North park flips… relatistic prices?

[SD Realtor]

Arraya I do understand that totally. Lets make sure we call it like I see it. I give the up to date minute fluctuations based on facts. Never do they pose themselves as a long term prognostication. Once again, the main point was the perception of flippers or flipped homes causing pricing appreciation. We all know that to be incorrect on a few fronts. One front being the percentage of homes flipped is quite low compared to the total, the second being the market is what drives pricing, not the seller. I am not sure of the bad advice you are refering to. Obviously it is not my advice, however our govt and financial complex give us our dose of bad advice daily.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=pemeliza]”Right now, there is a ppsf differential of about 100 bucks between mission hills and North Park, but with substantially more variability ”

If you look at the sales prices and not list prices, I think things are tighter than that. I just took a look at redfin for zip codes 92103 and 92104 market trends for houses.

In 92104 the listing price for houses averages $397 a foot while the sold prices average $421 a foot. The sales to list price 98.13%.

Meanwhile, in 92103 the listing price for houses averages $514 a foot while the sold prices average $429 a foot. The sales to list price is 94.57%.

I realize that these are rough data and 92103 also includes Hillcrest, but the trend can be confirmed if you look at recent sales on a house per house basis. For whatever reason, the ppsf differential between 92103 and 92104 is collapsing for houses.[/quote]

Just make sure you are comparing similar sized houses. If the MH houses are significantly larger the higher price/sf is understated.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=pemeliza]”Right now, there is a ppsf differential of about 100 bucks between mission hills and North Park, but with substantially more variability ”

If you look at the sales prices and not list prices, I think things are tighter than that. I just took a look at redfin for zip codes 92103 and 92104 market trends for houses.

In 92104 the listing price for houses averages $397 a foot while the sold prices average $421 a foot. The sales to list price 98.13%.

Meanwhile, in 92103 the listing price for houses averages $514 a foot while the sold prices average $429 a foot. The sales to list price is 94.57%.

I realize that these are rough data and 92103 also includes Hillcrest, but the trend can be confirmed if you look at recent sales on a house per house basis. For whatever reason, the ppsf differential between 92103 and 92104 is collapsing for houses.[/quote]

Just make sure you are comparing similar sized houses. If the MH houses are significantly larger the higher price/sf is understated.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=pemeliza]”Right now, there is a ppsf differential of about 100 bucks between mission hills and North Park, but with substantially more variability ”

If you look at the sales prices and not list prices, I think things are tighter than that. I just took a look at redfin for zip codes 92103 and 92104 market trends for houses.

In 92104 the listing price for houses averages $397 a foot while the sold prices average $421 a foot. The sales to list price 98.13%.

Meanwhile, in 92103 the listing price for houses averages $514 a foot while the sold prices average $429 a foot. The sales to list price is 94.57%.

I realize that these are rough data and 92103 also includes Hillcrest, but the trend can be confirmed if you look at recent sales on a house per house basis. For whatever reason, the ppsf differential between 92103 and 92104 is collapsing for houses.[/quote]

Just make sure you are comparing similar sized houses. If the MH houses are significantly larger the higher price/sf is understated.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=pemeliza]”Right now, there is a ppsf differential of about 100 bucks between mission hills and North Park, but with substantially more variability ”

If you look at the sales prices and not list prices, I think things are tighter than that. I just took a look at redfin for zip codes 92103 and 92104 market trends for houses.

In 92104 the listing price for houses averages $397 a foot while the sold prices average $421 a foot. The sales to list price 98.13%.

Meanwhile, in 92103 the listing price for houses averages $514 a foot while the sold prices average $429 a foot. The sales to list price is 94.57%.

I realize that these are rough data and 92103 also includes Hillcrest, but the trend can be confirmed if you look at recent sales on a house per house basis. For whatever reason, the ppsf differential between 92103 and 92104 is collapsing for houses.[/quote]

Just make sure you are comparing similar sized houses. If the MH houses are significantly larger the higher price/sf is understated.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=pemeliza]”Right now, there is a ppsf differential of about 100 bucks between mission hills and North Park, but with substantially more variability ”

If you look at the sales prices and not list prices, I think things are tighter than that. I just took a look at redfin for zip codes 92103 and 92104 market trends for houses.

In 92104 the listing price for houses averages $397 a foot while the sold prices average $421 a foot. The sales to list price 98.13%.

Meanwhile, in 92103 the listing price for houses averages $514 a foot while the sold prices average $429 a foot. The sales to list price is 94.57%.

