« Co-op of the Day: 40 Remsen Street Streetlevel: Washington Commons Opens in P Heights »
April 8, 2009
House of the Day: 489 16th Street
It's not really our cup of tea, but someone's obviously put a lot of effort into renovating this three-story brick townhouse at 489 16th Street in Windsor Terrace. The look is a little too "new condo trapped inside old house" for us. That said, everything's new and the location, just a block from the park, is very nice. The house was purchased for $925,000 back in 2005 and is now asking $1,595,000. What do you make of it?
489 16th Street [Corcoran] GMAP P*Shark
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/9178
Comments
The interior looks beautiful to me. What a relief after that Remsen Street duplex. The location is very fine as well.
But a million six for a two-bedroom duplex?
In Windsor Terrace?
I admit it is in move-in condition, but the asking price seems exorbitant. After spending all that money you would be basically renting out a third of your house? I think that is wacky.
Posted by: sam at April 8, 2009 1:24 PM
Price aside, the only problem I have with this place is the laminate flooring. Ugly & Cheap.
Sticking my neck out again on the latout, this one is great. They've incorporated as much space as possible into the garden level apartment, getting rid of the back half of the shared halway sinc ethe owners unit above has deck access to the yard. That makes the papartment much, much bigger than most.
The parlour floor has a powder room and, though you may not like the dark kitchen, its large and incorporated into a large dining area with access to the deck.
The third floor ensuite bathroom in the master bedroom is a great selling point with the additional bath for the two other bedrooms.
The loss of architectural detail with the introduction of soffits is an issue but then again, it probably has cenrtral A/C.
This was a well architected renovation.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 8, 2009 1:27 PM
I *love* those floors. Simply amazing house. Can't speak to the price (wonder what they spent on the renovations).
Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at April 8, 2009 1:27 PM
yeah Sam, I agree. Nice, but a bit small for a 2 family.
Posted by: denton at April 8, 2009 1:28 PM
sam...nothing wrong with renting out 1/3 as long as its the basement and not the top floor so that you share your staircase with tenants.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 8, 2009 1:28 PM
I saw this place. very nice, but looks like someone went nuts at Lowes and purchased every finishing in the book. That said, 1.6M in Windsor is nuts...prices in general are nuts, and I am amazed people believe collectively this is worth 1.24M dollars.
It was bought in the middle of the bubble for 950K! We're in a massive recession, which should preclude a 50% increase in home value in 3+ years. Seriously.
The floors BTW are very pretty, but not real, they are high-quality laminate.
Posted by: brandedmatt at April 8, 2009 1:31 PM
Mr. B said it best, "The look is a little too "new condo trapped inside old house" for us"
Agree with Dave, layout is really great.
Posted by: TownhouseLady at April 8, 2009 1:34 PM
Dave, I guess if you're single, renting out a third or half of your house is OK, but if you have a fmaily, I don't like the idea of cramming everybody on one floor -especially if you are paying tippy-top dollar.
I assumed the flooring is that Brazilian mahogany that is being used a lot now. Not laminate. But there is really no way to know for sure from a photo.
Posted by: sam at April 8, 2009 1:34 PM
Those floors are laminate???
Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at April 8, 2009 1:35 PM
DIBS, after reading your post, I went back to the listing. The floors are Brazilian Tigerwood. I think they're beautiful. Overall great job on this house.
Posted by: cggirl at April 8, 2009 1:35 PM
The ad says Brazilian Tigerwood...
Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at April 8, 2009 1:36 PM
this wins the award for tiniest kitchen island.
Posted by: z at April 8, 2009 1:38 PM
It's a nice place but I don't know that it's extraordinary. The architectural clean lines flow nicely but for me it definitely lacks the wow factor...sorry.
Posted by: LuvingModern at April 8, 2009 1:38 PM
Another house that'd be perfect for MrsCWB and I except that it's priced at about twice what we'd want to pay for it. Alas.
I have no complaints about the interiors. I don't really care that much about period details, and at least they avoided the horrific "post-post-modern" look that condos are going for lately, with the green glass sinks and the ugly fixtures and such.
A shot of one or two of the bathrooms would've been nice.
Posted by: cwbuecheler at April 8, 2009 1:39 PM
I dunno DIBS... the house seems to be 45' x 18', or 800 sft per floor. That's 1600sft for the owner less stairs and what not. I spose I'll get a lot of abuse, but that's just not a huge amount of room, especially since I don't see a basement and a boiler and storage. otoh it's beautifully done, for sure. Lot of money tho, hope they get it, but I doubt it.
Posted by: denton at April 8, 2009 1:39 PM
I thought Tiger Woods was African-American and Thai, not Brazilian.
They could still be Br tigerwood and laminate. It was the width of the planks that leads me to believe that they are laminate.
Take another $10,000 off to get new floors in either case.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 8, 2009 1:40 PM
Really nicely done for what it is, I think.
One minor thing...the listing is under Windsor Terrace on the Corcoran site, but the verbiage says South Slope. I don't know which it's in technically (I guess Windsor Terrace) but it would be good to keep it consistent. It's priced as though it's in "South Slope" though, that's for sure.
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 1:40 PM
Any options for forced-air/central a/c vents that *aren't* those white, square jobs? Our rental has them now and as we're looking around to buy I want to avoid them, though central a/c is a nice amenity.
Don't mind the reno on this one -- how can you tell the flooring is laminate?
Posted by: pop at April 8, 2009 1:41 PM
Both of today's COD and HOD are slick, turn key digs, but way overpriced. This is 2009 folks, the market is still faltering, economists are saying the BEGINNING of a recovery won't happen until 2010, and Corcoran, BH, Warren Lewis and the rest of the PS broker mafia act like these are prices we cannot refuse. I'm sounding like the What, so I'll stop...
Posted by: househunt at April 8, 2009 1:41 PM
The house needs another story. Then it would be perfect.
Posted by: sam at April 8, 2009 1:42 PM
Oh, and I don't like no outside vent in the kitchen. On the floors, there is really good laminate, engineered wood, and some not so good. I think the quality is more important than the material, to be honest. I don;t see baseboard, so maybe there's radiant heat (?)
Posted by: denton at April 8, 2009 1:42 PM
Nice enough, I guess but I'm giving the price a massive thumbs down. . they should be happy with 1.2M if they can get it.
I'll stay out of the flooring debate, which I'm sure can rage for days
Posted by: ontheparkway at April 8, 2009 1:43 PM
"1600sft for the owner less stairs and what not. I spose I'll get a lot of abuse, but that's just not a huge amount of room"
Not abuse, just a statement: It's twice the size of the largest 2 BR apartment we've ever had in New York ... and the 800 square footer we're in now is almost big enough for our needs. 1600 would be luxurious.
Posted by: cwbuecheler at April 8, 2009 1:44 PM
I don't know in this house but have been in one of the others in the same row--had a basement.
This is def Windsor Terrace, not South Slope, but location's just as good regardless.
Posted by: basementalist at April 8, 2009 1:45 PM
really nice little house
great layout - reno looks good too
unfortunately, I don't think this 3 story house in WT will get 1.595
I think maybe 1.25-1.3mil gets it done
11217 - this is up in my neck of the hood, and I would call it prime WT, not south slope ;)
Posted by: gemini10 at April 8, 2009 1:45 PM
I saw the wood floors in person. I'm no expert, but if you walk to the basement, they chip where the floor ends before the stairwell, and indeed, they are not gorgeous wood throughout.
The place is very nicely done, but it looks like a Lowes showroom.
And I reiterate: 1.5M for a house that sold less than 4 yrs ago for $925K, and for this, you get to live in Windsor Terrace. Are we serious?
Posted by: brandedmatt at April 8, 2009 1:46 PM
There are baseboards in the parlour floor. Whether or not there is a vent for the range is undeterminable.
As for the flooring, its the look and the width that make me believe its laminate/engineered. Whether its Br mahogany or any other wood is irrelevant.
Price is too high.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 8, 2009 1:47 PM
I cannot comment on houses that I have not seen in person. Once again the average appraisal is about 20% off asking. This is getting predictable.
