**Photo credit: Westside BubbleAddress: 1053 17th - 90403
Details: 2 bed/1 bath teardown on a R2 zoned lot (4,160 sq ft)
Description: Charming starter home in fantastic north of Wilshire location and in the Franklin Elementary School district. Preliminary plans included for contemporary new home. Sold "as is". ZONED R2 - can build 3 units on property (please confirm with the City). TENANT OCCUPIED. PLEASE DO NOT DISTURB TENANTS.
Previous Purchase: 1/25/07 - $998,000
Listing History: 1/8/08 - $1,300,000
The owner AND listing agent for this property is the
same guy who owns AND is listing 1015 25th. Remember, he bought 1015 25th on 1/12/07...just 2 weeks before today's featured property. This owner/agent is also the
president of his own construction company. Given that his company seems to be doing much larger projects than single family flipping or 3 unit condos, I would guess that both of these properties here were "side projects" or something of that nature.
Given these facts I believe that this owner got pretty good deals on both of these properties and was planning on doing a substantial remodel/rebuild on 25th and also developing condos on the 17th street lot. Then things changed and he is now simultaneously bailing on both projects. I wonder why that could be? Given this individual's background, one might be inclined to go so far as to call him the "smart money" (obviously that is up to you to determine). The point is, when the veteran developers are bailing, the market is not getting better anytime soon. This is just one more piece of evidence that the bulls will not be able to refute.
This is not a "starter home"...it is something that will be bought for the development potential (just as this guy initially did). Seems like every other house on the market has some sort of "plans" or "permits" coming along with it. That should set off alarm bells to market participants.
Now to the issue of disclosure. This is another example of a property which is owned by and listed by an agent and where there appears to be no disclosure of these facts in the public description. Some interesting comments were made in the comments section of the last post.
Here is a brief explanation of the Freakonomics issue:
"Levitt's analysis of 100,000 transactions in the Chicago area revealed that agent properties sold for 3 to 4 percent more than similar client properties, and that agents kept their own homes on the market for 10 percent longer than client properties to get the highest price. The findings document what industry critics have claimed for some time, namely that some listing agents put their own financial interest ahead of clients because they are more interested in closing the deals quickly than holding out for the highest price for their seller clients. Levitt blames the industry's traditional two-sided commission structure for failing to properly motivate listing agents, who typically receive just 1.5% of the total sales price after a four way commission split.
If listing agents are more motivated to make the deal work than getting the highest price for their seller clients, should they be called "Dealtors" instead of Realtors? Or should the industry's commission be reformed or abandoned all together?"The point here is not to bash real estate agents. What I am getting at is that in many other financial transactions and forms of advertising, public disclosures must be made when a potential conflict of interest occurs. If I am a buyer walking into the open house off the street, how can I possibly be receiving fair information from the listing agent if they also own it? How can a conflict of interest not occur here? The best way to address this in my opinion is to require public disclosure in all online descriptions of properties as well as on the listing sheets at open houses. This is not to say that I think buyers should be absolved of any responsibility to perform adequate due diligence...Its more that I view these situations as such glaring conflicts of interest that proper and prominent disclosure is the least that should be required.
You don't have to agree with me here but that is how I see it. And for an industry which is absolutely plagued by a destruction of confidence (see recent law suits, fraud complaints, etc), I don't see how agents would not be in favor of increased disclosure and transparency. The idea is to make the market the most fair and efficient by allowing all market participants to have equal information (and be able to obtain said information in an easy fashion).
There is so much more that could be said about this (and other aspects of the real estate transaction model), but I don't want that to be the main focus on this blog. Obviously, the next step in this discussion would be to ask: "If what Warchest is saying makes sense, why has there not been a greater push towards more transparency and openness in the market?" The answer is fairly obvious but it is not something that we will touch upon right now.