I realize that these are rough data and 92103 also includes Hillcrest, but the trend can be confirmed if you look at recent sales on a house per house basis. For whatever reason, the ppsf differential between 92103 and 92104 is collapsing for houses.[/quote]

Just make sure you are comparing similar sized houses. If the MH houses are significantly larger the higher price/sf is understated.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]CAR
Got a challenge for ya. From your posts it sounds like you are a frustrated buyer losing dozens of houses to flippers. Can you please post the addresses of 3 houses that you lost to flippers that you would have bought? You can also include REO and Short Sales listed contingent or pending as long as you you would have paid the fair market value and not the undermarket sale price an unscrupulous agent might have slipped it through at.

I havent seen any that I think you would have bought and am curious if this is based on real experiences or conjured up due to frustration.[/quote]

Sure. Off the top of my head, there was one on Babilonia that sold for ~$645K at auction. The flipper sold it with little or no improvements in the $900K-$1MM range.

The other one is the house on Park. I don’t know if it was a flipper yet (hasn’t closed and relisted yet), but have good reason to think so.

Both of those would have been interesting to us as a primary residence. I’ve also wanted to buy a rental property in a lower-end area that we could also live in (as a back-up plan) if my deflationary theory is wrong and inflation takes off in the future. There are a number of them — too many to count — in O’side and Escondido that have been swarmed by flippers over the past few years. What the flippers are willing to pay and what long-term owners *with skin in the game* are willing to pay tend to be very different.

Needless to say, I’m a deflationist, but a lot of people out there seem to think that inflation is going to come to their rescue. I know that’s what the PTB are trying to do, but don’t think they’ll be able to succeed without causing some (possibly larger) imbalances and “unexpected” problems. I’m not counting on the govt’s printing press to bail us out of our bad decisions, so am not willing to pay what gamblers and those with nothing to lose are willing to pay.[/quote]

Follow up questions for CAR. Did you go to the auction and get outbid on Babilonia? Assuming it went on the open market like you would have wanted it to with an online bidding system with complete transparency we know it would have sold for the $900 to $1m the flipper sold it for. Would you have paid that?

Did you bid on Park and lose it? It was on the market and you had a chance at it. At its lisitng price, I dont see it being flipped for a profit. What makes you think its a flipper?

I’m sorry but I’m just not seeing it yet.

BTW, flippers are willing to pay less than owner occupants not more because they need to make a return that an owner gets by living in the house. Its the shady deals being sold undermarket that are the problem not the flippers. If the shady deals were gone the properties would sell at retail, the flippers wouldnt have a profit margin and owner occupants would get a better shot at some of the houses they would like. You might get a house you want but you wouldnt be getting the great deal you want.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]CAR
Got a challenge for ya. From your posts it sounds like you are a frustrated buyer losing dozens of houses to flippers. Can you please post the addresses of 3 houses that you lost to flippers that you would have bought? You can also include REO and Short Sales listed contingent or pending as long as you you would have paid the fair market value and not the undermarket sale price an unscrupulous agent might have slipped it through at.

I havent seen any that I think you would have bought and am curious if this is based on real experiences or conjured up due to frustration.[/quote]

Sure. Off the top of my head, there was one on Babilonia that sold for ~$645K at auction. The flipper sold it with little or no improvements in the $900K-$1MM range.

The other one is the house on Park. I don’t know if it was a flipper yet (hasn’t closed and relisted yet), but have good reason to think so.

Both of those would have been interesting to us as a primary residence. I’ve also wanted to buy a rental property in a lower-end area that we could also live in (as a back-up plan) if my deflationary theory is wrong and inflation takes off in the future. There are a number of them — too many to count — in O’side and Escondido that have been swarmed by flippers over the past few years. What the flippers are willing to pay and what long-term owners *with skin in the game* are willing to pay tend to be very different.

Needless to say, I’m a deflationist, but a lot of people out there seem to think that inflation is going to come to their rescue. I know that’s what the PTB are trying to do, but don’t think they’ll be able to succeed without causing some (possibly larger) imbalances and “unexpected” problems. I’m not counting on the govt’s printing press to bail us out of our bad decisions, so am not willing to pay what gamblers and those with nothing to lose are willing to pay.[/quote]

Follow up questions for CAR. Did you go to the auction and get outbid on Babilonia? Assuming it went on the open market like you would have wanted it to with an online bidding system with complete transparency we know it would have sold for the $900 to $1m the flipper sold it for. Would you have paid that?

Did you bid on Park and lose it? It was on the market and you had a chance at it. At its lisitng price, I dont see it being flipped for a profit. What makes you think its a flipper?

