Thursday, November 02, 2006

Single Family Home Flip Goes Bad - 9879 Caminito Pudregal Diego, CA 92131

This property was recently purchased in April 2006 for $920,000. I'll speculate that this was a flip purchase that's gone awry. It recently went into pending sale status with a list price of $880,000 leaving a substantial loss of $90,000+.

Additionally interesting is the sales history available on the newly released sdlookup.com. It shows a sale in 2003 for $590,000 on this property. Are we headed back to 2003 prices? See this property on SDLookup.com

Type: Listed on MLS(#066085434)

Resale Price: $880,000
Cost: $920,000

Loss@6% Sales Expenses: $92,800
Loss%: 10.09%

Purchase Date: 04/11/2006
Holding Period: 7 months and counting...

Bedrooms: 3
Bathrooms: 2
Square Feet: 2081

Purchase Details: view

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

This house may have been damaged by the 2003 fires. The house next door (9889 Caminito Pudregal) was destroyed: http://www.scrippsranch.org/special/Fire2003/AddressPictures/Caminito%20Pudregal%209889.JPG

Traitor Broker said...

I viewed the property. No damage

Anonymous said...

Mr. Brightside thank you for the new site. SD lookup.

Checked my former condo. Dates and Sales prices absolutely accurate.

3 Sales
10/27/2004 $515,000
12/30/1996 $163,000
11/30/1989 $156,000

Previous owner made 7k in 7 years.

I made in 7 years a few dollars more (not meant as a boast)

Just find the symmetry of both holding periods of 7 years demonstrates the absolute madness we have witnessed.

Mr. Brightside said...

bub,

I agree the data is extremely interesting.

You really have to wonder if we are going to be in a seven year downtown/trough like we were in the last 80s, early 90s.

Anonymous said...

Yeah another 7 years. That period of time will drive "The MTV Generation" absolutely insane (Damn I sound like an old man. eh what the hell)

I see this on other blogs "Planning to buy in 6 months" etc. Like 6 months is all that will be needed to unravel this mess.

Anonymous said...

Further, in real dollars (due to appreciation) the house actually lost value during the first seven years.

Anonymous said...

If you "assume" a flipper. why do you assume 6% fees. Are flippers still paying 6%? Aren't most real estate egents or have good connections to them where they save on commission? I would probably assume 2%.

Mr. Brightside said...

The 6% isn't just commission, it's all the other closing costs as well. Also note that none of the posts attempt to track negative cash flow from rentals or vacant property. In many cases these costs are substantial. Net net 6% is fair to conservative in my opinion.

Also it is an assumption since you have to start somewhere. Perhaps the standard number could be 4 or 5%. Perhaps in this slowing marketplace it actually takes a lot more commission to move a home. I think we've all heard of cases where *more* than the standard rates are being charged so in that sense it could be 7-8%. You don't really know the detail which is why an assumption is made.

Also if we assumed only 2% on a flip then you could also argue that someone is working for free which again could be accounted for in some other manner.

Traitor Broker said...

Coldwell Banker is offering 3% commission to buyer's agent. This means they are paying 5.5 to 6% commission so 6% selling costs is actually pretty low.

This isn't necessarily a flip. Could be they need more room (only 3 bedrooms). Could be they need to sell for other reasons. Could be something we do not know.

Mr. Brightside said...

Traitor Broker,

Thanks for the read on the specifics.

I do think that with a slowed market commissions are actually going to trend up since that's one of the tools to get a property looked at.

All things considered I'll keep the assumption at 6% since like I said earlier it's neutral to conservative.

Anonymous said...

No...we are going to 1998 prices

Anonymous said...

Is this the property that was just forclosed?

I think we are seeing 2003 prices in this gated area. Any thoughts?