Picture 1463.pngApparently our elfin’ Treasury Secretary was not successful in his quest to get someone to buy his Larchmont-area Tudor, even after dropping the asking price from $1.635 million to $1.575 million (he and wife Carole paid $1.602 million for the place in 2004). And now he’s reportedly renting it out, by the hour. No, just we haven’t reached seedy hotel-status just yet (god, that would be great though, wouldn’t it?). T. Geith is, however, pimping it for the price of $7,500/month, which the AP helpfully points out is probably less than the li’l fella’s mortgage payments. For those of you interested in a short-term stay in a piece of history, we suggest familiarizing yourself with the space at this time which, now that it’s being rented, presumably comes with the owner’s nightmare inducing decor.

 

[via Cityfile]
Earlier: Deep Inside Tim Geithner’s House

Comments (51)

  1. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 9:05 AM

    Sign me up!
    –Ang Moz

  2. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 9:07 AM

    They’re all going to raff at you!

  3. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 9:08 AM

    I’m still having nightmares from the video tour you posted of the place.

  4. Posted by sugardaddy | June 3, 2009 at 9:10 AM

    God I would love it if he had to foreclose. Has he bought another house in D.C. or is he renting there?

  5. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 9:12 AM

    @4- haha, that’d be one for the books.

  6. Posted by merkin capital partners | June 3, 2009 at 9:13 AM

    “Although $7,500 might seem like a lot of rent, it probably falls a bit short of the monthly mortgage payments on the Geithners’ two loans totaling $1.25 million.”
    2 loans? Does he have an 80/20? Oh Timmy, say it ain’t so.

  7. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 9:14 AM

    Perhaps Bernanke can offer a shoulder to cry on.
    http://dealbreaker.com/2008/03/fed_chairmen_theyre_just_like.php

  8. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 9:16 AM

    How about an earmark to turn it into the Robert C Byrd Mortgage Studies Institute or something. Ya gotta think outside the box, Timmy.

  9. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 9:19 AM

    Who cares?
    This can become interesting only if any of this happens:
    1. foreclosure
    2. loan modification with radical cramdown
    3. renter happens to be the Orange Man
    4. wife takes a job as hostess in Ruth’s Chris Steak House by the convention center in DC
    5. somehow Bob Rubin gets involved
    6. Greenspan lends him some money
    7. the Chinese buy his house

  10. Posted by NAS Keflavik boi | June 3, 2009 at 9:22 AM

    I know it’s not nice of me, but I am deriving a certain amount of glee from this…

  11. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 9:23 AM

    @9- “who cares?”
    it seems at least a handful of people
    “This can become interesting only if any of this happens:
    1. foreclosure
    2. loan modification with radical cramdown”
    it looks like we’re on our way there, Billy.

  12. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 9:23 AM

    @9- people who find humor/glee/pleasure in the fact that geithner is reduced to renting out his house. that’s who cares.

  13. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 9:26 AM

    We are all subprime now.

  14. Posted by sugardaddy | June 3, 2009 at 9:27 AM

    I think there should be a clause that you cannot be Sec. of Treas. if you
    a. cheat on your taxes
    b. foreclose on your house
    c. take out a creative mortgage (he should at least have a remedial knowledge of finance)

  15. Posted by Lowly Assistant | June 3, 2009 at 9:34 AM

    That room with the turquoise/salmon paint looks similar to where they used to film Zoobilee Zoo.
    Little context: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5A2DpRoeN0

  16. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 9:38 AM

    You are assuming that he couldn’t sell? Maybe he decided he wanted to keep his house just in case he wants to return to NY?

  17. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 9:39 AM

    @6
    According to the AP and if you make the calculation, the LTV is 78%. That’s pretty decent considering when the loans were taken. So he still has some equity and given that he rented the place, I doubt there’s a foreclosure in the horizon or that he needs a cramdown mod.
    Timmy is safe, but sweating it out like most of the douchebags I know.

  18. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 9:41 AM

    It’s like the Clinton’s (and now Sarah Palin) flirting with bankruptcy, from living on govt pay and having to incur serious legal expenses. Fast forward just a few years though and cushy directorships, speaking fees, book deals et al take care of everything. That’s why this is total nonsense. Isn’t something more intersting going on?

  19. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 9:43 AM

    @16 – still living in your parents basement?

  20. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 9:53 AM

    @16- yeah, we’re assuming he couldn’t sell, considering that’s exactly what he attempted to do, several times, without success.
    moron.

  21. Posted by Investorcluzo | June 3, 2009 at 9:53 AM

    @sugardaddy – “I think there should be a clause that you cannot be Sec. of Treas. if you…
    c. take out a creative mortgage (he should at least have a remedial knowledge of finance)”
    The “creative” mortgage could *potentially* show a remedial understanding of finance. ie. he could have been taking the position that his home would rise in value (ever the optimist); so, why not get a mortgage that would allow him to save on the monthly in hopes that the equity would build up…oh, the joys of leverage.

  22. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 9:55 AM

    $1.6 million would buy a nicer house in Scarsdale…
    Not this Mamaroneck (not Larchmont) nonsense
    this guy got duped, bad

  23. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 10:08 AM

    I could care less about any of this peasants, I live in New Canaan.

  24. Posted by sugardaddy | June 3, 2009 at 10:09 AM

    Cluz- I hope you are right. Maybe my concern is the over optimism when dealing with the country’s finances.

  25. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 10:10 AM

    @22
    If you bought in 2004 you were duped, no matter where. But you rent, don’t you?

