There are currently 28 blog entries related to this category.
Friday, April 26th, 2013 at 6:56pm. 197 Views, 0 Comments.
Plans change. You buy a house, something changes, you gotta get out again.
This is a scenario that could have cost sellers a lot of money over the past few years.
Indeed, we remember a Hill Section example of this that was brutal. In June 2010, someone said "must have" to a Craftsman at 861 10th St., paying $2.635M for the privilege.
Just 5 weeks after closing, it was right back up for sale – but the resale took forever (16 months) and lost a bundle when the price dropped well under $2.3M.
The final damage: -$366K (-14%). (For more, see "Hey, Didn't They Just Buy That? – Part 2," from Nov. 2011.) And that's just the market price; the sellers also had to pay roughly 5% costs of sale.
But more recently, we saw someone…
Tuesday, April 16th, 2013 at 5:47pm. 196 Views, 0 Comments.
The story is one we keep writing over and over: Houses that couldn't sell before, have sold recently.
Does it always happen, though?
How about one of the most difficult listings from 2012? How will it fare now that it's back?
And how about its new price increase? Will that stand up?
We're talking here about 1701 Gates Ave. in East MB.
The listing fairly dares this market to prove that everything really is different in 2013. Approaching one year since it debuted, the listing has now increased in price by 13%.
In May 2012, 1701 Gates (4br/3ba, 3390 sq. ft.) launched at $1.598M.
No action through Summer. It went on "hold" in August.
In October, 1701 Gates returned $100K lighter at $1.498M.
The listing ran another 5 months like…
Monday, February 4th, 2013 at 7:17pm. 299 Views, 0 Comments.
Median prices haven't moved like that, but medians don't capture a lot. They speak to the city as a whole, not individual properties.
Our most recent data show that SFRs west of Sepulveda jumped only 1.5% – that's one-point-five percent, not fifteen – last year, based on median price.
Now there's a new listing out that reflects someone's sense that the market's up nearly 30% since... not very long ago at all – Dec. 2011, in this case.
Wednesday, July 11th, 2012 at 3:25pm. 171 Views, 0 Comments.
Specifically, if you missed a chance at 311 32nd (3br/3ba, 3500 sq. ft.), a big ocean-view TH, rejoice: It's back.
Just 3 months after it sold.
That's right. 311 32nd sold in early April and is back now.
And wouldn't this work out to be an outstanding flip? The seller is marking it up 23%, fully $600k, over acquisition.
April 2012: $2.600m (sold)
July 2012: $3.200m (asking)
Good luck with that.
Here's a link to our review from February this year.
Worth noting: This one sold quickly when new in Sept. 2007 for $2.850m, but the first try at reselling it failed, for big chunks of 2009 and 2010. This year's $2.6m…
Friday, July 1st, 2011 at 2:01pm. 152 Views, 0 Comments.
Can you believe it? There was a typo. A few – no, just 2 – extra zeroes. It was $930k. So much for that overbid.
Our thanks to the several alert readers who pointed this out privately, before the listing agent corrected the sale price. (Is he being sarcastic again?)
On the very same day as our $93m story, 2 new Tree Section listings popped up at
Monday, April 25th, 2011 at 7:01pm. 158 Views, 0 Comments.
It so happened that earlier that same week in January, we had covered 2 other resales that had closed well below their 2006 acquisition prices. But 224 34th (4br/4ba, 3700 sq. ft.) was going to buck that trend.
Our first post was called "Not Rewinding on 34th," but now we have cause to change one letter. For the first time, 224 34th now is rewinding, priced below acquisition at $2.790m.
Not that this move came easily. Last month, 34th pulled a bogus re-list and raised the asking price, from $2.999m to $3.089m. It was a curious reaction to 2 months' worth of not selling. But then, Spring was really springing…
Tuesday, March 29th, 2011 at 10:45pm. 141 Views, 0 Comments.
This week there's one bogus re-list price increase with a clock reset at 224 34th (4br/4ba, 3700 sq. ft.), which has been on public offer since January.
We took note of the listing when it was new because it's a 2006 (peak-year) purchase looking for a 2011 resale for slightly more than was paid 5 years ago. (See "Not Rewinding on 34th.") If they were to pull that off, it'd be some kind of news, with most resales these days closer to 2004 prices.
Here's the recent history:
- Aug. 2006 sale price (public records): $2.925m
- Sept. 2006 sale price (MLS): $3.000m (inflated for reporting purposes because buyer's agent did not take a
Wednesday, February 16th, 2011 at 5:00am. 147 Views, 0 Comments.
A Hermosa listing (right on the border with MB) at 215 Longfellow popped up under the "Price Reduced" tab with this curious fact.
It was "news" that the price had been "reduced" to $999,000, but the original/start price, listed right there on the page, was $999,000.
Were there pennies involved somewhere that had been shaved off?
Nope, it turns out they had flirted with the old price-increase tactic.
The listing has appeared in parts of 2008, 2009 and 2010, at list prices starting at $1.299m but declining, gradually, to $999k when it rebooted – after a long break – in early November last year.
Friday, February 26th, 2010 at 4:44am. 171 Views, 0 Comments.
The very first post here at MBC, back in March 2007, concerned 2305 Pine, a home that was for sale then, and is for sale again now.
Way-back-when, your blog author was aghast that 2305 Pine – and one other listing – had increased its price by $100k. That didn't seem like a smart way to sell a property in a market that appeared to be declining.
But you know what they say about predicting...
Your blog author's opinion about the market, in general, in that first post has proved to be right. We've seen prices slide 15-20% or more since MBC launched with a public statement that home prices locally were dropping.
But boy, were we wrong about 2305 Pine.
Pine began at $1.495m almost 3 years ago to the day (Feb. 23, 2007).…
Tuesday, February 16th, 2010 at 4:44am. 159 Views, 0 Comments.
It's also marked up 10% over the last price we saw it at in 2009.
One of the most prolific spec-funding banks in the area got behind 660 33rd (5br/5ba, 4750 sq. ft.) in late 2006. The lot was scraped and the new home was ready for market by June 2008.
But a start price of $3m, and the general chaos in the market soon after, combined to make it a rough ride for the listing. The bank imploded and eventually got absorbed in Summer 2009, but not before starting foreclosure proceedings on 33rd.
The bank that became the new holder of the note, worth $2m at the outset, took title at the courthouse steps last October. The listing remained active for…