe by 2012 only centi-millionaires will be able to buy houses in Brooklyn."

So you mean kinda like in London, Zurich, Tokyo and Hong Kong in 2008?

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 6:05 PM

5:52 what so dumbass is that you have no sense of ownership.

After 30 yrs my mtg will be paid off and from my island compound I will continue to collect your rent. Dumbass!

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 6:07 PM

No one would have thought 20 years ago that a building would rise in once decrepit Columbus Circle and charge $6,000 psf for apartments, but it just happened.

I surely would not bank on renting my whole life. Sounds TERRIFYING.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 6:07 PM

In 1975 renovated Cobble Hill floor-throughs apartments rented for $200 and the subway had recently jumped to 35 cents. Now they rent for $2500 and the subway is $2. So rents have gone up about 12 times, or twice inflation -- just as the world was deciding that cities were not dead, after all, and that Cobble Hill was the coolest place this side of Carroll Gardens.

Meanwhile the building that was 80k then is for sale for 2.4m now -- an increase of 30 times.

Fast forward another 30 years. Brownstones go up another 30 times, to 70m, the subway will be $12, average income will be about $250k, and rents will be 15k/floor, just out of reach of the average renter (just like now).

And new brownstone owners will be happily paying $115k/month in interest or lost investment for that $15k floor through apartment, because rent is for suckers.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 6:10 PM

i'm calling bs on the 175k hell's kitchen/3mn north slope. this is the same person who is a 34yo college dean making 600k combined (husband manages recording artists and makes $400k). BUT on 3/5, this person was looking for such a house and had not yet sold for the 1.6mn (which sounds high for a hell's 2br that was a fixer upper in 97). also, on 3/5, it was east village and not hell's kitchen. not sure what is motivating this poster. it is either the fantasy of a desperate park slope broker or a desperate $3mn ask seller. here is the link, so decide for yourself. too many similarities if you ask me. http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2008/03/houses_of_the_d_13.php?comments=10

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 6:10 PM

@ 5:59 touche!

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 6:11 PM

to Dumbass:

In 30 years, the 2m I invested @ 7% instead of buying this house, plus the $600k I didn't pay in taxes over 30 years, will be a nice tidy $40m.

I don't think I'll have any problem paying your rent, which should be up to about 8k by then.

That's if I miss the post-bubble real estate downswing. It was pretty hard to miss in the early 90s, but maybe this time I won't be paying attention, or maybe $6000/sf will come to Boerum Hill and I'll never buy. Those Hong Kong centimillionaires are pretty hot on Boerum Hill, I hear. It's got really good noodle shops.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 6:22 PM

"Got any any good 9/11 conspiracy theories?"

The What is Osama bin Ladin.

Or Dick Cheney.

Maybe both.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 6:28 PM

5:47 -- Actually, the old fogeys around here have seen brownstones for 10k. In the mid-60s, the city was giving away brownstones for free all up and down the UWS to anyone who'd fix them up. They even gave subsidized loans for renovation, since the banks wouldn't touch it.

In Boerum Hill or Park Slope below 5th Ave, prices didn't break 10k until well into the 1970's.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 6:32 PM

johnife -- how long do you think the plebes (and condo owners) are going to let you get away with less than .1% taxes on your $20m brownstone?

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 6:37 PM

"I don't think I'll have any problem paying your rent, which should be up to about 8k by then. "

6:22 ok deal. I'll be your landlord, but the rent numbers need to be tweeked. I need about 15k a floor. I also need you to eat your noodles and stay in shape. I do not want to hear peep from your old ass about the walk up and your damn knees. And i will not install one of those old people chair lift thingys in my home. It will ruin the integrity of my Brownstone.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 6:47 PM

here is an interesting comparison. The CREF fund started in 1952, and it has returned 10.34% per year since then. http://www.tiaa-cref.org/performance/retirement/profiles/1001.html

That means it doubles about every 7 years. So a 10k investment in 1952 would be about $3.8m today.