Posted by: billyboomer at April 8, 2009 1:48 PM
Thanks brandedmatt. I was certain they looked like laminate.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 8, 2009 1:53 PM
I don't see the write-up saying the house has central air. Central air here is a must as there are two windowless bedrooms (dens), one in the basement and one on the second floor.
Also, I find it extremely odd that they are vaunting three-phase electrical service. 3-phase service is usually used where there are large motorized equipment needs, like in a factory or commercial workshop. Odd. 3-phase electric but no mention of hvac. Could just be a clueless realtor.
Posted by: sam at April 8, 2009 1:54 PM
Definitely the WT side of PPW. Price is LOL.
Posted by: SnarkSlope at April 8, 2009 1:55 PM
Regarding the location, its in Windsor Terrace, but its the cute and convenient corner of Windsor Terrace. For my money, its a better few blocks than most of Park Slope south of 9th St. Certainly nicer house and block than most of what passes as the South Slope.
I think this place fetches close to $1.5M.
Posted by: betterside at April 8, 2009 1:55 PM
"I cannot comment on houses that I have not seen in person."
But you did vote for someone for President of the United States whom you never met?
:)
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 8, 2009 1:55 PM
I'm deadly curious how many people who comment on home values are people actually looking to buy, who have the financial ability to purchase places. And how many are people just commenting for sport.
As someone who is looking and is fortunate enough to consider this sort of place, I think this speculation on the value of these places, which benefitted from financial engineering of the most historic proportions is ridiculous.
Seriously. 1.6 million dollars in the worst economic crisis of the last 100 years? One that only hit NYC really in October of last year?
I'm not dumping my hard earned cash and risking my family's financial future to pay 50-100% premiums on places people bought 3-5 years ago just because Alan Greenspan told them houses were the next growth stock.
5-6% annual historic price appreciation. In a healthy economy.
People have truly lost their minds.
Posted by: brandedmatt at April 8, 2009 1:58 PM
I also find it nauseating that the Corcoran rep will tell you it's Brazilian Tiger Wood(s) to your face, when close inspection tells you it's not.
Nice people and all, but stop lying to me.
Posted by: brandedmatt at April 8, 2009 2:00 PM
if you see the word "brazilian" in the name of your flooring, does that mean you've destroyed rainforest?
Posted by: joe_the_bummer at April 8, 2009 2:00 PM
hey brandedmatt -- read robert shiller's "irrational exhuberance". he points out that historical home price appreciation back to 1890 is just about the rate of inflation. even 5% is bubblicious. he's the "shiller" from the "S&P Case-Shiller" home price report.
Posted by: joe_the_bummer at April 8, 2009 2:04 PM
brandedmatt...yes, unfortunately many people might believe its a real word floor. However, with most of these laminates, the sound they make when you walk on them is really, really cheapo.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 8, 2009 2:04 PM
brandedmatt -
My wife and I were in the market but had to pull back for the time being. So currently I'm commenting as a spectator only.
I agree that pricing in New York, all of New York and the prime areas of Brooklyn and Manhattan in particular, is completely insane. $1.5mm is a fortune for most of the people who live and work in this city.
Posted by: cwbuecheler at April 8, 2009 2:05 PM
brandedmatt:
Why not go to the owner, here and at some other houses, and offer what you believe the house is worth? If they get no higher offers, maybe they'll accept. If not, telling them they don't deserve the premium is of no use.
Posted by: basementalist at April 8, 2009 2:06 PM
Are we looking at another flip gone wrong? Are there any country western songs on this topic?
Posted by: mopar at April 8, 2009 2:07 PM
> "Are there any country western songs on this topic?"
"Crazy" comes to mind.
Posted by: SnarkSlope at April 8, 2009 2:10 PM
cwb: I also believe this house is overpriced. How much I'm not sure. I'm guessing it should be maybe $1.2M in this market?
That said... good economy or absolutely lousy economy, homeownership has historically been out of reach of most of the people who live and work in this city.
Prices may be out of whack but the argument "this is overpriced because most New Yorkers can't afford it" doesn't hold water.
Posted by: basementalist at April 8, 2009 2:10 PM
"Are we looking at another flip gone wrong?"
The Filipino-American community would have huge issues with that question.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 8, 2009 2:12 PM
ack. hate all the finishes. you guys like this? agree it looks like a Lowe's job with thomasville cabinets and lumber liquidators floors (with "brazilian tigerwood" veneer)
Posted by: Ringo at April 8, 2009 2:12 PM
mopar -
"My wife done left me, my dog done bit me, and I just can't flip this overpriced house" by Chase Tucker*
* not a real country star
Posted by: cwbuecheler at April 8, 2009 2:13 PM
I'm speculating and not voting. I don't think it's insane to price something at the market level if the market is insane. (this is probably even higher though). There are still people paying mongo prices per square foot, so why not try to sell it there if you have time on your side.
I am a desperate loser, priced out of real estate for 10 years, waiting for a bargain. I think the whole picture looks fundamentally different when you toss the assumption that you can sell within a few years.
remember that line" "the mkt's never gone down in any 5 year period, so if you can hold on that long you're fine?"
that is completely out now. now you have be ready to commit to windsor terrace for the long haul if you are going to get involved. I'm thinking "is that really how my life was supposed to turn out?"
Posted by: joe_the_bummer at April 8, 2009 2:15 PM
basementalist - I'm not saying that a starbucks barista should be able to afford a house in windsor terrace. However, a couple who both command low six figures a year and have no debt probably should. That's the 98 or 99th percentile for American incomes.
Posted by: cwbuecheler at April 8, 2009 2:15 PM
Just to run a few numbers, assuming this sells for asking price (it won't) and 20% down, the monthly payment is $7400 a month.
I'm going to guess and say the rental might be $1800 a month...for a one bedroom plus den...? Maybe someone in the area knows better than I would...
That leaves $5600 a month. I don't know about you all, but I know TONS of people in this city in their 20's and 30's who are paying $2500 a month (or MORE) for a one bedroom rental in Manhattan. Keep in mind that the AVERAGE one bedroom, doorman rental in Manhattan is $3200 a month. Shocking, but true.
Two people get married, and bam....that's a dual income which can support a property like this one.
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 2:17 PM
The word "Brazilian" probably means it comes from Mexico; or Paraguay. This is a tropical hardwood. very attractive.
You can get it in solid planks or "engineered" planks. To get wood you have to chop trees down. No getting around that.
Posted by: sam at April 8, 2009 2:17 PM
11217....you're absolutely right. The bigger problem for most people is amassing the 20% downpayment which, in your calculation, is $319,000 plus another $20k or so for closing costs.
I think that's the biggest hurdle most people face. As you and I and many of the others know, after that its better to own than to rent!!!!
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 8, 2009 2:22 PM
11217 -
I honestly don't know a single person in their 20's or 30's who lives in this city and pays that much for an apartment by themselves.
When I was single, I paid $1500/month for a studio in the UES, and that damn near killed me. When my wife moved in with me, we upgraded to a $3100/month 2 BR.
Everyone I know who's living in a pad that costs more than $2k/month is sharing it with someone else.
Sam -
"To get wood you have to chop trees down. No getting around that."
True ... but some trees are more sustainable and less ecologically damaging to harvest than others.
Posted by: cwbuecheler at April 8, 2009 2:23 PM
thanks sam. is it farmed in a green way or does it actually come from the rain forest?
Anyway, my purpose is not to be a green freak. my purpose is to bash The Toren, which is a "green" building promoting brazilian hardwood floors in every apartment. I thought it would be funny if they were displacing cute little rainforest critters in the process of saving the environment.
Posted by: joe_the_bummer at April 8, 2009 2:24 PM
Here's the "poop" on Brazilian Tigerwood, including its botanical species name.
http://www.brazilianhardwood.com/products/flooring/braziliankoa/
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 8, 2009 2:25 PM
cwb: well, I'm more in agreement with that, except that the relevant percentile is the local population, not the American population. That's what makes the market. No one's selling a house in Windsor Terrace on eBay.
