Monday, June 25, 2007

"Bring your imagination"

The white house at the far left is 1505 Oak St., a 3 bed/2 bath new listing asking $1,050K. Its description sets a new standard:

Just picture living in Santa Monica on a fantastic tree lined street, an extra large backyard, boasting great trees and a huge lot. This home has amazing potential for remodel/upgrade create what you want with already existing formal living/dining rooms, fireplace in living, detached garage. This Neighborhood is amazing bring your imagination.

"Just picture ... a fantastic tree lined street" on one of the very few Santa Monica streets that have NO street trees, just a narrow concrete sidewalk with no parkway! Bring a lot of imagination!

15 comments:

Scandalicious Lily said...

Greetings from Belgium!

lap2 said...

Saw it on an open house – good lot (7,050 SQF - 50 x 141 ), decent bones, selling as 3+2 1,169 SQF (3rd bedroom not permitted and not part of the total SQF), little smelly and needs substantial updating, I would say probably at least $150K - $200K and then you’ll have a good family house. In conclusion, it is a good opportunity if seller is willing to negotiate. Pricewise, it is on a high side of a salable range, neither outrageous nor the bargain.

Anonymous said...

So at $1,050,000 that Oak St. house should rent for about $6,000 per month. Seems a little high.

Anonymous said...

Hi Craig and Westside-
Checking back in with you because of my doubts re information flyers from local RE agents. A couple of properties may have crossed the radar here so I thought I'd run this info by you so we can have some fun picking through it.

Here's one from MeganWhalen: Sold 3021 Glenn (but no selling price given) and In Escrow: 1627 Sunset, 1138 12th St #10.

The next one is so poor I wonder, "where were the proof readers?" and "Could this be intentional?" and "why did she pay for this mailing?"
From KimberlyGRant -a "market update"
"Jan-April 2006 vs Jan -April 2006" (sic)
Sold homes
S.Monica 2006 2007
SFR 136 141
condos 42 221
Brentwood
SFR 136 141
Condos 42 221
(sic)
ThanksTHG

lap2 said...

"Here's one from MeganWhalen: Sold 3021 Glenn"

It sold in 34 days on 5/24/07 @ $1,275,000.

1627 Sunset - in escrow and it looks like contingencies have been removed on 6/2.

1138 12th St #10 - pending and don't know about contingencies.

"Jan-April 2006 vs Jan -April 2006" (sic)
Sold homes
S.Monica 2006 2007"

1/1 - 4/30 of 2006 - 93 sales SF Homes and 156 condos/townhomes.

1/1 - 4/30 of 07 - 96 sales SF Homes and 149 condos/townhomes.

This are closed escrows in Santa Monica as reported in the MLS.

Hope this helps.

Westside Bubble said...

Actually 3021 Glenn was originally listed back in July 2006 for $1,499K. After a reduction to $1,399K in August, its listing appears to have expired after 6 months in January. It was listed again in late March for $1,279K.

Thanks for the info, lap2.

war chest said...

lap2 and westside,

What are your thoughts on the whole relisting thing? I ask because here with the 3021 Glenn property it seems to be brought up again. Lap2, as you have access to whatever realtor tools are out there, why didn't you see that it was listed back in July 06? (assuming westside is correct). Will the realtor tools (databases, etc) catch this or can realtors get away with the expiring and relisting game??

34 days sounds a lot better than 340...again, a lot of my frustration with the real estate market and those involved lies in the fact that information is not transparent enought. What if listings never expired, if you change realtors or do FSBO then days on market does not get reset to 0?

lap2 said...

I simply didn't look at the listing history and if I were to write an offer on it, I would look at the entire history of the property.

MLS has a rule that if the listing has expired or has been withdrawn and than is re-listed with the same agent within 30 days, it has to be listed as "back on the market" and the clock is not reset but continues. If the same realtor tries to re-list the property as "new" within 30 days, that realtor is subject to a $250.00 fine and the MLS corrects the listing history to reflect the correct info. However, if it is listed with another agent, sellers had to sign a new listing agreement, therefore it is a new listing.