  26. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 10:16 AM

    Sad Trombone, the much less stinkier version of the Rusty Trombone?
    -Nominate me

  27. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 10:20 AM

    My Engrish is weetodded.
    -Nominate me

  28. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 10:46 AM

    Hey Geithner, I’ve got a deal for ya. Let me negotiate a loan mod for ya. Only $5,000 and I’ll stretch out the foreclosure for another year minimum. Then, when we’re just about ready to go to Auction, we’ll “lease” the joint to some dupe for an insanely low “Rent” and run off with their HUGE security deposit and first/last month’s rent, there’s another quick $20,000, which we’ll split of course. Then, we can strip the joint out and sell the appliances and fixtures to Architectural Salvage and make a quick $6 or $7 grand, which again of course I’ll split with you. We call it the “Geithner Subprime Loan Modification Package” very popular out here in the West.

  29. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 10:48 AM

    Do not livr in my parents’ basement and am not a moron. Real Estate is a commodity. As such, the price is set by the market. Even in this economy, there are buyers, particularly in that neck of the woods. If you receive offers that are too low, according to your emotional perception, you will refuse to sell and say you received no offers. If you WANT TO SELL you can sell in any market. Ergo, he didn’t really want to sell.

  30. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 10:48 AM

    Were they aiming to go with the creepiest music imaginable for that video tour?

  31. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 10:52 AM

    @30 mission accomplished
    @29 “If you WANT TO SELL you can sell in any market. Ergo, he didn’t really want to sell.”
    what a retarded statement. yes, he could sell, if he wanted to so do vastly below the price he was asking for. no one is arguing that Geithner couldn’t have sold his place for, say, $100,000. Ergo, you’re an idiot.

  32. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 10:53 AM

    C’mon Trip-T:
    Just walk away! Jingle mail that sucker back to Citi!

  33. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 10:56 AM

    31 Not 29 here, but I think you’re the idiot. No one was suggesting $100,000 as the price to clear the market. This is in fact a tough market, but the house is in a desirable place.

  34. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 10:59 AM

    @14:
    Wait, I’m confused. I thought those were the *requirements* to be in the O-Bam Cabinet?

  35. Posted by Investorcluzo | June 3, 2009 at 11:01 AM

    @sugardaddy – c’mon man, these guys are all drinking from the same thermos of kool-aid BHO had when he was back in IL dreaming of the white house…I believe biden purchased rose color glasses for the entire administration – it was in one of those “shovel ready” projects.

  36. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 11:15 AM

    look on the bright side all you banking weenies!! If he paid 1.6 mill for that dump, just imagine what he’ll pay for all your fucked up RMBS’s and ABS’s !!!
    The Guy From Levittown

  37. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 11:25 AM

    18 is right, Timmy’s got it made in the shade. All he has to do is wait it out, cover his taxes, and eventually a friend in the Party will buy it for him and he’ll repay it with interest from his book deal. Gets a nice little professorship somewhere, Timmy sells the house for a profit in 4 years, and Timmy is not looking all that stupid.
    A senior job in the Administration (D or R)usually pays off quite nicely.

  38. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 11:27 AM

    Anyone else wondering how he was able to afford a $1.6MM house on a government salary?

  39. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 11:40 AM

    @38
    Dumbass. He was making over $400K a year at the Fed of NY. That’s not a gov job. His salary got cut in half for the Treasury job, but he also got a nice severance package of over $400K when he left the fed to take the new job.

  40. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 12:26 PM

    wow, 31 you certainly have a huge ego problem. Calling another poster an idiot because they don’t agree with you is a bit prepubescent don’t you think? He would have been able to see at about $1,200,000. He didn’t want to sell the house. Maybe he doesn’t like his present gig?

  41. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 12:33 PM

    @40- he didn’t want to sell? then why, praytell, did he put it on the market?

  42. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 12:46 PM

    I’m not going to explain the nuances of real estate to you. Believe it or not, sometimes people put their homwes on the market to see what they can get and then they decide if they really want to sell. And believe it or not, some people carry more than one house and are just fine, even in this economy. I see that you guys want to ruminate about him being foreclosed upon so don’t let reality spoil your fun.

  43. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 1:09 PM

    @23
    You wrote: “I could care less about any of this peasants, I live in New Canaan.”
    Should be: I could care less about any of this peasants; I live in New Canaan.
    You’re a fucking idiot.
    -Iceman

  44. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 1:14 PM

    @23
    Upon closer inspection, it appears you’re even more of a fucking idiot than I previously thought. If “you could care less,” you care.
    You don’t live in New Canaan.
    -Iceman

  45. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 1:17 PM

    @43, @44
    Double post, you are twice the fucking idiot that @23 is.
    (Just keeping this cesspool healthy…)

  46. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 1:20 PM

    Any pics of the main house?

  47. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 3:14 PM

    @45
    What double post?
    You’re 10x the fucking idiot 23 is.
    -Iceman

  48. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 4:05 PM

    Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
    @17 Safecracker should be underwater soon enough. Can’t sell, even to a crony, in the summertime, with a foreclosure ban.

  49. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 4:15 PM

    @48
    Point is he doesn’t have to sell right now. Read @39, plus consider he’s co-owner of a vacation property in Cape Cod, which he would gladly sell if he has to. And finally, he’s out of his job next year and then will make the big money.
    Get it?

  50. Posted by guest | June 3, 2009 at 5:30 PM

    @49 I like your thinking (48 here) but, in that case, why lower the asking price?

  51. [...] Larchmont Lothario is showing a bit of teeth in recent days as the Treasury proposes excluding FX swaps from certain [...]

Leave a comment

You can log in with your account or comment as a guest below.