Posted by: basementalist at April 8, 2009 2:26 PM
but 11217 -- why would that couple pay the 5K/mo to live in that apartment when they could rent the same thing for 3K/mo? The only reason, when it's all said and done, is that they are assuming some price appreciation.
once you take that assumption away, it's definitely not a no-brainer to own.
Posted by: joe_the_bummer at April 8, 2009 2:28 PM
Yep Dave...that is/was the difficult part.
Thing is though...owning a home is not a god given right. And to live a 20 minute subway ride from what some deem the epicenter of one of the greatest cities in the world for 150K isn't either.
33% of New Yorkers own. The rest rent. This is a city of renters...always has been...always will be.
If one *really* wants to own a home here, they either need to make a substantial salary or they save like I did. It took me about 7 years to save enough for my downpayment. I wanted to own a home more than I wanted $500 shoes. Some don't, and that's cool.
What bothers me though are the people who come on this board and think they are entitled to own a home for the cost of one in Baltimore or St. Louis. I feel they are a bit detached from reality and don't really get that homes in the East and West Coast big cities cost a lot of money. They cost a lot, because they are sought after locations to live. Just because someone has lived here when it wasn't the most sought after location in the world, doesn't mean prices should go down to your level of expectation. Brooklyn is not what it was 20 or 50 years ago. For better or for worse.
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 2:29 PM
When i do make an offer, it's at 20% below value minimum, so yes, no harm in making an offer at what I *believe* fair value is. That said, all it takes is one buyer to set the price.
however, the person who commented: ""this is overpriced because most New Yorkers can't afford it" doesn't hold water." makes no sense to me:
The house is only worth what the buyer says it is ultimately. The owner has no power in this equation. So while yeah, it only takes 1 buyer, if most people can't pay the price in aggregate, then unless you find that 1 person it's priced above what it's worth.
There's a sucker born every minute. And I may be one thinking prices are 20-30% above fair value.
But as buyers, we are asking to take on ENORMOUS risk at these prices. Dual income to support 5600 a month? Better hope that both jobs are solid as a rock, that you have at least 6 months of mortgage payments saved plus living expenses, if not more, and no measurable debt.
Posted by: brandedmatt at April 8, 2009 2:30 PM
> "I honestly don't know a single person in their 20's or 30's
> who lives in this city and pays that much for an apartment
> by themselves."
Agreed. And those that do ain't moving to Windsor Terrace.
No offense.
Posted by: SnarkSlope at April 8, 2009 2:31 PM
basementalist - Agreed, which is why I'm not suggesting that this house should go for the $250k it'd be worth in Syracuse. :P
That said, I think New York prices are still way out of whack. I think the seller overpaid in 2005 when they spent $925k on it, and I don't have any idea how much they spent on reno but it surely wasn't six hundred thousand dollars.
I priced this at 1.35 in the thingy above, owing to New York's unreasonable pricing ... but I personally think a reasonable price for it would be 650-700k.
Posted by: cwbuecheler at April 8, 2009 2:32 PM
"but 11217 -- why would that couple pay the 5K/mo to live in that apartment when they could rent the same thing for 3K/mo?"
I don't know. People have their reasons. Also realize I did not factor in the mortgage interest deduction, which is rather large. There are some people who want to own homes vs. rent. I HATED renting. I wanted to do what I wanted with my own space, and with regard to the long term, it seems wiser to me. I don't want to think about being a renter when I retire because I'd like to stay in NYC long term.
People say ALL THE TIME...oh...but you'll save more renting. You know what...almost everyone I know rents...and you know what...they don't save a dime. And lots make hefty salaries. I don't buy the argument at all.
p.s. I don't think you're going to find a duplex that looks like THAT with a huge yard, etc etc etc for 3000 a month. I could be wrong.
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 2:34 PM
Ok fair enough CW.
But there's no going around the fact that the average one bedroom in Manhattan (with doorman) is $3200 a month. $4200 a month for a 2 bedroom.
So clearly SOMEONE is paying these prices. I just happen to know a few.
I have a friend...she's 28...she pays $3800 for a one bedroom in Midtown and doesn't blink an eye at it.
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 2:36 PM
I gotta agree with 11217 on most of his arguments today.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 8, 2009 2:37 PM
Oh, come on, I wasn't making an argument that "this is overpriced because most new yorkers can't afford it" ... I said that $1.5mm is a fortune for most new yorkers. The house is overpriced because brooklyn real estate is overpriced, has been since the mid-to-late 90s, and probably will be for the forseeable future.
Posted by: cwbuecheler at April 8, 2009 2:37 PM
If you are interested in the South Slope/WT area, this is a great location. Very near the subway, very near commerce, very near the park. It's a really nice block among several other really nice blocks.
Posted by: MR at April 8, 2009 2:39 PM
11217 - I'm not really disagreeing with your general thesis: this is an expensive city and people can and will pay a lot to live here.
I just feel like WT isn't even a prime area of Brooklyn. It's a NICE area, but not a PRIME area. A solid "B" to "C+" depending on what part of it you're in, to use yesterday's discussion. If you can land stuff in A+ neighborhoods for 1.5mm-2mm, there's no way WT should be encroaching that price zone, especially with the economy collapsing.
Posted by: cwbuecheler at April 8, 2009 2:41 PM
cwb & brandedmatt:
The thing is, as one of those dual-income, low-six-figures people, I would not buy a house at this level either. I'm a big believer in living below my means.
But I also recognize that what I would do, how much I would stretch, does not matter. What matters is the aggregate decisions of that small subset of New Yorkers who desire to purchase a house in Windsor Terrace.
CWB, if this house sold for $650K, you'd be living there far cheaper than to rent the equivalent. That seem right to you, or do you think rents are also way out of whack in NYC?
Posted by: basementalist at April 8, 2009 2:43 PM
Dees anyone know anyone who has sold or bought a house or even a co-op this year? I may be wrong but I get the feeling that nothing is moving anywhere. The properties near me are going nowhere. I think they are not even getting offers.
Posted by: sam at April 8, 2009 2:46 PM
sam -- just saw this morning that volumes are down 60% in bkny. I think that was q on q
Posted by: joe_the_bummer at April 8, 2009 2:52 PM
basementalist - well, let's consider this:
I paid $750/month for a 1 BR in Philly, in 2004, that was larger and nicer than my current 2 BR that I share with my wife, which costs $2600/month.
I paid $1100/month for a 1 BR in Irvine, California (Orange County - NOT CHEAP!) that was larger than any comparable Brooklyn 1 BR and dramatically nicer.
So yeh, I'd say the rents in New York are out of Whack. But even considering them out of whack, I still choose to live here.
I understand this house isn't going to go for $650k. Like I said: I priced it at $1.35mm. I just think that the numbers for Brooklyn have been dramatically skewed over the past 8 years from where they should be. 2000-era prices were much more reasonable, for their time period, than 2009 prices are ... even post-crash.
Posted by: cwbuecheler at April 8, 2009 2:52 PM
CW....you and I are roughly the same age though (I think).
By NYC standards, I don't consider this house an entry level house...this is something you buy when you're in your late 30's, 40's etc...after you've had time to save money from the big money making years of life.
I would not expect that a 1.5 million dollar house is someone's first home. As you said before...you don't need a house this big. Neither do I.
My parents started out in smaller homes, gradually moving up the ladder and now live in their largest (and most expensive) home and are approaching their late 50's.
Lots of New Yorkers want everything NOW, so it sometimes gets lost that those of us who are barely in our 30's don't need to be buying multi-million dollar homes. We're still young!
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 2:54 PM
I agree that NYC is expensive, has been for long time, but there's expensive and there's irrational. This house should be worth 1.2-1.3 tops given 2005 price (which I agree was too much back then) and renovation, which is strictly OK. We saw this house and while it's "clean", the choices are indeed very Lowe's-ish. Floors look better in person, but still not my taste, as is case with rest of finishes. I'm in the market for this kind of a house, and am lucky to be able to afford it but was nonplussed by this. It could be a good buy for someone who likes the renovation choices, layout and location - but only at the right price IMHO. Yes, there is a NYC "premium", but even a million dollars for this house (very big bucks for most people) would reflect that, esp in this economy.
