the inevitability of a new york nuke ?

[Tyler Durden]

Probably doesn't mean much. A lot of big companies have been selling off 
their own real estate and then leasing it out again in order to 'unlock 
capital'. This occurs particularly in places like NYC.

If you were looking for something nefarious, one wonders whether Met Life 
was facing an earnings shortfall.

-TD


>From: Jason Arnaute <non_secure at yahoo.com>
>To: cypherpunks at jfet.org
>Subject: the inevitability of a new york nuke ?
>Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:25:31 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Article on the front page of the NYT today (Aug 30,
>2006) discusses the proposed sale of a large block of
>apartment buildings owned by Met Life in downtown
>manhattan.  It will be a huge sale, 5 billion or more.
>
>The article goes on to discuss the likelihood of the
>units being gentrified, turned into luxury condos, and
>the plight of the cities working middle class who will
>be forced out, etc.
>
>But what caught my eye is that not only is Met Life
>selling off this crown jewel of urban real estate, but
>that:
>
>"Last year the insurer sold its landmark tower at 1
>madison avenue and the skyscraper at 200 Park Avenue,
>the former Pan Am building, for more than 2.6 billion"
>
>It further details that Met Life is assuredly _not_
>getting out of the real estate market, and in fact has
>over 40 billion of real assets worldwide.
>
>So ... who has better research, intelligence,
>predictive models and risk assessment than a giant
>insurance company ?
>
>And now that giant insurance company is going _very
>short_ manhattan real estate ?  Including its own
>landmark, historic headquarter building ?
>
>Is it possible that some have decided that a NYC nuke
>is a question of when and not if ?
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com