Actually, it sounds like old Sam did right well for himself.
Let’s see. If Zell sold it, IT ISN’T HIS EMPIRE any more.
Thanks for the fine reporting, NYTimes.
Maybe I’ll adopt a puppy and then I’ll have a use for you.
He is not nearly as bad off as the living scum at the New York Times that sold out their building to have enough cash to pay the daily Queer columnist and the daily communist columinist and the light bill and a lawyer to screw over the bankers holding the debt they will never be able to pay.
I do have to be impressed that the Times can make a guy liquidating property when the market is high sound like some kind of incredible scheme. He saw the market was overbuilt and decided then was the time to sell. There's nothing wrong with that.
This article is a bunch of gobbledygook obviously written by someone who has no idea how the real estate market works.
Reporters don’t write headlines.
And, apparently, editors don’t edit.
Zell is a conservative, so it only stands to reason that the NY Times would attempt to slander him with a totally misleading headline.
“Zell bought low, sold high — Women and children hit hardest”
Sounds like Zell and the Blackstone Group are smart cookies. good for them. Bad for the morons who bought overpriced properties when it was clear to all the bubble was bursting. Unfortunately I heard on CNBC that Geithner wants to give some TARF money to commercial landlords. Mistake! What ever happened to selling at a loss and moving on?
I still have a tiny bit of CHANGE in my pocket, I guess I should do the patriotic thing and help bail out the poor schmucks that bought Sam’s property at the height of a real estate bubble. /extreme sarcasm, I have NO sympathy for ANYONE that expected the bubble to go on indefinitely hoping to profit on it.