Posted by: Miss Muffett at April 8, 2009 2:55 PM
Sam,
Go to Streeteasy.com, plug in your zip code...I just did mine...you will all the transactions. If you're in PS also (I think you are) there are sales happening every week. Many more than you might think...
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 2:57 PM
sam -
I've been to several open houses for properties that seemed like hot buys or good deals, and even those are just sitting, and sitting, and sitting.
I think everyone is terrified to buy right now, for fear that it's too early and that prices will continue to drop.
Posted by: cwbuecheler at April 8, 2009 2:57 PM
Would the owner or broker of this house stop appraising it at $2.2 Million!
Brownie, we need usernames associated with appraisals!
Posted by: FatLenny at April 8, 2009 2:57 PM
"I agree that NYC is expensive, has been for long time, but there's expensive and there's irrational. This house should be worth 1.2-1.3 tops given 2005 price"
So you think it should be 1.3 and it's listed for 1.595 and that difference in price goes from "expensive" to "irrational" in your mind?
At what price was this house no longer expensive to you and became irrationally priced?
I'm also wondering if you've *ever* seen a house you weren't nonplussed about.
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 3:00 PM
Sam and CW,
According to Streeteasy....(at least) 6 properties have sold in the Park Slope portion of 11217 just in March alone. I don't know if that's a lot or not a lot compared to normal, but things are selling, yes.
It's difficult to tell if it's more than that as some seem to go into limbo before they are tallied as sold...
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 3:04 PM
11217 - My point though is that in the real world, a 3BR, 2-story rowhouse with a basement rental is very, very, very much a 'starter home' :)
Witness people like Sam, Dave, and Benson - all people who are well beyond starter status - being like "eew two stories and crappy floors!"
Posted by: cwbuecheler at April 8, 2009 3:04 PM
House is in a good spot and likely will show well based ont the pictures. I think it'll generate a good level of interest as its in "move in condition" rather than "needs work". 1.4 is not unreasonable.
Posted by: 10thStreetReno at April 8, 2009 3:05 PM
"11217 - My point though is that in the real world, a 3BR, 2-story rowhouse with a basement rental is very, very, very much a 'starter home' :)"
Well then I suppose my non-New York friends are poor, cause most people I know outside of NYC bought a 1 or 2 bedroom condo as their starter home and are just now thinking about upgrading to a small 3 bedroom/1 or 2 bath home...but maybe that's because more ended up in cities...lots are in the DC area where prices are also quite high...?
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 3:07 PM
cw...none of us said "eewww" :)
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 8, 2009 3:09 PM
11217 - I would not pay 1.3 for this house (I don't think it's worth it), but close to 1.6 is irrational, yes, and it seems most people commenting today agree.
And believe it or not, not only have I seen properties I've loved, but I've owned them (otherwise I could not afford a house now). Being a renter again is a new thing for me, but I'm enjoying it in this climate.
Posted by: Miss Muffett at April 8, 2009 3:10 PM
11217 -
I have one friend who bought a 1 BR condo so I guess that was his starter home, but he and his wife rapidly moved into a 3BR single-family with a finished basement after they got married. They live in Boston. I have another friend in Syracuse who's first home was a 3 BR single-family in Syracuse. My younger brother's first home in syracuse was a 2BR single-family. My friends in SoCal's first homes have all been multi-story, 2BR or more, though many share walls.
I haven't owned my first home yet but I'd strongly prefer it not be a condo or co-op if I can possibly avoid it. That doesn't really feel like a "home" to me, it just feels like an apartment where I'm not totally throwing away my rent.
I guess our experiences just differ. :)
Posted by: cwbuecheler at April 8, 2009 3:14 PM
"Witness people like Sam, Dave, and Benson - all people who are well beyond starter status - being like "eew two stories and crappy floors!""
Yes, and as you've probably noticed, Sam and I have had "words" over these very comments.
How dare I think about living in NYC in less than 2000 sf. I'm so low class. ;-)
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 3:15 PM
I dont think this will sell for over a million. Smart people will want to avoid the mansion tax and the smart people are the only people left with money to buy.
Posted by: brickoven at April 8, 2009 3:19 PM
"Witness people like Sam, Dave, and Benson - all people who are well beyond starter status - being like "eew two stories and crappy floors!""
I don't think benson would like being confused with denton :-)
Posted by: denton at April 8, 2009 3:23 PM
"the smart people are the only people left with money to buy"
Not sure about that...Paris Hilton's got a few hundred million lying around and I'm not so sure she's the brightest bulb in the socket.
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 3:26 PM
D'oh, sorry denton and Benson!
Posted by: cwbuecheler at April 8, 2009 3:29 PM
Sam
I am selling my house (south slope)
we have a buyer that is interested and we are in the negotiating phase right now, I priced it well and that drew a lot of attention the first few weeks. We are about 4 weeks in and we have a serious buyer - but the agreed price now is about 15% from where I listed it b/c I had to give a price reduction after the price we did agree on that was only about 8% below what I asked
Hope that gives you an indication
point is - sellers, price your place well and buyers will come! - but buyers want a discount now for everything, so they will then chip away at your asking price no matter how well you priced it to begin with
its a tough market out there right now!!
Posted by: gemini10 at April 8, 2009 3:30 PM
"They live in Boston. I have another friend in Syracuse who's first home was a 3 BR single-family in Syracuse. My younger brother's first home in syracuse was a 2BR single-family. My friends in SoCal's first homes have all been multi-story, 2BR or more, though many share walls."
Bu they live in Syracuse, Boston and SoCal.
I'm just joking really, but none of those places are NYC.
Yes, I'm one of *those* people. Ha.
Boston is nice enough I suppose, but I'd be bored to tears in a week. And I dislike SoCal highly, so no comparison to me there. Not familiar enough to comment on Syracuse, but I'm guessing your friends all probably secretly (or maybe not so secretly) think you and your wife have pretty sweet lives in the Big Apple.
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 3:32 PM
gemini you are one of the few smart sellers who gets it. The days of puting some retarded ask and getting the ask are long done. Underpricing your place to attract multiple buyers is the way to sell right now. I hope you do well
Posted by: brickoven at April 8, 2009 3:35 PM
Question Gemini:
Did you price your house above what you thought it would eventually sell for. I'm just curious of the mindset, knowing that sellers will want discounts for everything and then where buyers are setting the price.
If, as a seller I know that buyers are going to want a discount no matter what, I'd probably price higher hoping to negotiate it down. It sounds tricky, but also sounds like you're coming out pretty well. In this day and age, 15% off ask does not sound bad at all to me.
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 3:36 PM
11217 -
I am not fond of SoCal despite having lived there for four years, but it IS expensive there so it's at least reasonably comparable. Ditto Boston. No, it's not NYC, but it's not small-town Iowa either.
Syracuse, yeh ... Syracuse is not comparable in any way to NYC except that it's technically part of the same state.
Posted by: cwbuecheler at April 8, 2009 3:38 PM
Who wants WT houses to be priced like they're in St. Louis? I think we want them to be priced the way they were before the bubble; or some reasonable facsimile.
This house will sit...and sit...and sit; because the person who might have bought it a year ago doesn't exist anymore.
Posted by: Whuh at April 8, 2009 3:40 PM
CW,
It's funny to me that out of all the places you mention, that small town in Iowa is the only place where I'm allowed to legally get married...
Food for thought.
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 3:42 PM
I agree that pricing must be hard now. Come out of the gate too high and you will linger and suffer multiple price cuts and probably sell for far less than what you might have with a lower beginning ask. But coming out low might be tricky too since buyers expect discounts no matter what. That said, the only places I've seen sell relatively quickly these days are those that were priced low to begin with. I think brokers who set initial ask too high, and then say their clients would take way under (many brokers have said this to me), are doing their clients a big disservice.