That's about the same as you'd have gotten by investing in Prime Park Slope in 1952, if you made it through the bad years.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 6:49 PM

5:56 - would Warren Buffett be any less rich if he was a renter? there are other ways of "making" money than by investing in real estate. either way, you are paying some montly cost and it either ties you down or it doesn't.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 6:50 PM

6:47 -- with my $40m, I'll be able to buy 4 brownstones and lay out a horizontal apartment. Or move to a really nice beach in Greece and hunt for shells in my dotage, if the dollar hasn't collapsed completely.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 6:53 PM

Johnife, the 7%, I assume, is pre-inflation, so the actual number is around 10%. As for taxes, you don't pay 41% on long-term capital gains, you pay 15%, and you don't pay it every year, you only pay it at the end, when you sell. In other words, you take $2 million, put it into an index fund, and sell it 30 years later, paying 15% on the roughly 10% annualized gains. I don't have Excel in front of me, but while you're not going to get anywhere near $40 million, I'd be shocked if it weren't close to $25 million.

The important thing about the comparison is that stocks are now around their historical norm in terms of P/Es, etc., so it's reasonable to expect a historically typical gain over the next 30 years -- that is, around 10% annually (including inflation), 7% inflation-adjusted. NYC real estate, by contrast, is at an all-time peak, which means that gains over the next decade at least can be expected to be well below the historical norm, and are most likely to be negative.

Look, there is no investment case for buying NYC real estate today. That doesn't mean it's not worth it, if you hate renting, or you need a really big place for your family. But if you buy today, you're going to see a smaller return than if you did something else with your money. And you're likely going to be looking at no gain to losses over the foreseeable future. Pointing today to the last five years as evidence that NYC real estate is a guaranteed thing is exactly like someone in Feb. 2000 pointing to the performance of the Nasdaq over the previous five years and saying that if putting money into tech stocks was a surefire way to get rich. You can't buy at the top and get wealthy. And this is, for the foreseeable future, the top.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 7:33 PM

$2 million at 10% a year gives you $35 million in 30 years. Toss in an extra $25K a year that you save in taxes, maintenance, repairs, etc., and you end up with $40 million after 30 years.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 7:38 PM

anyone who has 2 million dollars and does not own their own home is a total loser.

if you've got 40 million and rent, you need to see a doctor.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 7:48 PM

""Got any any good 9/11 conspiracy theories?"

The What is Osama bin Ladin.

Or Dick Cheney.

Maybe both."

Ha ha ha nope. I will not go into specifics Real Estate is over. I know Captain Feelgood told you Assfucks that every thing is OK.

Here read this

Housing Market Has Further to Fall

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/03/13/housing-market-has-further-to-fall/

The majority of respondents say the U.S. is currently in a recession, and one of the major drags has been the housing sector. On average, economists see a 5.3% drop in house prices, as measured by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, in 2008 and a 1.3% decline in 2009. “The bulk of inventory problem hits this year, pulling prices down,” said Diane Swonk of Mesirow Financial, referring to the imbalance between homes on the market and sales.

And

U.S. Home Defaults, Foreclosures Rise 60% in February (Update3)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ad7WKM2zVEgc&refer=home

March 13 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. home foreclosure filings jumped 60 percent and bank seizures more than doubled in February as rates on adjustable mortgages rose and property owners were unable to sell or refinance amid falling prices.

60% fucking percent??!! And people are arguing about Park Slope Vs. Anyone??!! You need to wrap your little minds around this.

And Gold is around 1000.00, Oil is at 110.00 a barrel and the US Dollar is turning into toilet paper. I know The What is a bitter renter, The What is Ghetto, The What is....

This is going to be very bad and very nasty. Get you fucking heads out of you asses

The What (2 Million Huh?)

Someday this war is gonna end...

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 8:13 PM

wait, so in the next two years, prices might drop almosy 7%????!!!!!

what will i do with the 200% i saw in the last 5 years?????????

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 8:52 PM

How come it sounds like everyone on this site is a bitter renter? everyone bashes everything. Stop crying and just buy a house already.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 8:54 PM

For anyone who has not already noticed, this is not a serious blog, it has been taken over by teen dweebs and other losers.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 9:42 PM

6:53 That's what i'm talking about!

