'Rate of Rebound' From Extreme Starting Point, To Slow
A: It has been a year since the extreme set in across most asset prices and markets. Sometimes I think we forget just how volatile and how dramatic the markets reaction was to severe credit stresses. It is quite astonishing to see how the mindsets of investors have changed since that time; from complete fear to perceived sustainable reflation. For Manhattan real estate, the next 3 months should start to reflect the rate of rebound from the miserable Q1 2009 data; via the Q1 & Q2 2010 reports. I already discussed the expectation of a very strong y-o-y Q1 report that will be released in a few weeks. When I look back to the confidence levels of market participants exactly one year ago I think about the high level of perceived distress on future expectations, elevated risk premiums due to market uncertainty, and how this affected buyers' offers for Manhattan property. The resulting extreme came on quickly and severely marking a 'starting point' for future stability to eventually build upon. Looking ahead, expect the 'rate of rebound' to slow from this point on as buyers' already priced out the very serious risks that caused the furious adjustment process for Manhattan property. To me, the market continues to trade at an adjusted lower level from peak but at slightly improved levels from the height of distress one year ago.
Asset prices across all classes saw an incredible rise over the course of 2009 as the fed managed to stage a huge 'search for yield/dollar carry trade' for investors. This was especially true for riskier asset prices. The rise was historic only because of the uber distressed levels that we began from. If we look back twelve months ago, even for Manhattan residential property, we must also go back in time & place to a period marked by:
Those that understood the nature of the crisis and worked right in the middle of the storm, experienced the most fear. And since the Manhattan residential real estate marketplace centers around a Wall Street that was bleeding half to death, the fear was especially high and dramatic!
What's my point? Right now we are just over 1 year removed from the height of this fear; and to look back at the changes between the two time periods is quite amazing. The extremes were simply that dramatic and because of that an environment was ripe for a natural market rebound from an extreme starting point! Here is a quick snapshot of some market indexes and credit indicators on March 9th, 2009 and where they closed on Friday:
The TED spread, or the difference between the 3-month risk free T-Bill rate and the 3-month LIBOR rate, really captured the extreme nature of the crisis as the measure blew out to over 450 basis points in October 2008 (the VIX blew out to over 80 at this time too); reflecting the markets concerns over interbank credit risk at the time:
Those moves were not some minor blip in an otherwise general trend. No way. Rather, those moves were signs of the markets' cardiac arrest! The long term average of the TED spread is about 30-50 basis points. Since the credit markets were leading the equity markets for late 2007 and much of 2008, the extreme moves in the TED spread were a signal of the shocks that were to come in both the stock markets and debt markets as we approached March 2009. For Manhattan residential real estate, it was the March stock market lows that really pinpointed the timing of the height of fear for buyers out there submitting bids and sellers hitting them to move property at the time. In other words, there were no strong bids and offers that were submitted "priced in" plenty of future downside risk that had not yet took place.
Now take a step back. Look at this extreme and imagine what kind of starting point it resulted in for Manhattan real estate when comparing market forces one year later. The progressive improvement in bids for Manhattan property that resulted from the historic rise in all asset classes for much of 2009, began from a highly extreme starting point! That is the key take-away of this discussion. Naturally, the rate of rebound from highly distressed levels will be noticeable and eventually, self-defeating; similar to $150 oil prices causing extreme demand destruction worldwide for the commodity.
Stocks are a proxy for everything and it should be no surprise that bids for apartments in a market such as Manhattan, improved just like all asset classes improved from that extreme distressed starting point one year ago. For now, its more of a return to normalcy after such extremes of pricing in and pricing out market/credit risk and near term economic uncertainty.
From my observations over a 12-month period, this market continues to trade at an adjusted lower level from peak in 2007 but at an improved level from early 2009. I expect the next 2-3 quarterly reports to ultimately show this rate of rebound from the extreme starting point; with the largest percentage rebounds in the higher price points for logical reasons. In the meantime, I continue to keep a watchful eye for any signs that the recent market action might soon start to abate. The two biggest macro threats I see on the horizon that can directly affect our real estate markets are:
1) bond markets reactions to a fed preparing of an exit strategy and the scheduled end to Agency/MBS purchases; i.e. higher lending rates
and...