Posted by: Miss Muffett at April 8, 2009 3:42 PM
Whuh - or they may exist (I'm one of them), but their mindset/budget has totally changed due to economic collapse.
Posted by: Miss Muffett at April 8, 2009 3:43 PM
So of course I totally want to post the link to my house but am deathly afraid of all the criticisms :)!!!!
it's in the price range of... 1.1 to 1.3
hahaha - am not like you guys with finishes and knobbies and such - I just like having a home to come "home" to with a deck and backyard....
I watched the market in my nabe over the past 3-4 months and watched house after house with different features than mine get listed at RIDICULOUS prices. I knew not to play that game b/c I wanted to attract people in and get people bidding. I wish in hindsight I didn't agree to the price reduction over a certain issue - but I did and hopefully we will move forward into contract.
11217 - I would have listed it higher if we were in a different market, but I thought - you know let me undercut the competition by 100K and see what type of interest I get.
Posted by: gemini10 at April 8, 2009 3:45 PM
I like your style Gemini.
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 3:47 PM
optimal way to get msg through to sellers that prices are out of whack is to check out places and extend a low low offer. that way, they dont have to guess what the lack of activity means - ie tons of low offers means a big price cut is needed to get it sold or wait patiently for that rare "rich sucker" to come along & bite.
I guessed $1.2M cause I suspect there still someone with $$$ and loose with it who'll buy it and think $1.2M is a great price.
Posted by: more4less at April 8, 2009 3:52 PM
11217 - I saw that on the daily show the other night and applauded the TV. I doubt the Iowa state supreme court could hear me clapping, sadly.
I can get married anywhere I want. I just can't afford to live in most of the places I'd want to (top picks include: here, Paris, SF, Seattle or Dublin).
Posted by: cwbuecheler at April 8, 2009 3:56 PM
" guessed $1.2M cause I suspect there still someone with $$$ and loose with it who'll buy it and think $1.2M is a great price."
**
At 1.2, it's $5600 a month mortgage and when you factor in the rental and tax deduction, I actually believe it IS in fact approaching a good deal.
We'd be talking $3800 a month to own this home (before the mortgage interest deduction and using a $1800 a month example for the rental).
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 3:56 PM
CW, Vermont passed the same thing yesterday except in that case, the governor was vetoed by the legislature making it the first state to allow same sex marriage in that way.
So, Vermont, Iowa, Connecticut and Massachusetts are now the 4 states in the country which allow it. Not bad. Keep it comin'.
I'll trade you equal rights for my apartment!
;-)
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 4:00 PM
Those prices are absolutely ridiculous!
All these House of the day thread are priced 50% over what they should sell for...
Posted by: stringer at April 8, 2009 4:01 PM
11217 - Thanks :)!!!!
Posted by: gemini10 at April 8, 2009 4:02 PM
11217 -
what interest rate are you using, btw? My understanding - which may be incorrect - is that the super great 5%-ish rates available right now boom way up to like 7.5% if you exceed $625k.
Just curious because if your numbers are right, I agree that $1.2 is starting to look fairly tempting.
Posted by: cwbuecheler at April 8, 2009 4:04 PM
Just to run a few numbers, assuming this sells for asking price (it won't) and 20% down, the monthly payment is $7400 a month.
I'm going to guess and say the rental might be $1800 a month...for a one bedroom plus den...? Maybe someone in the area knows better than I would...
That leaves $5600 a month. I don't know about you all, but I know TONS of people in this city in their 20's and 30's who are paying $2500 a month (or MORE) for a one bedroom rental in Manhattan. Keep in mind that the AVERAGE one bedroom, doorman rental in Manhattan is $3200 a month. Shocking, but true.
Two people get married, and bam....that's a dual income which can support a property like this one.
11217 you are a F*** retard! that's 1200 a week and let not forget other expenses! Wow talk about bending reality to make your argument fit. This is a clean example of greed and delusion! Math does not lie...
The What
Someday this war is gonna end...
Posted by: Return of The What at April 8, 2009 4:08 PM
So with the interest deduction it would be more like $2500? I think you could get $2000 for the apartment. So $2300? Add $500 for insurance and tax per month. Add $400 for utilities. Puts us at $3300. You're losing about $2-300 potential per month because you handed over your down payment instead of leaving it in a cd. So let's say $3550.
Is my math right on this?
Posted by: MR at April 8, 2009 4:08 PM
I was using 5.5%
I refinanced recently for under 5% so I thought I was being conservative, but if what you say is correct, I guess my numbers are off a bit. Clearly I've never needed to get a mortgage above my rather modest one...
In any case, I think I underestimated the rental price which may make it even out. None of these numbers are gospel, but you can see that when it gets down a couple thousand, it's starting to make a lot more sense for someone.
And the keyword is someone. It only needs one buyer.
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 4:09 PM
Why does everyone refer to the asking price as $1.6? It's $1.7; don't forget that extra $95K.
I hate the finishes. Looks too flipper. I'd rather buy an unrenovated WT house for under a million which is what some have gone for recently, and spend the $700K the way I want to spend it. I'd certainly get more bang for the buck than we see here.
Posted by: traditionalmod at April 8, 2009 4:09 PM
"So with the interest deduction it would be more like $2500? I think you could get $2000 for the apartment. So $2300? Add $500 for insurance and tax per month. Add $400 for utilities. Puts us at $3300. You're losing about $2-300 potential per month because you handed over your down payment instead of leaving it in a cd. So let's say $3550."
I don't think the mortgage deduction would be THAT large, and I included taxes in my calculations...
These are not scientific numbers, but I think it's important to get a sense of at what price this starts to line up with rental costs...
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 4:11 PM
Traditionalmod-
Asking $1,595,000.
Agreed that I'd rather do your plan, but renovating can really suck and a lot of people don't want to live through it.
Posted by: MR at April 8, 2009 4:13 PM
"Why does everyone refer to the asking price as $1.6? It's $1.7; don't forget that extra $95K."
Wha?
It's listed at 1.595 million.
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 4:13 PM
So it is! I saw $1.695 before.
Posted by: traditionalmod at April 8, 2009 4:16 PM
I don't think anyone feels entitled to buy in NYC at St Louis prices (has anyone suggested that we should be able to buy a house on a half acre for $250,000?). I think the basic point on this property is that is should be priced at Windsor Terrace prices.
Posted by: lechacal at April 8, 2009 4:16 PM
I wish everyone would stop touting/relying so heavily on this interest tax deduction.
That only comes into play when you pay your taxes once a year. It's not like the IRS writes you a check every month to apply against your mortgage payment. Consider it a blessing at tax time but don't look at it as income.
Posted by: TownhouseLady at April 8, 2009 4:18 PM
"I wish everyone would stop touting/relying so heavily on this interest tax deduction."
I just got my refund deposited into my account last week...it amounts to a deduction of $550 per month, making my mortgage payment (in effect) $700 per month instead of $1250.
You don't think that's significant?
I sure do.
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 4:21 PM
...also, when the Manhattan DINKs who can theoretically afford payments this high move to Windsor Terrace, they are probably having kids and either turning into a one-earner family or finding another costly alternative (like a full-time nanny). There aren't armies of yuppies waiting to fill out loan applications for places like this. It takes a lot of savings and a lot of income to buy a place like this, and most people with the means have no interest in shelling out this kind of cash and spending that much time on the F train every day without even being near prime park slope shops and restaurants.
Posted by: lechacal at April 8, 2009 4:22 PM
Yes, Miss Muffet --I only meant "at this price." I.e., the mid-level white shoe lawyer who feels v secure in his job and thinks the price is high, but who cares, it'll only go up.
Posted by: Whuh at April 8, 2009 4:22 PM
MR, my point was that reno did not cost $650K. Clearly. Thus all the comments about the Lowes look. If I'm paying that much more because it's been renovated then the full value has to show. I'll take a renovated house any day too of course, but it has to look as least as good as if I'd done it myself.