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 9:58 PM

Why do you think the renters are bitter?As I said above, I'm not bitter I rent -- I'm content. I've lived in much better apartments, with lots more space, than I could have ever afforded to buy. I've had to deal with zero hassles in terms of maintenance, etc. -- that's been the landlord's responsibility. And I've saved lots of money. Sure, if I could have afforded a brownstone in 2001 I would have been glad to buy it, but I couldn't. That doesn't mean that now I can afford one in 2007, I should buy one. Why does stating the truth -- real estate in Brooklyn is seriously overvalued, and no one should buy today expecting it to be a good investment -- make me bitter? The bitter ones, to me, sound like the owners and brokers, who keep insisting that everything is fine while they're looking at their investments drop in value everyday.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 10:00 PM

10:00 PM Don't take them seriously. The Asshats are trying to justify there madness. House has gone up 4x, 5x, 12x and the standard of living as gone down 4x, 5x, 12x. Inflation is a thief, robbing you of purchasing power and the assholes on Wall Street are having a field day doing it! 10:00 PM if you rent just be happy. You can afford to go out, take vacation and do other thing that a HOMEDEBTER can't do.

"The bitter ones, to me, sound like the owners and brokers, who keep insisting that everything is fine while they're looking at their investments drop in value everyday."

The assfucks are watching their dreams go bye-bye. RIP MREB Heh Heh.

The What

Someday this war is gonna end.....

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 10:11 PM

There is a certain amount of defensiveness on this site, just write the word "suburb" and it is like saying satan to inquisitioners.
Weird.
Brooklyn is over valued.
It is because of suburban children with high paying jobs who are trying to annoy their parents. As soon as they hit a certain age they will realize how ridiculous they have been. No way are Brooklyn houses worth this much. Most of them do not even have garages.
That's just douche-baggy.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 10:27 PM

10:00/10:11 = Serf

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 10:27 PM

"That doesn't mean that now I can afford one in 2007"

It's been 2008 for a few months now, dollface.

Maybe the reason you haven't bought something by now is because you don't even know when or where you are.

Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 10:53 PM

This thread is boring boring boring boring

and so are the suburbs and all their foreclosures because nobody f-ing wants to live there.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 12:00 AM

Bid 1.8 on the house and they will take it, its worth it, if your not buying the house to turn around in a year if u hold for 5 you will make a killing. Im buying house's and making them condos in that bklyn area, even in this environment its quite lucrative. Im looking for another right now but this one is way to high for an investment in condos. Case in point buy a house on a border changing area for 700-900K make 3 luxury condos, 300K construction, sell each one for 800-900K. Figure out the math, quite lucrative. I just started doing this a year ago.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 8:52 AM

8:52: I can't believe u r giving away these tips for free. Have you considered a book?

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 9:41 AM

10:27= big hair

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 9:54 AM

Why I bother, but: past is no guide to future returns; as soon as something is a "sure thing," it's over; your "200% return" is nothing to brag about --even if you don't get price depreciation, the collapse of the dollar and inflation will take care of you.

Tonally, if you've read this blog for a few months, you've seen the change: all the confidence (and btw, hard data) is with the naysayers, just as, not coincidentally, the bitter edge has crept into the voices of owners and brokers.

Get your head around it: Once "prices always go up" became a meme, prices started to cascade upward, and became irrational, therefore canceling out the historical norm, which was, in fact, that RE prices tended to track incomes --i.e., go up. I know you're not George Soros, but try to think it through: it's because you say "prices always go up" that the statement is no longer true.

You cannot ever justify an asset price solely on the guarantor of its future appreciation. That would be risk-free money. Forget it. If you really believed what you were saying, you wouldn't be asshatting on here with the "bitter renters," you'd be leveraging up the property you're so proud of yourself for already owning, and buying these buildings with both hands. Unless of course you're a little over-leveraged already. And your bonus is coming in light. And the gentrification you counted on to scrub up your fringe neighborhood is now on hold.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 10:01 AM

new york is different.

prices will continue to climb.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 10:05 AM

Well, take the Bear Stearns buyers out of the market.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 10:07 AM

yeah, now those bear stearns guys will have to suffer on 2 million a year instead of the usual 5.

too bad for them.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 10:22 AM

You have Bear confused with Goldmen.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 10:27 AM

10k in 1952 and 3 million now! That is exactly why the ancients decided to call it REAL estate.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 10:34 AM

So, when does Goldman get sued for shorting the MBS they were pushing on everybody else?

