|Purchased Price||$533,000||:::||Lot Size||0.44 acres|
|Days on Redfin||16||:::||Baths||2|
*Estimated monthly payment assume 20% down, 30-yr fixed @ 6.50%
* * * * * subject is listed for land, the existing old house, plus a newly approved project plan, its more than 7100 sqft. luxious contemporary single family pool dwelling, * * * * * corporate owner motivated due to their carrier plan changes. * * * * * drive by only, * * * * * tenants not aware its on the market for sale. * * * * * absolutely do not disturb, please * * * * * fierce dog may bite at your own risk. * * * * *
This has to be one of the worse descriptions I’ve ever read. He’s obviously never took a grammar class nor believes in using the spell-check option before posting. The only thing that’s missing is the realtor’s special CAPS LOCK and multiple exclamation points!!! I don’t understand the use of multiple asterisks nor what “fierce dog may bite at your own risk” means. Actually, I do understand what he’s trying to say, but it’s very poorly conveyed.
What are they trying to sell here? Half the verbiage is about the approved plans for the monster 7100 sqft McMansion that hasn’t been built, a quarter of is about the existing house and another quarter of it repeatedly warns me not to disturb the occupant. They have yet to notify them that the property is up for sale so I assume these owners want to squeeze every bit of cash flow from these renters as possible. Considering the current market conditions and their ridiculous asking price, they’ll probably need these renters to supplement their current monthly payments.
For the $1.6MM asking price, I would expect to buy the 7100 sqft mansion as described and not this half a century old house in “fair condition.” $1.6MM divided by 7100 sq-ft would yield about $225/sqft which I think is reasonable for a brand new construction. However, instead of getting that, the buyer will get a 57 year-old 3542 sqft house and pay $452/sqft for it. The sellers are dreaming on cloud 9 if they think anyone will pay $1.6MM for this property. If they slash the price by 50%, they might have a good chance of finding a knife catcher.
8 thoughts on “Excuse Me?”
Also the picture of the house is 6 years old.
The 1993 price of $533K was rather high. The market did not bottom out until late 1996. I bet the low price was in the low $400K’s.
This realtor should be reported to the Real Estate license board for making the last two statements. That is the worst I have ever seen and borders on covering up the potential sale to the tenants and scaring the buyer that the dog make attack.
I would dare someone to print the MLS and put it on the door.
I agree. This house would have been worth less in 96/97 when the market bottomed. As for the realtor, he should be fired for unethical conduct.
Estimated payment: 8K per month. Shyeah! I’m surprised there aren’t people lining up to purchase it.
I’m not familiar with the world of realtors but surely there must be some sort of ethical codes that may result in the ban of their license?
Do we have any brave, bullish realtors on board who would like to chime in? I’ve never taken an RE class, but it doesn’t take more than common sense to know what they’re doing is wrong.
Walking into a bear’s den isn’t easy, but it would bring balance to the discussions here if we had a resident bull on board.
1. Be honest with all parties in the transaction – not just with you, as his or her client, but also with the other real estate practitioner and his or her clients.
2. Put your interests ahead of his or her own, at all times.
3. Disclose all pertinent facts regarding the property and the transaction to both buyer and seller.
4. Be truthful in all communications with the public.
(Grabbed straight from Realtor.org)
I was pleasantly surprised to stumble on this blog today. Agree generally with much of the bearishness, but not always. Typically, I think your focus on GRM (which, admittedly, you only use as a short-hand tool) tends to undervalue many of these “sold for land” types of properties. Part of the bedrock appeal of LA generally, and the SGV specifically, is that you can have most or all of the benefits of a big city but still have a nice big back yard, pool, hell, maybe even a sports court. Moreover, at some point above 3,000 square feet, the relative value of additional lot, compared to additional house, has to begin to swing heavily in the direction of the lot. Wish their were a tool that could capture that in a way that could reliably predict changes in price…
I agree that it is difficult to capture many of the untangible qualities of property with numbers. GRM, $/sqft and other numerical measures provide a general feel of things, but neglects to account for things like neighborhood desirability.
Comments are closed.