Posted by: traditionalmod at April 8, 2009 4:22 PM
Lech-congrats on the new baby :)
Posted by: gemini10 at April 8, 2009 4:22 PM
Thanks gemini :)
Posted by: lechacal at April 8, 2009 4:25 PM
Lechacal,
St. Louis (the nice areas) aren't as inexpensive as you suggest...I choose this one because it's 2400 sf...probably similarly sized to this house...? It's $900,000.
http://www.trulia.com/property/1069765950-10507-Mimosa-Ln-Saint-Louis-MO-63126
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 4:26 PM
11217, I'm not dismissing it. I got my refund and was darn pleased with it.
My point is- If you have to rely on that in order to calculate what you can afford then you can't afford it. That should be "bonus" money put into saving. If you're look at a 1.6MM house then you shouldn't have to stretch yourself so thin.
Then again I'm of the you shouldn't base your mortgage payment off the rent subsidy either. Yes, the money counts but you shouldn't get yourself into a position whereas the person pays late or doesn't pay and you can't make your mortgage payment.
Get my drift?
Posted by: TownhouseLady at April 8, 2009 4:27 PM
And congrats also. That's terrific!
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 4:28 PM
My goal has always been to buy a townhouse with a rental unit that I can afford even if the rental unit sits vacant all year. That way the rental unit is allowing me to reduce my mortgage more quickly, instead of just allowing me to hit the minimum payments.
Posted by: cwbuecheler at April 8, 2009 4:29 PM
Townhouselady,
I totally get your drift. Agreed. One should NOT factor that into what they can afford, but it is a nice added perk come tax time.
It's been a large portion of why I've managed to accumulate a "nest egg" of a couple years worth of mortgage payments for a rainy day fund...
That and my soon to be new vacation pad in Argentina.
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 4:30 PM
11217 hahahahhahhaha
ouch - that St. Louis listing is horrid!
one - who still sleeps in twin beds as a couple? Are they 95?
two - is that a room dedicated to just a massage table?
Love the pool but that's about it
yikes!
Posted by: gemini10 at April 8, 2009 4:30 PM
I have no idea where the anti WT sentiment comes from on thsi board but 1.5M is WT prices. Two similar homes (a block or two farther from the park if that matters to you) just sold for $1.49 and $1.45. If I recall, neither of them was recently renovated.
You can argue that homes in general are overpriced or that you don't like the decor choices here but this price isnt far off the mark if you consider its condition.
Posted by: Mrs. Limestone at April 8, 2009 4:32 PM
I think what is being ignored here, what is ALWAYS ignored on Brownstoner, is the fact that almost NOBODY is putting down the down payments and paying the monthly themselves. Almost EVERYBODY buying stuff like this in Brooklyn these days has help from their parents.
I know the family details of about a dozen recent (last 3-5 years) homebuyers in the PS/SS/WT area and only one has done it without money from their parents.
The buyer here will likely be in their mid 30's - early 40's. They'll have a young child or two, perhaps another on the way. They want a safe hood, live near the park, live near the subway, live near some restaurants etc. Their down payment will come from the grandparents, who will consider it a gift to the grandchildren/early inheritance/investment. They may even get monthly help.
So let's stop wondering about incomes of buyers.
Posted by: MR at April 8, 2009 4:34 PM
Yup...pretty bad Gemini.
And NOT all that cheap either. I think some people have lost sight of prices in other cities across the country in locations that are comparable to Brooklyn.
Sure, you can find a 250K house in St. Louis in the far flung suburbs, but that's not the equivalent to being in this part of Brooklyn, in my opinion.
This is an area where you can walk everywhere, get on a train to Manhattan, take your kids to a nice school, have a HUGE amazing park outside your doorstep. It's a nice life, for someone who is looking for that kinda thing.
I'm not advocating the price of this particular house (I think it's high), but I do not think prices are quite as irrational as some people say when you compare them to other places around the country.
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 4:35 PM
I'm actually agreeing with The What. (wow). I know a fair amount of couples each making low- six figures, but none who are paying over $5000 a month in rent. Unless they have agreed not to have children, its an insane thing to do. And, MR, your math is a bit off on that one.
Nevertheless, there are enough people in NY who are not wealthy, or even earn a ton, but who made enough from selling their one or two-bedroom apartments over the past few years and now have the cash for houses like this. By and large, they are still middle class folks, but were able to trade up due to timing the market correctly. Its the ones who didnt, or couldmt, afford to buy 5 or 7 years ago who are suffering. And the market will never come far enough down for them to ever afford a place like this.
Posted by: saminthehood at April 8, 2009 4:36 PM
Mrs L-
Which houses were those? I'm guessing one was on Windsor next to the school? I never heard the final price on that one.
thanks
Posted by: MR at April 8, 2009 4:38 PM
"That and my soon to be new vacation pad in Argentina."
Just say where/when and I'll show up with an Aerobed tucked under my arm!
Lechecal- a hearty congrats on the petit chacal!
Posted by: TownhouseLady at April 8, 2009 4:39 PM
Late to this party but this would seem to be well priced at 1.1. Nice unspectacular house in a nice unspectacular location equals a little over a million in this market.
Posted by: wasder at April 8, 2009 4:41 PM
Lechacal--just saw the news! Congrats! What did you guys have?
Posted by: wasder at April 8, 2009 4:42 PM
I agree with Mrs. Limestone--to an extent. I don't live around this block but I know it pretty well. The fact is, Windsor Terrace attracts buyers who would never have considered it 10 years ago. This is a prime location in WT, right off PPW, next to the F train, and as close to the park as you can get without being on the park. I don't see why this house would go for a different price than it would on 14th Street a block from the park. (Maybe a small, debatable difference for school zone.)
Bottom line, if you are looking in Windsor Terrace and wonder why the neighborhood isn't priced cheaper, recognize that a big part of the reason is that YOU, and people like you, are now shopping there.
That said, again I estimated this at $1.2 mil -- because of the general market, not some WT discount.
Posted by: basementalist at April 8, 2009 4:42 PM
Mrs.Limestone
i love WT. you are right, there have been at least one recent house that went for about 1.4. Am surprised by some of the prices in WT. I still don't think this house is worth 1.6mil at all - sorry :(
Posted by: gemini10 at April 8, 2009 4:42 PM
MR- regardless of whether the income is from work or family. Income is the money coming in to them. Why does the source of the income matter to you?
Posted by: TownhouseLady at April 8, 2009 4:44 PM
I'm going on record at 1,350,000.
Posted by: MR at April 8, 2009 4:45 PM
I can't tell what to think about this WT "comp" (below)
It was listed in Feb 2009, sold in Feb. 2009, it's about the same size as the HOTD, but looks absolutely HORRENDOUS!
And it sold in 2 weeks. It was listed at 1.095 million...
Any thoughts...I'm thinking 1.2 might be too low now for this house...
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/379075-vanderbilt-st-windsor-terrace-brooklyn
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 4:46 PM
I'm amused that I estimated this home higher than some people who are defending WT's prices. :)
Posted by: cwbuecheler at April 8, 2009 4:46 PM
MR raises a great point about help from family. I bought my first home with family help (I've always had a very modest salary) and while my husband and I pay our own way in life, were able to count on some family help here and there, as did many people we know (certainly not all though). But that wealth of the older generation has been decimated by stock market crash. Now, if anything, we may have to help our family. That factor alone is having a huge impact on RE in the tonier parts of Brooklyn.
Posted by: Miss Muffett at April 8, 2009 4:47 PM
MR - I don't remember the address but one was on terrace and one on windsor. You can look them up on zillow.
I won't even go into the other homes that sold for more than this before then b/c everyone will say its pre-lehman. The fact is, there are still a lot of people who want to live here and will pay a premium. Most people who live here have owned something before so they aren't financing 100%.
Personally I prefer an old house to look a little more old..but plenty of people would disagree with me and love this home. Who knows what it will sell for but I find it somewhat silly to say houses in WT don't sell for this much because they ABSOLUTELY DO! Even in this market!
Posted by: Mrs. Limestone at April 8, 2009 4:49 PM
Townhouselady-
Makes no difference to me. Actually it makes a lot of sense for the families and I think it's rather nice.
