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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
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
I viewed the property. No damage
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.
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.
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.
Further, in real dollars (due to appreciation) the house actually lost value during the first seven years.
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%.
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.
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.
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.
No...we are going to 1998 prices
Is this the property that was just forclosed?
I think we are seeing 2003 prices in this gated area. Any thoughts?
Post a Comment