2) any disruption to the historic rise in most asset classes (stocks, HY/IG corporate debt, other riskier assets) resulting from the withdrawal of fed guarantees, a stronger dollar and carry trade unwind
As usual, what is going on today in Manhattan's real estate market does not necessarily have to jive with my longer term macro concerns that we are yet to deal with.
Posted by three credit report
Tue Mar 16th, 2010 02:25 AM
Thank you for this very informative article of yours. You have explained everything well. I appreciate that you shared this to us.
Posted by Douglas
Tue Mar 16th, 2010 09:48 AM
Noah,
I agree that raising borrowing rates for buyers will impact prices going forward. We may have all forgotten how important interest rates are to buyers of real estate. Certainly many NY buyers are cash buyers but the majority of buyers borrow money. In today's banking world where banks actually underwrite a borrower's financials, as interest rates increase the amount of apartment people will qualify for will decrease.
Also, I think you've underestimated the impact of foreclosures on NYC real estate prices. Because they are not a big issue now it may be easy to overlook them. But remember, foreclosures in NYC take well over a year, I think in 2010 we'll start to have enough of them that they will take prices lower.
Posted by Thisson
Wed Mar 17th, 2010 06:37 PM
I'm sticking with my thesis - this false recovery is a depression masked by continuing government stimulus.
Where are the jobs?
NYC is doing comparatively well (for now) because our local FIRE economy is cannibalizing main street. That's all well and good until the torches and pitchforks come out.
Posted by Noah
Wed Mar 17th, 2010 06:57 PM
Thisson - well I certainly agree with the weak foundation of this reflation recovery. But I could see it lasting another year
I keep bringing this up...Howard Lutnick said last June that a Rogers' call on a currency crisis was '4 years early pal...'..great interview that was.
Lutnick was on record for the problems we all talk about still today as resurfacing in 2011 or 2012, and there will be a drive to treasuries. I wonder if we may see another gap between treasuries and lending rates, but not for credit risk problems, rather due to a market wide unwind of a very crowded trade built upon a fed engineered carry trade that simply is not sustainable
Posted by BlowingBubbles
Wed Mar 17th, 2010 09:16 PM
Manhattan prices remain well above cost of production, arbitrage/opportunity cost (value of same unit as a rental), and trend. Why do you expect this to continue? Have the ordinary rules of competitive markets been repealed?
Posted by BlowingBubbles
Wed Mar 17th, 2010 09:20 PM
Manhattan prices remain well above (1) cost of production/replacement cost, (2) arbitrage value/opportunity cost/value of same unit as rental, and (3) trend. Since no fundamental analysis justifies current prices, ordinary mechanisms of competitive markets should bring them down.
Why do you think that a rising stock market means a rising real estate market?
Posted by Noah
Thu Mar 18th, 2010 08:06 AM
Blowing bubbles - I dont. Who said that? I sense you are likely a newer reader? If you have been reading this site over the years, you know that I stated numerous times there is not a 1:1 relationship between rising equities and rising Manhattan real estate.
The point of the discussion was to point out what you and seems like many others out there already forgot, the extreme nature of the crisis we just went through. Stocks are a proxy for everything, today and a year ago too. When equities were at their March lows they represented the risk premiums and fear that investors felt regarding the banks, the system, the economy, and all asset classes. Manhattan real estate felt it via plunging sales volume, no bids, and an adjustment process to a new lower level of price action. A year ago marked the height of this fear and those that had to sell their already illiquid asset, had even a harder time with such high fear that they had to HIT A BID, that happened to be pricing in future downside risk and other forces that led to investors placing elevated risk premiums on all asset classes at the time.