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 10:35 AM

The day the Luv Guv starts tossing salads.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 10:48 AM

Sounds like the Luv Gov has been tossing plenty of pricey salads lately.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 10:51 AM

Oh is that what "basic" but "risky" means? nice.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 10:52 AM

You think the Bear guys are going to get 2mm this year instead of 5, you know nothing about nothing. Bear won't exist in 3 months. There's about to be a glut of banker resumes making the rounds, just as other I-banks are cutting staff. Dream on, brokers, looks like The What had your number all along.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 11:36 AM

You think the Bear guys are going to get 2mm this year instead of 5, you know nothing about nothing. Bear won't exist in 3 months. There's about to be a glut of banker resumes making the rounds, just as other I-banks are cutting staff. Dream on, brokers, looks like The What had your number all along.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 11:36 AM

11:36 = the what

bear won't exist in 3 months? can i quote you on that in 3 months when they are not only alive, but kicking? you are a TOTAL moron.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 11:40 AM

Never in my history living in nyc has the market dropped drastically, just minimally and it has, like the market and always will come back twice as strong, thats why Im converting houses into condo's. You doomsayser really are probably losers, that why a small percentage of people are filthy rich. They know whats really going on and don't listen to those who are clueless, like some of the people on this blog.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 11:48 AM

Johnife: This is 6:22pm. I started with 2.6m, not 2m, because I included the saved real estate taxes -- and I assumed that taxes were eventually going to get up to 1% of the current price of the house. I don't have a spread sheet handy, so I just used the standard rule of thumb, the rule of 72. Feel free to post the more accurate number. It won't be off by much.

Your tax calculations are completely wrong, as 7:33 pointed out. Unrealized capital gains aren't taxed.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 11:50 AM

The important point is 7:33pm, 10:01am: the reason people who bought in 1997 made lots of money is NOT that the real estate market has some kind of automatic guarantee that stops owners from being losers. It is because they bought at the beginning of the biggest RE price increase in US history in the city that went up most of all.

If you bought your stock in 1980 and sold in 2001 you also made out like a bandit -- 18% a year for 21 years -- but that doesn't mean that someone buying in 2001 had any reason to think that the same thing would happen again.

If you bought a Brooklyn brownstone at almost any time in the last 50 years except for the last 5 years, you could make a decent return renting it out -- with no capital appreciation at all. Today, if you buy at current prices, you will lose money every month renting it (or relative to what you would pay to rent it, if you live in it).

You can only make money if you can sell it to someone else willing to lose even more money in the hope of flipping it to someone else with the same dream. That works for a while -- at least the last 4 or 5 years for example -- but it is impossible for it to last forever. In the end, lots of people in all income ranges in this city are willing to rent, and it isn't all that hard to convert rentals to sales or vice versa, so rents and purchase prices can't stay radically out of whack for long.

The only way to justify current prices is to believe that there is a large pool of centimillionaires willing to pay any price, because money doesn't mean anything to them, to live in the neighborhood. There probably are some of those. But to keep prices up, there have to be more of them, over time, then there are homeowners who bought at 10k and are sitting on $2m capital gains and decide to cash out.

The second the crowds of homeowners who bought before 1996 and are sitting on capital gains decide that the beaches, or the suburbs, or retirement homes, are looking pretty good decide to sell, they are going to run out of buyers.

And don't bother with the stories about the Manhattanites who sold their apt for a fortune. All the people trading one overpriced property for another don't count -- they just cancel each other out. Trade my million dollar cat for your million dollar dog provides some liquidity but doesn't support the market price. It is the new buyers -- the Bear Stearns bankers and the international elite -- who supply the new cash to finance the ones going out -- the early buyers who see other uses for their money than keeping it tied up in Brooklyn real estate.

