Miller Samuel Report: Sales Down; Bstone, Burg Prices Up

Where is the report on the Pridential website? Don't see it on the click-through.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 9:08 AM

I think the Brownstone Areas look real solid. When I look for Inventory I see the same small amount of homes on the market. I think we Level out from here and go sideways for a 1yr or 2. Then we go up with Inflation.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 9:12 AM

DIVE DIVE DIVE!

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 9:26 AM

I'm not sure how meaningful the numbers are.
Other than # of sales are down.
Where is the definition of Brownstone Brooklyn?
But biggest reason not to glean too much from the stats are sample base (# of sales) is small - so that trends can be easily skewed by where sales took place - and if was high-end props or low.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 9:28 AM

this neighborhood breakdown is kind of arbitrary. http://www.millersamuel.com/reports/regional-boundaries-popup.shtml
why do they put "brownstone brooklyn" as a separate designation for the 4th column? Many neighborhoods on that list (Gowanus, WT, Red Hook) don't really have much brownstone stock, while neighborhoods with much more (Crown Heights, Bed Stuy, PLG, Sunset Park) are in a different column? I'm not opposed to breaking up brooklyn by regions, but instead of "Brownstone Brooklyn" they should call it "gentrified brooklyn"

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 9:34 AM

I don't know but I know a lot of the residents on my block and nobody took out adjustable rate mortgages. Also these people have owned there homes for many many years in fact many have zero $ left on the loans. So how does Fannie and Freddie Mac have anything to do with Brooklyn houseing ( The What)? If the United States Govt. Can't get a control on the Financial system then the whole World is F*c*ed.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 9:43 AM

Looks good. Actually looks great compared to the Rest of the country.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 9:47 AM

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a9aZXkvf.GqM

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 9:50 AM

Good news comes out and the What still has negative comments. What why don't you just get a Life and try to get out of your trailer Park house more 0ften. Stop Eating Hot Dogs for Dinner everyday and Upgrade your beer from Bud to Amstel.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 9:52 AM

While prices were up from last year, they were down from the quarter, so the market is definitely softening. That said, prices are certainly still high, so sellers should not be afraid to sell, and I wonder if that's what's keeping inventory low. In any event, I think this is a perfectly healthy market, where sellers can make a tidy profit if they've owned since before 2005, but prices are calming down a bit which should hopefully allow more buyers a chance to buy. A price decline of even 20% should not hurt most sellers, and I think they would be wise to sell now since the market may go down further given all the economic woes, and it may take several years to go back up. But again, even if prices go down to 2005-2006 levels, they are still very high!

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:04 AM

Paragraph eight of this story indicates Manhattan inventory has hit an 8-year record:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601213&sid=a9aZXkvf.GqM&refer=home

So if the Upper West Siders who bought their apartments in the mid 90's can't sell at their lofty expectations, and bonuses on Wall Street will shrivel this year, can't we just be honest and say that prices in Brownstone Brooklyn should be heading lower?

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:08 AM

What you Idiot It has nothing to do with Brownstone Brooklyn . It has everything to do with The World Financial situation, so wake up and go post your stupid comments on the United Nations Blog. Your comments have zero to do with Brownstone Brooklyn. Have another Hot Dog.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:14 AM

Low inventory is very hard to interpret, as it could just mean that sellers with options are trying to wait out the drop. Or that developers that are in fact insolvent are trying to avoid admitting it. Thus, it could change abruptly if it becomes clear that the bubble is over.

For medium/long term, what is more important is supply: the total number of units regardless of whether they are currently for sale. That has soared in "Brownstone Brooklyn" (i.e., gentrified Brooklyn) because of new construction, renovation/conversion/de-rentalization, and most significantly boundary shift.

When supply goes up, unless demand goes up with it, prices go down. Where is increasing demand going to come from at these prices and without funny financing?

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 10:29 AM

"I think we Level out from here and go sideways for a 1yr or 2. Then we go up with Inflation."

I disagree. I think we go down from here, nominally AND really, for a year of two. Housing is in deflation because of the bust but the economy is in hyperinflation because of oil speculation and the political response (lower rates, liquidity, etc.) to the housing bust.

Since housing drove the economy and it is now taking a dive, barring the quick development of another asset bubble (oil's not working - greentech?), the rest of the economy will eventually follow suit and deflate. Most of us are not old enough (or Japanese enough) to have experienced a deflationary spiral.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 11:08 AM

Inventory growth is proportional to insolvency, not to today's listings. Insolvency is proportional to unemployment and dried up severences. The trend is up.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 11:14 AM

The What is right - there's no guarantee the government will cover Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's "insolvency." That's what has everyone so nervous. You don't have to believe The What - just read the front page of today's NY Times or WSJ.