One year later, in todays market everything is guaranteed by the fed and systemic risk was all but removed from the markets. You can see this in the indicators I mentioned, TED, LIBOR, volatility way way down, and as a result, fear was priced out of all markets leading to the historic rise in 2009 from uber depressed levels. When you have moves from uber depressed levels, the rate of rebound is significant, and in stocks/IG/HY corporate debt, historic. Why is it so hard to imagine that Manhattan went through a similar cycle, just at a lag and since it is an illiquid asset class (unlike stocks) with a delay in quarterly reports, you cant just enter a ticker symbol and get a liquid quote on an apartment that you can sell it for today. Hence the need for more real time reporting and reports from the field that I am providing.
The rebound from the extreme will ultimately become evident, I just dont know when. Either Q1 or Q2 or even it could get delayed to Q3 report this year that shows what I have been discussing. It doesnt change macro concerns or bigger picture worries. It is what it is. I wont deny it happened. I know many out there that are because of their perm-bear stance on well, everything. I simply question the sustainability of this weak foundation of stimulus/fed engineering that led to this dollar carry trade reflation
Posted by Noah
Thu Mar 18th, 2010 08:38 AM
"Since no fundamental analysis justifies current prices, ordinary mechanisms of competitive markets should bring them down."
You make one big flaw by subscribing to this religion! That is, you make the assumption that markets are rational. They are not. Markets are imperfect discounting mechanisms and every market behaves and reacts in different ways based on a variety of factors:
-liquidity or lack there of
-strength/weakness of economy/jobs markets
-politics/stimulus programs
-fed engineering
-access to credit
-depth of speculative interest
-media effect or general depth of interest in asset class
-confidence of the consumer/investor
-cost of money
-NOI/ROE
-cap rates/grm's
and many more...if you are telling me the cost of renting a similar unit doesnt justify the asking or selling price of that similar unit due to high unemployment or other fundamental that is out of whack, you are telling me you are ignoring many other market forces that make markets, markets.
Posted by Jay
Thu Mar 18th, 2010 06:20 PM
Noah, a remark about "Cost of Money". This one, I don't get. Or, rather, I get it in the reverse of how people usually get it.
Given that real estate is largely affordability-priced, if interest rates go down, the prices of real estate go up; and if interest rates go up, the prices of real estate go down.
But, look, if you buy when interest rates are *high*, and then later fall, you just refinance the mortgage. This is made easy and possible since the falling rates cause your home price to rise and your equity percentage to rise with it.
But if you buy when rates are low and prices are high, you're stuck when rates rise again and prices fall.
I just don't get it when people say "buy now that rates are low since money is cheap." Even this weekend's nytimes article
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/business/14every.html
pretends to take a balanced look at the "now is a great time to buy" statement made by brokers, but in effect just says "now is a great time to buy because interests rates are low and you shouldn't even look at housing prices". In fact, the idea that prices might fall if rates rise is dismissed with a glib "don't go there." I couldn't agree less.
Posted by Noah
Thu Mar 18th, 2010 06:34 PM
jay - you describe a market wide culture that has been ingrained after a decade of easy and cheap money. I would argue markets are not ready to accept any other environment at this time.
Posted by Marshall
Thu Mar 18th, 2010 09:29 PM
Just out of curiosity what is the number people put at the cost of production or replacement cost for
a condominium land hard soft total. As far as the interest rates genrally if you buy when interest rates are really high your buying at a time of stress in the economy when the government is trying to put the breaks on the economy When money is precious Cash is king You can buy right. And when the economy normalizes interest rates drop and cash is no longer king the prices can expand. Interest rates are now low but they are low as a result of economic stress and maybe government intervention So again people who step up in times of economic stress when other buyers are to scared to buy, or otherwise impaired again you can get a good buy and when the economy recovers you can make out.
The low interest rates if you can get the financing will help you do even better. Many times the best times to buy are the times when no one else can or wants to when things look totally dark.