I’m sorry but I’m just not seeing it yet.

BTW, flippers are willing to pay less than owner occupants not more because they need to make a return that an owner gets by living in the house. Its the shady deals being sold undermarket that are the problem not the flippers. If the shady deals were gone the properties would sell at retail, the flippers wouldnt have a profit margin and owner occupants would get a better shot at some of the houses they would like. You might get a house you want but you wouldnt be getting the great deal you want.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]CAR
Got a challenge for ya. From your posts it sounds like you are a frustrated buyer losing dozens of houses to flippers. Can you please post the addresses of 3 houses that you lost to flippers that you would have bought? You can also include REO and Short Sales listed contingent or pending as long as you you would have paid the fair market value and not the undermarket sale price an unscrupulous agent might have slipped it through at.

I havent seen any that I think you would have bought and am curious if this is based on real experiences or conjured up due to frustration.[/quote]

Sure. Off the top of my head, there was one on Babilonia that sold for ~$645K at auction. The flipper sold it with little or no improvements in the $900K-$1MM range.

The other one is the house on Park. I don’t know if it was a flipper yet (hasn’t closed and relisted yet), but have good reason to think so.

Both of those would have been interesting to us as a primary residence. I’ve also wanted to buy a rental property in a lower-end area that we could also live in (as a back-up plan) if my deflationary theory is wrong and inflation takes off in the future. There are a number of them — too many to count — in O’side and Escondido that have been swarmed by flippers over the past few years. What the flippers are willing to pay and what long-term owners *with skin in the game* are willing to pay tend to be very different.

Needless to say, I’m a deflationist, but a lot of people out there seem to think that inflation is going to come to their rescue. I know that’s what the PTB are trying to do, but don’t think they’ll be able to succeed without causing some (possibly larger) imbalances and “unexpected” problems. I’m not counting on the govt’s printing press to bail us out of our bad decisions, so am not willing to pay what gamblers and those with nothing to lose are willing to pay.[/quote]

Follow up questions for CAR. Did you go to the auction and get outbid on Babilonia? Assuming it went on the open market like you would have wanted it to with an online bidding system with complete transparency we know it would have sold for the $900 to $1m the flipper sold it for. Would you have paid that?

Did you bid on Park and lose it? It was on the market and you had a chance at it. At its lisitng price, I dont see it being flipped for a profit. What makes you think its a flipper?

I’m sorry but I’m just not seeing it yet.

BTW, flippers are willing to pay less than owner occupants not more because they need to make a return that an owner gets by living in the house. Its the shady deals being sold undermarket that are the problem not the flippers. If the shady deals were gone the properties would sell at retail, the flippers wouldnt have a profit margin and owner occupants would get a better shot at some of the houses they would like. You might get a house you want but you wouldnt be getting the great deal you want.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]CAR
Got a challenge for ya. From your posts it sounds like you are a frustrated buyer losing dozens of houses to flippers. Can you please post the addresses of 3 houses that you lost to flippers that you would have bought? You can also include REO and Short Sales listed contingent or pending as long as you you would have paid the fair market value and not the undermarket sale price an unscrupulous agent might have slipped it through at.

I havent seen any that I think you would have bought and am curious if this is based on real experiences or conjured up due to frustration.[/quote]

Sure. Off the top of my head, there was one on Babilonia that sold for ~$645K at auction. The flipper sold it with little or no improvements in the $900K-$1MM range.

The other one is the house on Park. I don’t know if it was a flipper yet (hasn’t closed and relisted yet), but have good reason to think so.

Both of those would have been interesting to us as a primary residence. I’ve also wanted to buy a rental property in a lower-end area that we could also live in (as a back-up plan) if my deflationary theory is wrong and inflation takes off in the future. There are a number of them — too many to count — in O’side and Escondido that have been swarmed by flippers over the past few years. What the flippers are willing to pay and what long-term owners *with skin in the game* are willing to pay tend to be very different.

Needless to say, I’m a deflationist, but a lot of people out there seem to think that inflation is going to come to their rescue. I know that’s what the PTB are trying to do, but don’t think they’ll be able to succeed without causing some (possibly larger) imbalances and “unexpected” problems. I’m not counting on the govt’s printing press to bail us out of our bad decisions, so am not willing to pay what gamblers and those with nothing to lose are willing to pay.[/quote]

Follow up questions for CAR. Did you go to the auction and get outbid on Babilonia? Assuming it went on the open market like you would have wanted it to with an online bidding system with complete transparency we know it would have sold for the $900 to $1m the flipper sold it for. Would you have paid that?