I'm just saying that a lot of the discussion is centered around the "who can afford this" question. I think that discussion is overblown.
Posted by: MR at April 8, 2009 4:52 PM
11217 - you just made my head spin with that listing
WOW - maybe that was an inside family deal or something?
Posted by: gemini10 at April 8, 2009 4:56 PM
Gotcha MR. thanks for clearing that up. I happen to agree with you there. I also disagree with MM's assertion that
"that wealth of the older generation has been decimated by stock market crash."
Not everyone's lost everything. In fact I'd say most people I know weren't affected all that much by it. Certainly some were but not to the effect that they're decimated.
Posted by: TownhouseLady at April 8, 2009 4:56 PM
Lechecal, I think the problem with this listing is that it's buying in St. Louis at New York prices.
Posted by: mopar at April 8, 2009 5:03 PM
16th Street and PPW is the Brooklyn equivalent of St. Louis to you, Mopar?
Would you say the same if it were a block or two north?
I find that comment really odd. WT is a really terrific area...
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 5:07 PM
THL - re: wealth destruction - don't take my word for it, just read the papers. Trust me, many people, if not most, have taken a big hit to their net worth, assets, portfolios etc due to current economic crash. Glad you (and it seems, 11217) know people who were spared, but they are in a small minority.
Posted by: Miss Muffett at April 8, 2009 5:08 PM
"Glad you (and it seems, 11217) know people who were spared, but they are in a small minority."
My financial advisor has worked in the business about 25 years or so...has hundreds...perhaps thousands of clients in NYC. He said the average range "hit" to people's portfolio has been around 14 - 24%.
Bad, but certainly not "decimated."
I suppose we all have different ideas of what that word means. My portfolio has tanked around 26% but I was in some extremely volatile things (by choice) because I'm relatively young.
I don't view my account as being decimated at all.
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 5:13 PM
I read the paper MM. I'm not blind to the facts. I'm sure plenty of people have taken substantial hits MM.
My point is that you always seem to make these enormously sweeping statements.
"that wealth of the older generation has been decimated by stock market crash."
We know your position and we all understand that saying something like this only goes to bolster it.
Posted by: TownhouseLady at April 8, 2009 5:15 PM
P.S. the stock market has also gained about 2000 points in the last 2 months.
Most of these people will likely recover a large portion of this alleged decimation assuming they can hold out a little longer and not spend all their "stock market" earnings on shoes.
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 5:20 PM
""Glad you (and it seems, 11217) know people who were spared, but they are in a small minority."
My financial advisor has worked in the business about 25 years or so...has hundreds...perhaps thousands of clients in NYC. He said the average range "hit" to people's portfolio has been around 14 - 24%. "
Thanks 11217. In fact last year I was down 16%, and this ytd I am up about 1%. If you were 'decimated' it's because you were a pig, or someone who doesn't understand asset allocation.
Posted by: denton at April 8, 2009 5:28 PM
11217 youre financial advisor is a liar then avg losses are much greater. He must have been giving numbers for this year. Most people are down about 40 percent
Posted by: brickoven at April 8, 2009 5:31 PM
Hey 11217 do you mind if I ask who your advisor is? We went to a guy in the slope but aren't super thrilled and are thinking of switching.
Posted by: cwbuecheler at April 8, 2009 5:33 PM
Not to mention that only 6 in 10 Americans even have anything invested in the stock market in the first place.
To make a sweeping generalization as MM did (the wealth of the older generation has been decimated by stock market crash) when 40% don't even have a financial stake in the stock market just goes to show how utterly out of touch with reality she is.
I agree totally Denton. My father is similar to you...down about 15% last year and up a bit this year so far.
You would really have to be a financial idiot to have been "decimated" by this.
Or really greedy.
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 5:34 PM
I don't care what it "ought" to go for; I am saying, outright, it will not sell at all in the next year for over a million, period. Prove me wrong.
Posted by: Whuh at April 8, 2009 5:35 PM
As reported above the recent sales comps have already proven you wrong.
Posted by: TownhouseLady at April 8, 2009 5:40 PM
11217 uses Madoff securities cwb.
Posted by: brickoven at April 8, 2009 5:40 PM
Let me talk to him, CW. When we spoke last week, he said he wasn't accepting any new clients as he's been absolutely swamped.
He goes by referral only, so I'll let you know what he says. He usually deals with much larger accounts than mine, but since one of his really great long standing clients is a friend of mine, I got in with him.
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 5:41 PM
LOL...not to encourage brickoven in the slightest but, that actually that does sound like Madoff's M.O.!
Posted by: TownhouseLady at April 8, 2009 5:42 PM
Good one brickoven. You're on fire today.
And by fire, I mean an idiot.
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 5:43 PM
11217 is a liar! Bigger dolt then Daveinbedstuy
Posted by: brickoven at April 8, 2009 5:43 PM
I don't care about houses that have already sold; nothing has proven me wrong. TL, you get to email me with a big grin on your face if this sells for more than a million in the next year. I'm saying flat out it won't. You can keep your comps.
Posted by: Whuh at April 8, 2009 5:45 PM
holy crap brickoven, look at 11217s post at 5:41. that sounds exactly like what Madoff was selling!!!!!!!
Posted by: Park Dope at April 8, 2009 5:45 PM
Please go back to your "corner bodega," brickoven.
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 5:45 PM
2 things could be true here
1- 11217 has been had
2- 11217 is a liar
Posted by: brickoven at April 8, 2009 5:46 PM
Park Dope...
You created an account name today to say that and your only other post which was this morning:
"Ritchie Havens is da bomb"
Wow...you are really taking advantage of all that bstoner has to offer today, aren't ya?
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 5:48 PM
11217 youre past 4 comments on this board have been printed and posted on our bulletin board. On behalf of my group I would like to thank you for months of laughter! People are dying here
Posted by: brickoven at April 8, 2009 5:49 PM
I've been had? Please explain. My friend has used this financial advisor for the last 22 years. I'm not announcing his name on a public blog. That does not make it a lie.
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 5:49 PM
I missed a zero... now my assessment won't be counted. So sad. :-(
Posted by: tybur6 at April 8, 2009 5:52 PM
11217 I pray you are lying
Posted by: brickoven at April 8, 2009 5:53 PM
Ritchie Havens is da bomb
11217 is a dud
Posted by: Park Dope at April 8, 2009 5:54 PM
brickoven,
Your stupidity is mind boggling.
If you are suggesting I'm being "had" by someone who's been respected in the business for 25 years, (even though a very good friend and colleague has also used him for 22 of those years) and I've met the guy 3 times now (IN HIS OFFICE) wouldn't you think he'd want as many new clients as possible for this alleged new ponzi scheme you think you've uncovered?
Trust me...I think a lot of people on this blog laugh at each and every one of your posts.
And no...we're no laughing with you.
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 5:55 PM
11217 if you are not lying you should call the SEC ASAP, no joke. But I am sure you are lying. Financial advisors are salesman and not one would not want his name plastered all over the place has highly regarded. You cant post his name in that he does not exist!
Posted by: brickoven at April 8, 2009 6:02 PM
Why don't you post your name here then?
Until you do so, I don't believe YOU exist.
When someone referred me as a favor to a high level financial advisor at Merrill Lynch, I'm sorry...I don't feel comfortable announcing his name here on this blog.
Especially not with crazies like you, Hannible and Park Dope lurking around.
Get a clue dude. Why are you so concerned about my finances anyway?
Posted by: 11217 at April 8, 2009 6:08 PM
I kind of lost track of this thread (devolved into name calling at some point). 11217, if all you are getting from this person is advice, you're probably fine. Just make sure he isn't actually holding on to your money. Pay him a fee for telling you how to invest and then invest on your own through a large, reputable broker-dealer. As soon as you actually turn funds over to someone, red flags should go up.
brickoven, why be a jerk to 11217 about this? What do you possibly have to gain? For all you know this guy is an experienced and reputable financial advisor.