Posted by Fred
Thu Mar 18th, 2010 10:44 PM
Marshall - Most of the increase in cost since 2001 was in land appreciation which more than tripled in Manhattan, generally speaking. Construction is what it is, it's the land component that really drives cost & equity. Construction cost ex-land in NYC for a condo high-rise rose to $500 to $700 PSF plus land at another $500 to $600 PSF or so for a cost basis all-in of ~$1,200 psf (and I am probably on the lighter side for a lot of the new stuff that is coming on line). Developers made a lot of money off of fees when the pre-construction sales cycle was still hot b/c they needed that much less debt that was financed out of pre-sales. They could also afford to pay a lot more for the land, thus driving up land values. Combined with the scarcity of land issue and tax breaks from Albany, you end up with a massive shadow inventory looming out there......retail doesn't get that low interest rates are prelude to cheaper assets because all they think about is the monthly payment - it's credit card mentality. but that's why credit cards are so popular of course. Oooops, got to run to my night job as a doorman in a washington heights walk-up....
Posted by mgnyc
Fri Mar 19th, 2010 02:22 AM
Ok so the sky is no longer falling, but now what? Is Manhattan a buy, sell or hold? no other option.
I think "hold at best/sell now if you think you have to in the next 5 years."
On the way up everyone was thinking "how's this going to end?", but few cared to voice their concerns aloud. I think the same is true today to the downside. Rates go up, taxes go up, unemployment goes up, where should prices go?
If prices hold up, Value goes down. Real Estate is a funny asset, one minute its valued like a unique work of art and the next its value is based on replacement cost.
Posted by Marshall
Fri Mar 19th, 2010 07:08 AM
I think at the current costs for development and acquisition of land and lack of financing youll see almost no new development in the residential condominium market. Maybe a few deals around the edges. Is there any growth out there ? Will there ever be absorption ever ? If there is growth or absorption eventually there will be pressure to the upside. In that case replacement costs matter since no one is going to be building in the future for less than replacement costs. But if we are detroit like and we dont have growth it comes down to what someone will bid and what some will accept. Personally im not the most optimistic type but I dont think we are detroit. I do think there is a floor out there and it may be at times replacement cost or somewhere below replacement costs. One thing thats clear the City Government has not made things easier I guess they like the idea of making sure they keep the replacement costs as high as is possible.
Posted by BlowingBubbles
Fri Mar 19th, 2010 09:44 AM
Noah--
Markets are not "perfect" discounting mechanisms nor do they always follow fundamentals -- if they did, bubbles would be impossible.
The RE market, in NYC as elsewhere, departed radically from fundamentals and, at least in NYC, remains far above any number that can be justified by fundamental analysis.
The problem is not fear or the business cycle, as your emphasis on the unemployment rate and the stock market seem to imply.
Instead, the problem is that in capitalist markets when prices rise the usual response of the market is to increase supply, so that prices return -- roughly and over time -- to the cost of production. In the case of Manhattan apartments, that means the lowest of the cost of converting rentals to sales, renovating older units or commercial property, or new construction.
Anyone who buys at current prices is not "pricing out fear". They are betting either: 1. that the cost of producing new for-sale housing, e.g., by selling rented condos to owner-occupants, is going to soar, or 2. that something unusual is going to happen to cause a bubble that has already started to collapse to reinflate.
1. requires either that rents or the cost of building increase dramatically. The stock market is not a good predictor of either of these.
2. requires a story about why it's different this time. Bubbles don't end because of "Armageddon" or "pricing in fear". They end because the bubble makes demand rise (as people buy more than they would otherwise, thinking that they are investing rather than consuming), which makes prices rise. Providers eventually respond to high prices by providing more product -- eventually the increased supply catches up with the bubble-induced increased demand, ending the rise in prices. Then, when buyers start to fear that prices may not go up forever, they become less willing to pay prices that are above the cost of substitutes (such as more productive investments, rentals or less bubbly markets). As a result, demand drops to more normal levels: it isn't usual that people are willing to spend as much as they can on a highly leveraged investment in an unproductive, largely replaceable, depreciating asset.
Prices are going to come down. Not because of the "fear of Armageddon" or the end of that fear (if it ever existed outside of Tim Geitner's office). It is the result of discovering that Santa Claus actually did NOT promise that all good little house buyers will make money so long as they agree to live in their apartment for five years or more.
