There are 37 blog entries for August 2007.
Friday, August 31st, 2007 at 4:58am. 312 Views, 0 Comments.
Resets are simple enough to understand: a low interest rate (sometimes an ultra-low teaser rate) expires, and homeowners' payments shift to an adjustable rate, typically higher. That's one payment shock.
Payment "recasts" often occur at the same time – when the "interest only" period on the loan expires, the homeowner must begin to make fully amortized payments. This can boost the monthly payment by 15% or more.
So, this year's meltdown began with resets and recasts on a whole lot of recently issued "subprime" mortgages. Unable to refinance and unable to afford their new payments, many new homeowners stopped paying at all.
Thursday, August 30th, 2007 at 7:53pm. 218 Views, 0 Comments.
MBC's wayback machine tells us that 3521 Elm was first offered in March 2007 for $1.279m. It was pitched as "the perfect starter home." It later sold to a builder for $130k less (-10%).
But now 3521 Elm is back for $1.229m, or $79k more than was paid in July. The new owner is willing to unload it, along with plans for new construction.
And now, instead of being the "perfect starter home," it's now pitched as the "perfect remodeling opportunity."
Something isn't perfect, though. Maybe the bottom line on the buy/build/sell spreadsheet.
UPDATE: Turns out this one is also being offered…
Thursday, August 30th, 2007 at 5:28am. 444 Views, 0 Comments.
2305 Pine, highlighted in one of MBC's very first stories, actually closed for $1.570m this week. We had thought it peculiar that the sellers would increase their price mid-listing from $1.495m to $1.595m. Guess what? They (basically) got it! It cost them 4 months on the market, but the tactic worked. We are humbled, and astonished. Last question: Did the buyers' agent tell the buyers that the home was once listed for $75k less than they paid?
3200 Elm is in escrow. This is a newer home priced at $1.95m to reflect a location issue (view of Ardmore). MBC is happy because the sellers are readers. You want your friends to do well.
1140 Laurel closed, after some stops and…
Wednesday, August 29th, 2007 at 7:02am. 383 Views, 0 Comments.
So MBC has installed a new feature in the right column to highlight the newest comments. Let us know how that works for you.
Also, commenters, please consider creating a screen name when you write. Simply select "other" instead of "anonymous." You can create a new name each time, without registering or otherwise leaving tracks. In other words, you can identify yourself without giving yourself up.
Almost all of our comments now are anonymous, which is fine, but if more of you self-i.d., that might help the conversations. We'll know who is talking to whom.
Wednesday, August 29th, 2007 at 5:58am. 363 Views, 0 Comments.
MBC recently mentioned a Sand Section property, 217 Sea View in El Porto, that is being marketed with both sweeteners. Here’s the pitch, courtesy of an email from the seller several days ago (note: the current price is $1.52m):
1. Monthly lease for 12-18 months (extension to 18 months contingent on no late lease payments).
2. Monthly lease to be $5,300.
3. $530 (10%) of the monthly lease is credited towards the downpayment.
4. Deposit of $17,000, all of which gets credited towards your downpayment in case you exercise the option to purchase.
5. Purchase price to be $1.53 million – appraised 5 weeks ago…
Tuesday, August 28th, 2007 at 7:09am. 408 Views, 0 Comments.
And we got some. But not a lot.
Since Aug. 20, we saw these go:
- 1008 11th (new construx., pre-completion, Hill, $2.9m)
- 637 6th (newer, big, Hill, $3.9m)
- 225 Moonstone (remod, Sand, $1.3m)
- 217 9th [again] (new, Sand, $3.35m)
With the Hill and Sand Sections renewing their clocks, there are still these problems:
- Tree Section
Sunday, August 26th, 2007 at 5:06pm. 232 Views, 0 Comments.
Today's LA Times carries a story with a darling tag we might attach to our little burg: an "oasis micro-market." Now, before we get carried away with Manhattan Beach exceptionalism, let's see if we meet the criteria:
* Close-in, established neighborhoods convenient to the urban center's employment and cultural attractions. They don't require residents to make long commutes, sit in traffic for hours or worry about gas prices. These criteria are toughies for LA. One of the examples given is Chevy Chase, MD, a clear A-plus match. What is our region's "urban center," and how…
Saturday, August 25th, 2007 at 5:46am. 248 Views, 0 Comments.
That's a question that seems to be ever-present in our comments here.
Who knew that that would also be the question posed by builders offering new (and newer) construction?
But that's what's happening. Among homes now simultaneously for sale and for lease, MBC notes:
- 2105 Oak (new, 95 DOM) – list price: $2.19m, rental price: $8,500/mo.
- 2709 Oak (new, 373 DOM) – list price: $2.29m, rental price: $8,500/mo.
- 3611 Vista (new, TH, 45 DOM) – list price: $1.85m, rental price: $7,500/mo.
- 217 Sea View (big remodel, 5 DOM) – list price: $1.52m, rental price: $5,300/mo. (lease-option available)
- 512 John (newer, 190 DOM) – list price: $3.99m, rental price: $20k/mo.
Friday, August 24th, 2007 at 5:19pm. 218 Views, 0 Comments.
Having watched everything else get snapped up, they raised their price a second time to $1.399m. MBC speculated that this might be the first successful use of the price-increase tactic.
Things have changed. Current listings:
- 1409 Oak ($1.225m)
- 1732 Pine ($1.295m)
- 3504 Maple ($1.299m)
- 2822 Ardmore ($1.399m)
- 637 13th ($1.450m)
All of these have challenges. Oak is, well, on Oak, and interestingly it's made of adobe. Sharply remodeled, but different. Pine and 13th are probably best as lot sales, but are overpriced as such.
Thursday, August 23rd, 2007 at 6:13am. 421 Views, 0 Comments.
Someone bought 512 John this February for $4.075m. (We're told it was a builder who took the house in trade.) The bet was that this was actually a below-market price, and the property could be sold for more. Much more.
Six months ago, the day after the new owner's purchase recorded (Feb. 15), 512 John went up for $4.449m. After it lingered a while, the price dropped to $4.349m, but then, 5 weeks ago, the price shot up $400k to $4.750m. (Hint: This tactic apparently never works.)
No takers. No one even took them up on the option to rent the home for $20k/mo.
Now 512 John has dropped $750k (really, $450k) to $3.999m, below the price paid earlier this year. With holding costs and costs of selling, a bit of a bath may be taken.
Chalk it up to a…