Contact: Warchestsm@gmail.com -- All e-mail correspondence is kept strictly confidential unless otherwise requested.

Monday, August 29, 2011

Owner Related To Agent *Updated 2*

I last featured 1212 Hill back in April. At the time I warned about the fact that the listing agent was related to the owner and I suggested the price was too high.

Previous Purchase: 12/20/05 - $1,182,000

Listing History: 4/4/11 - $1,249,000
Slowly reduced down to - $1,049,000


SOLD: 8/25/11 - $985,000


This listing was a case of delusional sellers (and agent) who started by asking way too much. Then the listing got stale and sat and sat while holding ever increasingly desperate open houses every weekend. Slow price cuts ensued, all while the owners had already moved out and were shouldering big carrying costs. Finally, someone showed up and bought the place a fair amount below the still too high asking price.

This $197k loss is amounts to 16.7% off of the late 2005 purchase price. I would say this is a mid or late 2004 rollback. I also think (as I always do) that had they listed it at a realistic price from day 1, they would have gotten more for the house. This was a good example of how NOT to sell a house properly.

4 comments:

  1. Another not so hotsy-totsy maneuver was listing 1044 Maple for $1,195K back on 3/9/11. After successive degrading reductions, the 3/3 with pool and separate guest quarters, 1,958/6,600 sqft, built in '46 house sold for $873K on 8/25/11. Last sale was $850K on 5/21/03. (Figures courtesy of Redfin).

    So now it looks like the 90405 is rolling back to 2003. Let's talk. Are 2002 prices lurking around the corner?

    Also, haven't been on Hill lately, but further down at 1328, wonder if that special deluxe $575K deal ever resulted in anything new.

    And let's see what Case-Shiller says later this morning...

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Are 2002 prices lurking around the corner?"

    Um, no. 1212 Hill sold in mid 2001 for $614,000. It just sold for 60% more than that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just fyi, this house was immediately listed as a rental after purchase, for $4950/month, and appears to be rented already: http://losangeles.houses.com/House-For-Rent_1212-HILL-ST_Santa-Monica_90405_3-Bedroom_2-Bathroom_33678852.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks Brad. It is currently listed as "pending" on the MLS rental section. I will be pretty surprised if it indeed rents for that much. It isn't even a true 3 bedroom...I thought it was worth maybe $4k but not anywhere near $5k/month. But at least with renting, if you are getting a crummy deal you can always walk after a year.

    ReplyDelete