The reality is that there are thousands and thousands of lucky homeowners in the newly elite neighborhoods of Brooklyn. And there are very few people -- 15 or 20 in the last year? -- who can afford and are willing to drop several million for a house in Brooklyn. It only takes a few more sellers deciding to cash out to end the bubble.

Then, we will go back to a more normal market in which the new money is first time buyers and additional mortgages by people trading up -- which means that new money is constrained by income.

People who bought ten years ago were smart or lucky. They are going to do just fine even if their houses lose half their value. That's exactly why people who buy now need to worry. The owner of this house might well be delighted to get one million towards his retirement if he starts to think that in a plummeting market he's going to get less the next year. After all, he probably only paid 10k. Which means that the market is unsteady, hard to predict, and highly risky. A great time to sell. Not such a great time to buy, until prices make more sense.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 11:52 AM

11:48 - how old are you? Prices dropped in most of NY almost every year from the depression through the 1970s. Adjusted for inflation, they took another big hit in the early 90's.

Converting rentals to condos will work for a while, and then there will be a lot of condos on the market and sales will stop. If your timing is good, you'll make lots of money and if not, you'll go bust. It happened to Olympia and York and to Trump last time.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 11:55 AM

6:22 here. Johnife is right; I did my math wrong. I wrote 7% but I calculated at 10%. So I'll have to match the stock market, not the bond market, to get my $40m.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 12:11 PM

Converting houses into condos: Profit because the condo price is way too high relative to the rental value. (At Bear Stearns, we call this arbitrage). Make lots of money short term. Also, increase supply of condos, decrease supply of rentals. The medium term market impact is predictable. Don't get caught with your leverage down. I mean up.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 12:14 PM

12:14 If you're at BSC, shouldn't you be too busy to be posting here with your shop going to the fed window begging thru JPM and with the stock down 40% on the day?

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 12:33 PM

there hundreds of thousands of new yorkers with at least a million in assets.

the bubble will continue here, just as it does in nearly every major world city.

you think prices in nyc are going to go down when london, tokyo, zurich, dubai continue to skyrocket?

you're nuts.

this is new york city. the capital of the world.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 1:25 PM

Yeah, 1:25 but you forget The What and others here think NYC is exactly the same economy and market as Kansas. Which is why they now can't afford to buy something or in other cases afford to upgrade to a house. They kept waiting thinking prices would either be the same 5 years later or even lower.

Mainly though I think it's because The What actually is in Kansas or the suburbs. I don't believe for one millisecond he lives in NYC. He's never indicated he does. He only posts stuff he reads on national news websites. He doesn't name specific examples of houses on his block that sold or didn't sell, etc. or tell anecdotes about friends who bought or sold properties here like everybody else does when presenting an argument. Nothing he says in his arguments show he has a real knowledge of the Brooklyn communities. Today he tried to claim there's a realtor here he knows, on another thread, but think about it. Anybody anywhere can phone up a realtor and ask a question. No proof of anything.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 1:57 PM

NYC's market will always be good unless a Nuke goes off, u naysayer's don't know about the market, just keep on renting. Condo conversions will make me even richer, remember even if the market tanks slightly I can rent them for high dollar until it comes back, either way its a win-win for me and anyone else with half a brain, so get over it. God I can't beleive how many people just don't know what the hell thier talking about. You people believe if u think it ts true, losers.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 2:20 PM

2:20 and 8:52: I can't believe u r giving away these tips for free. Have you considered an infomercial?

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 3:22 PM

Dubai=Las Vegas, not NY

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 3:35 PM

This bear Stearns news is a real kick in the nuts.

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 4:10 PM

Sales within the last 6 months
Four Families
Radius 1/2 mile from 145 Bergen St.
Address Sale price Gross SF Price per SF Date closed
125 Butler St $1,700,000 3,675 $462 12/17/2007
21 Tompkins Pl $2,563,000 3,375 $759 1/17/2008
194 Baltic St $2,000,000 4,400 $454 12/20/2007
81 State St $2,900,000 3,532 $821 2/13/2008

Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 10:07 PM