All your long list of factors are just distractions from the two big factors: 1. the only fundamental that matters in the long run: the cost of producing new supply, and 2. momentum: the power of buyer and seller expectations to move the market regardless of fundamentals in the medium run. Unless someone comes up with a convincing story about why prices should remain above equilibrium -- why capitalism has been superseded by the Good Fairy -- expectations will eventually move towards reality.
Buyers/holders with long time frames are overwhelmingly likely to be disappointed in this market: in the long run, prices don't stay well above the cost of production. Short term speculators need to decide which way they think the momentum is going.
So, if you want to provide a real service to your customers, in addition to providing up-to-the- second sales data -- useful mainly for buyers/sellers who are just deciding between now and 3 months from now -- you might add data about the cost of construction or conversion. What does it really cost to build a high rise condo in Manhattan? How much of that is bubble prices for land? How much is likely to decrease with improvements in technology and how much is highly skilled labor that is likely to increase in price faster than the CPI? What is the actual fundamental value of NYC real estate -- how will we know when prices hit fair value or overshoot in the other direction??
That's what long term buyers need to focus on: can they afford to pay current prices, given that odds are overwhelming that when they sell, prices will be closer to fundamentals than they are now.
Posted by BlowingBubbles
Fri Mar 19th, 2010 10:05 AM
One more point.
The fundamental analysis is asymmetrical. Prices won't stay about cost of production indefinitely, because producers produce more.
But housing lasts a long time. If demand drops permanently -- e.g., if the pay of the NYC elite drops permanently because we decide to reduce the finance industry's license to skim from the rest of us, or because more of the demand than we think was just the bubble feeding on itself -- prices could easily drop below replacement cost. The market then responds by ending new building and waiting for the existing stock to wear out -- as happened in NYC for about 45 years after 1930.
So, those who fear that something permanent has changed in NYC should NOT be worrying about prices dropping to 8 x current annual rents on the equivalent place, the price at which wholesale investors can earn enough renting in a stable market that they are likely to be indifferent between holding-to-rent and selling to owner-occupants. They should be worrying about prices dropping to 8 x EXPECTED future rents, where expected rents are expected to drop significantly. That could be much lower -- at the bottom of the long post-Crash cycle, 4 x annual rents wasn't uncommon.
This isn't Armageddon either; NYC survived rather nicely during most of those 45 years. And it seems highly unlikely to me; I don't see the politicians cutting finance back in any significant way and I think current drops in rental demand are probably just cyclical. But it would be financial ruin for many highly leveraged investors.
Posted by Noah
Fri Mar 19th, 2010 10:06 AM
BB - Ill look into adding those types of trends, that is, cost of construction, land prices, etc..
But Im not sure where you are getting some of your responses from my comments to your original point. I never said markets are "PERFET" discounting mechanisms, I said they are 'IMperfect discounting mechanisms' (did you not see the "im") and I also clearly said that markets are 'NOT RATIONAL'. I think you are adding words to support your arguments against my comments. By stating that markets are NOT RATIONAL, clearly implies that markets are not perfect! I didnt think I needed to make that connection.
Second, bubbles BURST not only because demand is not sustainable, to which I agree and is the SPECULATIVE component to bubbles that you basically describe, but also because ACCESS TO CREDIT & LEVERAGE FADE AWAY! Im not sure how you can deny the involvement of easy access to credit and ability to leverage when it comes to forming a bubble in an asset class. Time and again its shown that credit plays a huge role in bubbles forming and busting.
My long list of factors are not distractions, as residential buyers do NOT focus solely on the replacement cost of an apartment in a coop or condo building. You may think that. Developers certainly think that. Investors certainly think that. But buyers who need a place to call home and raise a family, rarely bid according to replacement cost or as you say, the cost of producing new supply.