Did you bid on Park and lose it? It was on the market and you had a chance at it. At its lisitng price, I dont see it being flipped for a profit. What makes you think its a flipper?

I’m sorry but I’m just not seeing it yet.

BTW, flippers are willing to pay less than owner occupants not more because they need to make a return that an owner gets by living in the house. Its the shady deals being sold undermarket that are the problem not the flippers. If the shady deals were gone the properties would sell at retail, the flippers wouldnt have a profit margin and owner occupants would get a better shot at some of the houses they would like. You might get a house you want but you wouldnt be getting the great deal you want.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]CAR
Got a challenge for ya. From your posts it sounds like you are a frustrated buyer losing dozens of houses to flippers. Can you please post the addresses of 3 houses that you lost to flippers that you would have bought? You can also include REO and Short Sales listed contingent or pending as long as you you would have paid the fair market value and not the undermarket sale price an unscrupulous agent might have slipped it through at.

I havent seen any that I think you would have bought and am curious if this is based on real experiences or conjured up due to frustration.[/quote]

Sure. Off the top of my head, there was one on Babilonia that sold for ~$645K at auction. The flipper sold it with little or no improvements in the $900K-$1MM range.

The other one is the house on Park. I don’t know if it was a flipper yet (hasn’t closed and relisted yet), but have good reason to think so.

Both of those would have been interesting to us as a primary residence. I’ve also wanted to buy a rental property in a lower-end area that we could also live in (as a back-up plan) if my deflationary theory is wrong and inflation takes off in the future. There are a number of them — too many to count — in O’side and Escondido that have been swarmed by flippers over the past few years. What the flippers are willing to pay and what long-term owners *with skin in the game* are willing to pay tend to be very different.

Needless to say, I’m a deflationist, but a lot of people out there seem to think that inflation is going to come to their rescue. I know that’s what the PTB are trying to do, but don’t think they’ll be able to succeed without causing some (possibly larger) imbalances and “unexpected” problems. I’m not counting on the govt’s printing press to bail us out of our bad decisions, so am not willing to pay what gamblers and those with nothing to lose are willing to pay.[/quote]

Follow up questions for CAR. Did you go to the auction and get outbid on Babilonia? Assuming it went on the open market like you would have wanted it to with an online bidding system with complete transparency we know it would have sold for the $900 to $1m the flipper sold it for. Would you have paid that?

Did you bid on Park and lose it? It was on the market and you had a chance at it. At its lisitng price, I dont see it being flipped for a profit. What makes you think its a flipper?

I’m sorry but I’m just not seeing it yet.

BTW, flippers are willing to pay less than owner occupants not more because they need to make a return that an owner gets by living in the house. Its the shady deals being sold undermarket that are the problem not the flippers. If the shady deals were gone the properties would sell at retail, the flippers wouldnt have a profit margin and owner occupants would get a better shot at some of the houses they would like. You might get a house you want but you wouldnt be getting the great deal you want.

[jpinpb]

In looking at other properties in 92104, I came across 3584 Felton.

This was sold Sep 09, 2009 for 265k. I thought a good price. Then there’s the flip attempt in November for 529k. I remember how I had to grab some tissue b/c I laugh so hard I was crying.

They’ve been putting it on and off the market since then. Now listed for 489k. Still over 200k more than they bought it.

Doesn’t look like they put much money into it.

[jpinpb]

In looking at other properties in 92104, I came across 3584 Felton.

This was sold Sep 09, 2009 for 265k. I thought a good price. Then there’s the flip attempt in November for 529k. I remember how I had to grab some tissue b/c I laugh so hard I was crying.

They’ve been putting it on and off the market since then. Now listed for 489k. Still over 200k more than they bought it.

Doesn’t look like they put much money into it.

[jpinpb]

In looking at other properties in 92104, I came across 3584 Felton.

This was sold Sep 09, 2009 for 265k. I thought a good price. Then there’s the flip attempt in November for 529k. I remember how I had to grab some tissue b/c I laugh so hard I was crying.

They’ve been putting it on and off the market since then. Now listed for 489k. Still over 200k more than they bought it.

Doesn’t look like they put much money into it.

[jpinpb]

In looking at other properties in 92104, I came across 3584 Felton.

This was sold Sep 09, 2009 for 265k. I thought a good price. Then there’s the flip attempt in November for 529k. I remember how I had to grab some tissue b/c I laugh so hard I was crying.

They’ve been putting it on and off the market since then. Now listed for 489k. Still over 200k more than they bought it.

Doesn’t look like they put much money into it.

[Author]

Posts