Wasder - boy - thanks for asking. I hope little wasder is doing well (and she isn't still hanging around in bars ;)
Posted by: lechacal at April 8, 2009 6:16 PM
Interest Rates are LOW. GOOD TIME TO BUY. You are all going to whine when after recession rates are up to 7-9% like they were in the early 90's. This time will seem like a good buying opportunity( OK OK you need the income and down payment)
Posted by: billyboomer at April 8, 2009 6:19 PM
and 11217 you are right not to take the bait on naming your advisor. I definitely would do the same in your shoes.
Posted by: lechacal at April 8, 2009 6:21 PM
lethacal the guy is a lyer and I called him on it. Nobody who was into volatile stocks is down just 24 percent from the top. I work in finance and in particular portfolio manag. for high beta funds. The chances of what the guy is saying is not even possible.
Posted by: brickoven at April 8, 2009 6:26 PM
billyboomer: Interest rates can only go up from here, and when they do there will be more downward pressure on prices. Given equal after-tax montly costs I would MUCH rather buy at a lower price point with a higher interest rate for the financed portion of the purchase price.
Posted by: lechacal at April 8, 2009 6:27 PM
brickoven, there is a world of difference between offering an experienced viewpoint and belittling someone for not having the same viewpoint. I think 11217 got your point a while ago. So did the rest of us. No need to keep poking him with a stick if he doesn't praise your genius and thank you for pointing out a mistake (assuming there is any mistake, which neither of us knows).
Posted by: lechacal at April 8, 2009 6:31 PM
11217, I was referring to the look of the interior.
Posted by: mopar at April 8, 2009 6:38 PM
See Lechecal's previous comment about "buying in New York at St. Louis prices." Then it will all make sense. (I hope.)
Posted by: mopar at April 8, 2009 6:39 PM
It was a joke. Ha ha ha.
Posted by: mopar at April 8, 2009 6:46 PM
11217 that finance guy's MO does sound eerily like Madoff no?
Trop drole:) Don't get me wrong he maybe a perfectly honest guy just pointing out the uneasy but rather funny similarity here.
For some reason we are always defending MM :) but here goes: While 40% (your figure) of Americans are not directly invested in the stock market that still lives 60% which is a large number by most standards. Also are 401K and pension plans factored into that 40% you speak of? Probably not but will defer to you if you can come up with a reputable source. You gave an anecdotal example of how much most folks have lost in the market so we will counter here by saying that at our institution (~4000 employees) where most folks are rather conservative the average loss due to 401K plans is about 35%....Decimation? Definitely for folks close to retirement NO?
Posted by: pierre de taille at April 8, 2009 8:11 PM
pdt, you can't say they were conservative while losing 35%. Conservative would be a large percentage in Treasuries and cash. If you did that you couldn't possibly have lost 35%.
Posted by: denton at April 8, 2009 9:24 PM
Indeed. I asked one of the ladies at work who is near retirement age and she said she moved all her money out of stocks long ago and hasn't lost a thing. My dad, on the other hand...
Posted by: mopar at April 8, 2009 10:18 PM
Older family members of mine invested with conservative companies with the recommended asset allocation for their age (close to retirement but on younger side of retirees). With the combination of stock declines and lower bond returns, their income has been cut roughly in half. To them, that feels like their portfolio was decimated since now they can barely afford the basics. I realize some people have fared better, and I do NOT think this is the Great Depression, but 11217, if you think vast quantities have wealth have not vaporized, you are the one out of touch with reality. I'm not quite sure why I bother defending myself - this is all completely obvious to all but the most pollyannish.
Posted by: Miss Muffett at April 8, 2009 10:36 PM
Also, if you read my original post about destruction of wealth for older generation, I was referring specifically to my family and the families of friends I know. I can't tell you how many stories I've been hearing from friends about their parents woes. Sure, I'm sure the 40% of Americans not invested in the stock market may not be fretting over their stock portfolio, but I bet you they feel the economic pain in other ways (unemployment, job security, etc). One reason this economic mess is to difficult to dig ourselves out of is precisely because things are so interrelated, so even people not directly invested in the stock market or having money in the banks in question are affected by the overall problems hurting our economy. I just came back from a seder with a bunch of finance types, and while they think the comparisons to the Great Depression are overblown, they also take this severe recession very seriously, and predict (as do most sources) that recovery will be very slow and painful for many.
Posted by: Miss Muffett at April 8, 2009 10:49 PM
Give me a break denton. Pre-crash, many people thought you could be "conservatively" invested with a mix of equities in high quality blue chip companies and well-rated bonds. (I bet you could count on one hand the financial advisors who would have recommended only cash and T-bills). Trust me, you can definitely be down 35% with such a blend.
Posted by: Miss Muffett at April 8, 2009 10:52 PM
In the rent vs. buy comparison, I don't think you can look at just the first year, i.e. the argument "why buy something when you could rent something equivalent for the same price". When you buy, to some extent you're locking in you cost for housing for the long term. Your mortgage payment, ex real estate taxes + property insurance, will stay the same for the next 30 years. After 30 years, it will go to $0. If you rent, your cost of housing almost certainly increase every year for 30 years. At 3% inflation, $3,000 per month today will be $4,000+ in 10 years. At 5% inflation, it will be nearly $5,000 in ten years.
Posted by: Boerum Hill at April 8, 2009 10:52 PM
BH - the rent/buy equation for many is not about "it's always better to rent" or vice versa, but rather that there has to be a rational relationship to the rent/buy costs at any given moment. That's what the Case-Schiller metric is all about. When it gets as out of whack as it did in NYC, that's one sign that the sales market is too high. I fully believe in home ownership, having owned for many years. But I cashed out when the market was looking unsustainably high, and I'm not going to get back in until it returns to rational levels (which were not so long ago - certainly 10 years ago they were more rational). In the meantime, I believe strongly that now is a better time to be renting. Why lock in a purchase price that is still much too high when I know that this time next year, it will be less? And because rents are also soft, and given my budget range, the price cuts I'm certain will come will more than offset "lost" money paid in rent, foregone in tax credits, etc.
Posted by: Miss Muffett at April 8, 2009 11:05 PM
11217 -
Jeesh, who woulda thought asking for some basic info would cause all of that?
I wasn't expecting you to name him on the blog, sorry, shoulda made that clear. You can drop me a line at my username at gmail, if you want. And I understand if he's not taking people. I don't really even need his services right now, but I may in the future. Thanks.
Posted by: cwbuecheler at April 8, 2009 11:43 PM
denton, we are sure you realize "conservative" is a relative term but to be clear in the past decade of massive economic gains tons of folks considered being in blue chip stocks like Citi, GE, etc & index funds to be quite conservative. As MM has correctly stated above the amount of folks saving in cash and T bills were at the absolute minimum when it came to 401K and pension plans. Anyways no need crying over spilled milk we were just making a counter argument to 11217's anecdotal "evidence" from her accountant....Ah like the great William Osler once said anecdotal evidence is NOT evidence at all just an incidental finding.
Posted by: pierre de taille at April 8, 2009 11:49 PM
Lechacal - I'm catching up after my seder and saw the good news! You may not be reading this anymore so I'll try to catch you on some other thread but: congrats!!! Really, nothing could things in perspective more... Great news - Mazel Tov!
Posted by: Miss Muffett at April 8, 2009 11:53 PM
WOW....brickoven is getting really delusional about himself.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at April 9, 2009 9:07 AM
Standard advice is people within five years of or at retirement age should have their nest egg in treasury bills and cash (insured accounts). Though you can lose money doing this when interest rates are very low.
Posted by: mopar at April 9, 2009 2:08 PM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Le Barricou
added November 20, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Der Schwarze Kölner
added November 19, 2009 12:00 PM in Fort Greene -
Oak Wine Bar & Café
added November 18, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Mr. Wonton
added November 17, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Casa Rosa
added November 16, 2009 12:00 PM in Carroll Gardens -
Cousin John's Café & Bakery
added November 13, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Elote
added November 12, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Miracle Grill
added November 11, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Phoebe's Cafe
added November 10, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Ruthie's
added November 9, 2009 12:00 PM in Clinton Hill, Downtown Brooklyn
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.