Of course I agree with your statement: "momentum: the power of buyer and seller expectations to move the market regardless of fundamentals in the medium run"
Im not trying to convince anyone of anything. Im confused as hell of how the market is behaving out there and trying to rationalize WHY it has been doing what it has been doing. I was very bearish years ago, explained clearly why and that I was expecting an adjustment down in price action, and we got it. So, as a result, Im less bearish, but still bearish for longer term although I dont see an adjustment as fast & furious that we had after Lehman failed. This world is simply not the same as it was 12-18 months ago. You can say it is and that structural problems still exist, but the markets are clearly telling us that investors are NOT placing elevated risk premiums on assets like they were 12-18 months ago. You simply cant deny that.
When I say things like the markets priced OUT fear, it is because the markets priced IN fear via elevated risk premiums from a crisis that was more extreme than people today are willing to admit. It was 12-18 months ago, and people act like it never happened or downplay just how dramatic the credit shock was to tradable markets. You can talk about longer term CPI, land values, cost of construction all day long, but in the end there are other factors at play and what we just went through should prove that.
I ask you, Did Manhattan RE prices fall so quickly and hard in late 2008 because land values were too high + construction costs too high to build new supply OR because of an extreme blowout in credit markets + systemic collapse fears / failure of major global financial services firms + seizing up of secondary mortgage markets & lending markets + natural tightening of lending standards/products and credit crunch + lack of faith in interbank lending + deleveraging of bank/corporate balance sheets resulting in a fierce selloff of all asset classes to raise capital + negative wealth effect of this plunge in asset prices of all classes affecting buyer confidence? You are saying to ignore all these distractions and I to that say, HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY???
I agree, land values and cost of construction rose unsustainably and so did prices of residential units, but the distractions that you say to ignore are partially responsible for that speculative bubble forming in the first place. In the end, it was not sustainable and it took a credit shock and seizure to end the party. Then it was anyone who was highly leveraged, got f*cked and those that bought near the peak prior to credit blowing out, now hold an asset that has depreciated noticeably. But we are at now now, so where do we go from here and where did we just come from?
I enjoy your comments BB! Keep em coming and I will see about adding those datapoints to the new system I have in development
Posted by Noah
Fri Mar 19th, 2010 10:34 AM
BB - its funny, in this mornings BREAKFAST WITH DAVE ROSENBERG look at the very first thing he points out:
"March 19, 2010
IN THIS ISSUE OF BREAKFAST WITH DAVE
• Market thoughts — the January hiccup in the equity market is now a distant memory, as is the depth of the credit crisis of just over a year ago"
Exactly the point of my discussion 4 days ago. Its amazing how investors and sentiment is forgetting the DEPTH and EXTREME of the credit crisis just over 1 year ago!!
Posted by Fred
Fri Mar 19th, 2010 10:52 AM
BB - The most important long term fundamental factor isn't cost of production but job growth / contraction. I don't dispute that input costs are central, but without expansion in jobs and higher wages, you can't get higher prices; at least the kinds of prices that the private sector likes....maybe Related will get into the public housing business???
Posted by Noah
Fri Mar 19th, 2010 10:58 AM
To add what FRED said, why did this rising bubble get to levels it did? I would argue the engine of credit that fueled the availability of credit + leverage + exotic loan products whose only purpose was to push the limits of affordability for houses all = higher home prices. Then the speculative component of market forces came into play adding to the depth of the consumer interested in chasing the supply ---> leading to more speculation/leverage in the development industry to produce more.
Bring lending rates to historic lows and buyers perceive lower monthly carrying costs as a justification for the higher purchase price of the unit. That cycle, mutliplied by wall streets securitization model and banks originate + sell model, allowed the bubble to reach levels that BB calls 'departed radically from fundamentals'
Posted by Marshall
Fri Mar 19th, 2010 11:49 AM
so where do we go from here ? I am assuming the job picture gets better overtime Im just guessing Im assuming the financing jumbos gets better over time how fast how much better I dont know Im cautious Still going forward on small projects I dont believe a lot more condo production groundbreaking is going to happen until pricing gets stronger and construction financing becomes available. Im pushing forward with some niche type projects that I hope I wont be competing head on with the commodity type products but I know if the economy tanks further nothing is immune.