In reality, what difference does it make how long has it been listed? Buyers are very savvy these days and in most cases, before they decide on the property and the price they are willing to pay, they preview between 25-50 properties. This gives them a real good feel for where they want to be and at what price. The price agreed upon between the seller and an agent is irrelevant - listing agent is not the buyer. The problem with "buying" the listing (term used amongst realtors when a realtor in order to get a listing when in competition convinces the seller to list it at a much hire price hoping in hammering the seller for reductions at a later time), it gives sellers wrong expectations and the relationship is bound to blow up. But you can't blame only realtor for that, seller's greed and unwillingness to hear the truth has alot to do with it. Also, their is no an exact science when it comes to pricing properties, it isn't like a stock that you can look up. To one buyer the same property can be a bargain at the asking and to the next one they wouldn't touch it even at the half the price, it only takes one buyer to buy it.

In any event, what difference does it make what is it listed for, if you like the property just write an offer, whatever it may be, and try to negotiate. The only way the deal can happen is if both sides are satisfied with what they got, there are no one-sided deals and if sellers don't like something, they don't have to sell it and if buyers don't like some think, they don't have to buy it. Simple as that. And as we all know, price is driven by a one simple fact - supply and demand. You can see it in the stock market too, when the bid and the ask are far apart, their are no transaction that are taking place until the spread narrows or someone is willing to accept/pay the price.

war chest said...

lap2,

I agree with most of what you are saying. I still think that it is important for any buyer or prospective buyer to be able to easily obtain a true DOM number. This obviously is something that the buyer's agent should be able to provide and should be part of the due dilligence procees, however it would be nice to be able to look at a listed property and be able to rely on the DOM number. This number is significant because it should be able to provide information on the current demand of the market (in general and for that property in particular).

lap2 said...

war chest,

“This number is significant because it should be able to provide information on the current demand of the market (in general and for that property in particular).”

I don’t think DOM on overpriced property is indicative of the market conditions and in my opinion, it only show the motivation of the seller, ignorance of the realtor or seller’s greed. Eg. Property on the market for 180 days without a single offer and as soon as it is reduced to where it should’ve been priced in the beginning, it ends up selling in multiple offers. Very risky strategy in current market conditions and definitely not recommended. So in all, DOM is important information and any information you get on the property is important. Buyer’s agent should definitely be on top of it.

war chest said...

lap2,

Thanks for your insight. Also, maybe I am being too nitpicky but you seem to contradict yourself on the whole DOM thing. First you said:

"In reality, what difference does it make how long has it been listed?"

And then in your next response (after I argued that DOM is important) you said:

"So in all, DOM is important information and any information you get on the property is important."

Anyways...any word on what 933 25th went for (I believe someone siad it was in escrow)? Thanks

war chest said...

Here is something interesting I found...

While looking on redfin, I saw 520 18th which is for sale at $2.65 million. This "prime Gilletes sqaure" place has some interesting previous sales:

Date Price Appreciation
01/05/1996 $685,000 -6.3%/yr
03/09/1990 $1,000,000 --

That looks like a pretty heavy loss for whoever bought in 1990...although it has turned into a pretty large gain for the 1996 buyer. I don't think sub $1 million prices will ever appear north of Montana again but this does go to show that even properties in the most prime locations are capable of costing you hundreds of thousands of dollars if you buy at the wrong time.

war chest said...

Cold feet?

1247 25th. Currently listed at $1.2 million

Sale History
08/17/2006: $1,200,000
06/06/2006: $1,100,000
10/13/1982: $122,500

This lot is in a multi unit zoned area so development could be an option here. Anyways, this person is going to be eating a loss of more than $100K even if they get their price (which is conveniently how much they bought it for). The place is empty so the holding costs (loan, taxes, etc) plus the transaction costs (realtor, etc) are going to kill this person.

I rent a room in a 4 bedroom, 2 story townhouse in this neighborhood...without development, this property would produce a cap rate somewhere around 3%...wow

westwood said...

Hey let's play the giant loss game! My personal favorite is 120 Pacific Avenue in Venice.

Sale History
1991: 925,000 (this looks like a repo)
1994: 280,000!!!
1997: 395,000

This may give an indicator of where we are headed.

lap2 said...

As of 6/27 in escrow and looking for a backup.