Just curious, why do so many of you seem to think the term "successful" is synonymous with owning an expensive apartment?  I would never, ever be able to even afford to rent an apartment in the WV, but I love what I do and think it's making a positive difference in the world.  I am far from being rich (or even middle-class by NYC standards), but still think of myself as being very successful.

Oldest profession in the world?

john why dont you post your address here for the world to see.  perhaps someone would pay your bitter angry soul a visit.  

jen and jake, you seriously need to reconsider having douchey bitter writers like john on your staff.  he's costing you more readers with every single post.  i too have been reading this website since the beginning (LOVE THE PANDAS!) but enough is enough already.  clearly you've chosen your anti-success side in this class battle.  and that's sad.  because at one point, right when you guys were about to sell the site, you'd have been considered successful too.  

so long.

another lost reader.

and john, if i were to bump into you at a bar, i would enjoy it.  very much so.  that's not a threat.  

What's funny is that, because he likely paid in cash and didn't take out a loan, if the housing market is stable enough, he may actually net a profit on this or, at worst owe closing and maintenance costs over the life of ownership. This is actually a pretty cheap apartment.

I don't get it.

So because he's rich (and assumingly legally so) he can't spend the money that he makes? Would I want to be in his position? Absol-freaking-lutely. I can't hate on the man for being successful.

Pretty stupid article, now that I think about it. You just sound unreasonably bitter.

Hey Wall St. apologists, the point here is vulgar disparity of wealth. Do you think it's OK that do-nothing CEOs "earn" a salary ratio-to-average-employee of 475%? Think again, selfish douchebags, this kind of inequality will not last forever, it will be the ruin of our pathetic Republic. When there's nothing left to eat, we'll eat the rich.

Are you paying the CEOs salary? It's between him and the shareholders.

Proudliberal, is that you?

I disagree with your premise that the CEO 'does nothing.' There are certainly cases where CEOs make bad decisions and harm their companies, but ultimately the CEO answers to the shareholders: the members of the public that own shares in the company. If those people feel that the CEO is doing nothing but enriching himself at the expense of the company, then they can replace him.

But that may be beside the point... The article mentions a 'private investment manager.' I read that as hedge fund manager, venture capitalist, or private equity manager.

That large glass coffee table is going to get some serious use.

You're saying he likes jigsaw puzzles?

Scategories! Then puzzles. Followed by enormous quantities of blow.

Good for him. Have to wonder how pathetic the author's life must be to post these articles. Wah, somebody has more money than me. Make it stop.

The buyer has to be a crook.  I mean, it's obvious that he didn't achieve his great fortune through a work of brilliance.  He paid $17.5 million for an apartment with a view of Hoboken.

Some people enjoy a sunset.  Others enjoy nothing.

I guess the point is the because of the inequitable wealth distribution we all could have had a piece of the pie instead of just one person. Im not taking a side either way in this post but wondering how many nice weekend crash pads can you get for $17.5 million.
Who cares really, some people have some do not. But don't you find it strange that 9 times out of ten these people are in the investment business? Why? 

The reason why hedge fund managers are able to become so wealthy is due to the fact that their customers are willing to pay them so much. A typical hedge fund will charge a 2% management fee and a 20% performance fee. So if customers give the hedge fund 100 million dollars to manage, then the company will earn 2 million per year in management fees and 20% of whatever gains they make in a given year, subject to a high-water mark. That is, if the fund makes a 20% return (20 million dollars) then the company takes 20% of that (4 million). The high water mark means that the hedge fund only makes a performance fee on additional returns from the fund's all-time high. Continuing with the earlier example, if the fund loses the 20 million dollars that it made in the next year (total assets drop back to 100 million), then it won't earn a performance fee until it gets back to that 120 million level.

Given that a hedge fund may only employ a handful of people, it's easy to see how those employees - with luck or skill, probably often a combination of both - are able to amass large wealth in a short period of time.

And of course the other side of the equation is that hedge funds' customers (pension funds, college endowment funds, wealthy individuals, etc.) are willing to pay these huge salaries because they think that they will see a better overall return on their investment: that is, they believe that the hedge fund investment, after fees, provides a better return than an equivalent investment in a mutual fund, bonds, a different hedge fund, or whatever else.

Hope this helps.

Umm.  No.  The entire industry is based on making lots of money.  It would be strange if 9 out of 10 of these people worked at hot dog carts.  

most people won't be happy until Manhattan looks like Detroit 

Maybe people will be happy if Detroit starts looking like Manhattan... with people being able to buy 17.5 million dollar homes. Or even, a $1,000 home.