Posted by anon
Fri Mar 19th, 2010 05:15 PM
Fred,
what job do you have that gives you the free time to post so much on urban digs?
And do you really care THAT much?
I am not being sarcastic - just curious...Are you a student or a partner of this site? or do you generally have a fixation with real estate?
Posted by Noah
Fri Mar 19th, 2010 06:19 PM
Fred is not an UD member..just a reader I guess
Posted by Fred
Sat Mar 20th, 2010 09:16 AM
OT,
Anon - I highly doubt that you AREN'T being sarcastic. Rather than get all cranked up in your face, why do you take such offense to meaningful discussions about housing in NYC? What is it that gets under your skin that you post anonymously on a rather esoteric housing blog - on not one, but two occasions to another, essentially anonymous, poster?
Look, it's fine to have a difference in opinion but of all the crap out there, this blog actually generates some pretty insightful comments (and analysis). The fact is if it upsets you, it's most likely not the real estate or the analysis, but your fundamental ability to understand relatively complex topics. It's what they refer to as the "retail mindsight" in sales. And in the financial world, it's where a lot of the margin gets created: simple minded folks who either don't take the time to understand what they are buying or can't understand what they are buying, but nonetheless transact because they are too afraid to question the status quo and they just want to fit in.
I'm just not that guy. I'd rather be liquid, with current yield and smart about how I lock into long term assets. Call me what you want but I am not here telling you or anybody what they should or should not do - and that's why I think you are just a simple-minded donk.
Posted by Noah
Sat Mar 20th, 2010 10:38 AM
I thoroughly enjoy all the comments on this site and the level of intellectual conversation that comes from both sides of most topics discussed here.
even guys like JJFashion who completely question some of the topics I discuss are more than welcome to comment here...
I seriously hope the new site when launched, expands this forum and we get even more insightful angles from Manhattan real estate followers!
Blog on & comment on!!
Posted by anon
Sat Mar 20th, 2010 02:35 PM
Fred,
Relax dude - I am not sarcastic - do not take things so seriously... I enjoy real estate discussions and I am interested in real estate as much as the next guy...
It is just that when I see people commenting on a daily basis with looooong -but nonetheless insightful- comments, it makes me wonder: is something missing from their lives when they dedicate so much of their precious free time blogging????? Are they unemployed? are they students with plenty of free time? because it is impossible to lead a busy life, have a family, make $200K / yr and at the same time spend so much time on a blog...the hours just don't add up...:-)
Do you visit Curbed.com? If you do, there is a troll there who is commenting on everything, many times a day, same as you: he has 2100+ comments when all other registered users have no more than 200-300 comments...The reason is obvious: that person has opinions only but no life and no assets....
It just seems to me that you are that person but for Urban Digs :-)
Take care!
Posted by Louis
Sun Mar 21st, 2010 12:14 PM
Anon--
Why on earth do you care about how Fred's internet habits fit with his life circumstances, particularly if, as you acknowledge, his contributions to the discussion are insightful? And why on earth do think, as your post implicitly suggests, that a family and a $200K/yr job are the baseline values for a normal, healthy life? Your posts indicate that, regardless of your salary, personal details, etc, your own emotional maturity - and hence, the quality of your own life - is about the size of a pea.
Now please let Fred be (and thank you for your insightful contributions, Fred) and let the rest of us continue to discuss Manhattan real estate - the reason why we visit this site - instead of making petty, pointless personal snipes.
- Louis
Posted by anon
Sun Mar 21st, 2010 01:22 PM
Yrs noted Fred -oops!- I meant Louis...
Posted by coach handbags
Thu Aug 12th, 2010 10:02 PM
Stocks are a proxy for everything and it should be no surprise that bids for apartments in a market such as Manhattan, improved just like all asset classes improved from that extreme distressed starting point one year ago. For now, its more of a return to normalcy after such extremes of pricing in and pricing out market/credit risk and near term economic uncertainty.