Posted on 11/05/2023 1:00:18 PM PST by ChicagoConservative27
When you’re a huge, publicly-traded company with more than eight million square feet of offices in a struggling market, it helps to have a world-famous Observatory on top of your most famous building.
Empire State Realty Trust’s third-quarter results revealed a solid overall leasing performance including 90.5% occupancy in Manhattan and comfortable liquidity.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
“how many migrants have they moved in there?”
Exactly what I was thinking.
Next two years, $1.5T real estate debt that will have to be refinanced at a higher rate
Will the market bear the additional costs?
Not bad for an aging building that was mostly empty for its first 10 years and didn’t turn a profit for 15 years. Democrat corruption kept it afloat as FDR moved federal employees into the building, some relocated from other states.
I grew up in a NYC suburb. When I was a big girl of 5, my dad took me up in the elevator of the tallest building in NYC: The Empire State Building. I’ll never forget how scary high that building was or the amazing elevator ride.
Since then, I’ve been in Trump Tower, at least as far up as the elevator can take shoppers in their amazing stores on the first several stories. No-one but the uber wealthy can afford to shop there. And BTW, Trump most assuredly did NOT overvalue that building.
New York Occupancy RATE?!?
Heck send immigrants buses loads to New York,
By the way, Japan's stock market crashed by about 80% between 1989 and 2003.
In November 1989, the Nikkei index sat at 38,000.
By April 2003, it was down to 7,700. An absolutely devastating downturn.
Even today, it is off it's 1989 peak (now around 32,000).
They survived it and always remained one of the world's top economies.
My point is that even if we had a similar downfall in the USA, we would still be a huge economy. There is just too much consumption for the entire economy to utterly collapse.
Saw it first hand - landlord has tenants expand their space without increasing the rent and voila! 90% occupancy!
"How would you like to rent space in such a successful property?"
"We need you to loan us money for our successful property."
Makes me think of Trump and Trump Towers...what is the occupancy rate there, I wonder? AND I remember well Trump talking for years - years ago - about the materials he got for his building projects that came from China and how inferior it all was. He seldom was heard speaking without mentioning that...
Japan is an interesting case.
In many ways they have some good ingredients for resiliency—no “diversity” issues, high savings/low debt rate, highly intelligent, skilled and hard working people.
They have a couple of big problems as well—forced to import almost everything and a baby bust as Japanese women bought into the western idea of less children while women pursue careers.
I am not sure how big of a collapse I expect—but I think the article’s argument for a greater than 50% stock market fall is in the range.
There are many young people who have never experienced a big stock market crash along with major layoffs so they have no clue what their real risk tolerance is—as Nanzi sorta said you have to have it to see what is in it....
;-)
NYSE: ESRT. Price. $8.29. Change. +0.20. Volume. 1,399,309. % Change. +2.47%. Intraday High. $8.30. 52 Week High. $9.08
Here's why. Once you invest in stocks, you only really "lose" when you sell those stocks at a lower price. Similarly, all the gains you see with your portfolio are on paper - until you sell. The vast majority of investors are worker bees funding their 401ks and IRAs. They are not going to need to make withdrawals until they either retire or have a serious personal hardship. So basically, they are in the "buy and hold" category of investors.
I see young co-workers, decades from retirement, fret from the ups and downs of the market. I am usually able to calm them down by explaining the above.
I was a young worker myself in 1987 when the U.S. stock market crashed that fall. It was a little disconcerting at the time but I kept on funding my 401k, only now I was purchasing more shares (dollar cost averaging) each paycheck with my 401k contributions because they shares were now priced much lower.
Within two years, the stock markets had fully recovered and began reaching new highs. So that two year period was actually very beneficial for my retirement as I was getting all those shares (index mutual funds mostly tied to the S&P 500) at a lower price.
Ditto for the 2008 downturn. I held tight and continued investing. By that time, I was able to use 12% of my income (including the company match) to fund it.
Now as I age and approach retirement years, I have obviously allocated my retirement portolio for much less risk. So a stock market crash would not hurt me as much as it would say 20 years ago. But even now, I'm of an age where I know that over time, I will get it all back so long as I do not panic and stay the course.
Bottom line, think long term with your investment strategy, stick to S&P index funds (Warren Buffet's "secret"), and reallocate risk as you age.
“Ditto for the 2008 downturn. I held tight and continued investing”
I did the same—but there are a significant number of folks who got laid off at that time and had to take the tax penalties and cash out part or all of their 401ks to pay the bills.
It would not surprise me if a new generation of young people gets to rinse and repeat.
90% is considered fully occupied
It is a naysay contrarian forum
Especially as median age has gone from 40s in 2000 to late 60s now
I read the bogleheads forum which is the center of the buy and hold long term crowd:
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=1&sid=a49b817be7b30c6d891f40aae018f18e
Interestingly though one of their wikis echos my views on this topic:
https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Asset_allocation
Key quote:
“choosing the lowest equity allocation from among ability, willingness, and need to take risk”
My need to take risk is exactly zero.
My equity holdings are exactly zero.
;-)
In case you have not seen the Vanguard ten year forecast:
What is stunning to me is that they forecast US stocks to rise 3.7-5.7% a year while cash (presumably money market or similar accounts) to rise 3.3% to 4.3% a year.
This means that all the extra risk in stocks carries a miserable risk premium of about 1% a year—if their forecast is correct.
That is why below historical norms—and in my view a red flag to avoid the stock market at this time.
correction: “way below historical norms”...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.