Meanwhile, it's interesting how many posters here are threatened by The What, tell him to STFU, and resort to class-based insults. He has as much right to spout his opinions as anyone else here. Pretty revealing.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 11:42 AM

11:42 you are right he does have a right to post but what is he posting about? his comments are not related to Brownstone Brooklyn. So guess what 11:42 get back to your trailer park you asshat.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 11:58 AM

"11:42 you are right he does have a right to post but what is he posting about? his comments are not related to Brownstone Brooklyn. So guess what 11:42 get back to your trailer park you asshat."

You're a moron. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are the biggest mortgage lenders in the country, and Brooklyn is definitely a part of the U.S. I own a brownstone in Crown Heights and have since 2002. I've never been near a trailer park - I'm FROM Brooklyn, you jackass. But YOU are obviously quite familiar trailer parks.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 12:28 PM

I'm not new here, Dave - I've read this blog for weeks, witnessing as several people, including The What and you - sling bitter, personal invective at each other. Are you proud of having sunk to The What's level? If so, good for you. But you won't have to worry about me for very long. Registering here is not my style, so I'm gone. Peace.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 12:31 PM

Dave = Biff
Biff = What
Therefore:

Dave = What.

Any question?

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 12:43 PM

Argh. This is what I was afraid of. We'll lose all the intelligent (guest) commenters and be stuck with the opinionated losers. Stoner, why are you doing this?

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 1:13 PM

No, dave, you don't have the acumen or attention span to completely spell it out to "him."

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 2:20 PM

I think Aussie is arguing against you to a certain point, there, Dave. Shall we completely spell it out for you?

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 2:22 PM

I just figured it out , The "What" does not live in a trailer park but in a East New york Studio apt . He looks like the Son Of Sam Hair messy unshaven. He might have Section 8 so he wants prices to drop. He might have a small dog that he uses for a toy whenever he gets horney. He probably drives a chevy nova. He likes to eat Spam in a can. His apartment is Filthy. I think we should alert the Authoritys to this Freak , He might Endanger himself or Possibly others. His Blogs are making me worry he is about to hurt himself. Did i say Freak, I am sorry What.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 3:42 PM

Dave, ever stop to ask yourself why, with the exception of Biff, no one on this site likes you? It has nothing to do with your sexuality, by the way.

Doesn't it ever have you scratching your head?

Could it be that you post too frequently, that you don't back up any of your contentions with arguments or facts, that you don't "spell it out completely"?

That the tenor of most of your posts are basically petulant?

Just wondering.

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 4:17 PM

NYC grows, upstate cities shrink
The population in New York City grew by 23,960 people in the 12 months ended July 2007, while upstate cities continued to lose residents, according to the latest Census data.

July 10. 2008 10:31AM
(AP) - The Big Apple is getting bigger as the largest cities in upstate New York continue to lose more people, according census estimates released Thursday.

New York City grew by 23,960 people in the 12 months ending July 2007 for a population of 8.27 million, according to the yearly estimates from the U.S. Census. The city has been steadily growing for years and remains a magnet for immigrants and young people.

Population growth in New York has been centered for years in the metropolitan area. Some suburban villages north of the city in the Hudson Valley were among the fastest growing in the state over the 12 months, including Wurtsboro (7.9%), the Hasidic enclave of Kiryas Joel (5.2%) and Wappingers Falls (4.8%).

The story was different around much of upstate New York, where the largest cities showed slight losses in the annual estimate. Buffalo's population of 272,632 was down 0.93% over the year; Rochester, at 206,759, was down 0.40%; Syracuse, 139,079, down 0.78%; Albany, 94,172, down 0.46%, according to the estimates.

The numbers reflect a long-term trend of population losses in upstate areas as manufacturing jobs dry up and people settle in the South and the West. California and Texas each had five cities among the 25 fastest-growing cities in the census estimates released Thursday. Politicians in New York are particularly concerned about the exodus of young people just out of college, the so-called brain drain.

Among the upstate cities that grew over the year were Saratoga Springs (up 0.68%), Plattsburgh (0.16%) and Ithaca (0.14%).

Census estimates released earlier this year showed the state's population nudged up over the

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 5:50 PM

what is right. even if the govt. backs everything, the demand for conforming loans will disappear if these two go away (or even if they raise dilutive capital). then banks will have to keep them all on balance sheet. most banks these days have very little capital to drop on loans that have a high probability of having problems. they will want to get paid for taking on the risk and tying up the capital. therefore, take rates you can get today and double them. what does that do to prices that no one can afford to pay even now right here in good ol brownstone bkln?

Posted by: guest at July 10, 2008 6:33 PM

Already local banks are looking for much larger downpayments on jumbos. This will cut out plenty of high income people who could buy with a big mortgage but don't have infinite cash.

Meanwhile, the high asset crowd has problems of its own -- the stock market is plunging, the Manhattan RE market is plummeting in volume suggesting that prices will soon follow, and all the European RE bubbles are popping.

So where does the demand come from?

Posted by: guest at July 11, 2008 9:33 AM