Author: TheArcadian
June 2, 2008
Here is a list of some properties we profiled the last 3 months. Some have been sold and many are still… not!
35 W. Norman - Listed: $1,338,000, Sold for: $1,100,000
31 Woodlan Ln - Listed: $1,724,980, Sold for: $1,667,500 after 350+ DOM.
750 Arcadia Ave - Listed: $558,000, Sold for: $540,000
707 Joanquin Rd- Listed: $699,000, Now listing for $829,00 ~WTF
930 Panorama - Listed: $1,175,000 , Now listing for $998,000 (270 DOM)
1642 N. Santa Anita - Listed: $928,000, Now listing for $878,000
Most of the listing we profiled since January are still on the market, unsold and reflecting multiple price reductions. Many of the listings have been “refreshed” by the listing agent so the “days on market” figure is actually lower than it is.
In addition to the existing re-sale listing, we’re seeing more REOs and shortsales coming onto the market. As this article from The New York Times state, even Prime mortgages are seeing a spike n foreclosure activity.
Oh look here - It seems like California is leading the way again in distressed properties.
Update on 1031 W. Foothill Blvd– I talked to the broker on Friday to understand the seller’s price expectations. I bascially said that if seller would come down to $1.6M, I would be interested. Broker claimed that there was somebody who was putting together an offer at “close” to the $2.0M asking price, and that the seller wasn’t interested in selling at a price lower than what they owed on their loan. (Remember– they bought in July 2005 for $1.7M, and have since put some additional money into the house.)
Translation: Anything less than $1.7M and the seller isn’t a seller. That, of course, assumes that the seller can actually afford the carrying costs after the inevitable reset (potentially as soon as this July, though they might have gotten a 5-year fixed period, which means they could ride it out for another couple years).
I’ll be very interested to see whether this moves at that price.
Awesome!
The losses? The increases? Nope.
It’s awesome that you took the time to go back and follow up on your earlier posts. Bravo!
Regarding the property at 1642 N. Santa Anita: Misprint, scam, or an incredibly misinformed buyer in 1991? A sales price of $1.14M in 1991. Now, after remodeling, asking is <$900k. Hadn’t the mini-bubble of the late 80’s already popped by 1991?
Quite bizarre, don’t you think? I’d be very interested in the history behind the previous purchase and current listing price.
Lover your site!
“Many of the listings have been “refreshed” by the listing agent so the “days on market” figure is actually lower than it is.”
This is perhaps one of the most eggregious tactics used by brokers, and their trade association just looks the other way. Then they wonder why the public rates them down there with used car salesmen when it come to honesty.
Alfalfa,
Thanks for being a reader!
In this era of savvy online shoppers and endless web resources (e.g. redfin), these kind of tactics will backfire on agents and brokers. Perhaps I should write a post on all the shady tricks Realtors will do to skew the data and facts when selling a home?
Like quoting MLS numbers to prove the market is improving when they aren’t a true reflection of the number of properties for sale because they don’t include unlisted REOs?
“Heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who, heard it from another you’d been messin’ around.” - REO Speedwagon
frank,
This reminds me of an associate who’s property in Arcadia went into foreclosure earlier this year. According to him, it got bought up really quick; therefore, the market must still be really strong.
He failed to mention the 10% price reduction that will drag down all the other properties on his street. 10% here, 10% there, and eventually homes will be down 25-35% from its peak value.