Point Loma reducing a little

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]It’s the same reason why most people don’t know or want to barter for stuff. You can barter almost everywhere including department stores, yet most don’t. The smart shoppers will while the rest will pay market price…[/quote]

slight hijack re: bartering in America

I have bartered repeatedly and successfully in the past at several stores including the former Robinson-May, Macys and Lowes on discontinued household appls, furniture and rugs (usually imperfect and/or display pieces). Often I don’t get my price right away and am always willing to walk but not before leaving my name and number with the highest dept sales associate/mgr on duty. After the “clearance weekend” or whatever is over and it is still sitting there, the mgr will call me and make a deal. This process takes 3 days to two weeks and usually requires 3 visits, one to leave my name and number, the second to come in and pay my agreed upon price with the mgr, and the third with a truck to pick up the item.

I once had a store mgr call me after 9 months about a (US-made) Legacy Int’l soft-leather corner sectional (display) telling me that they would accept my earlier offer of $1400 if I was still interested. Retail was $4800. They had been authorized to remove it from the floor and were ready to deal and still had my number. They even threw in free delivery. Upon inspection, it was a little dusty, but perfect otherwise :=]

This strategy also works well if you already own a companion item and are looking to expand it. A few years ago I bought two solid oak dining chairs I just “happened” to run across for my (then discontinued) 7-pc solid oak pedestal set w/2 leaves (retail $1860), making it a 9 pc set (extras handy to have for holidays). I ending up paying $77 for both. What else would the store do with them??

Finds in last 12 mos include a 24″ x 48″ powder-finish bronze sofa table (ret. $179) with beveled glass top for $15 and an $85 heavy bronze candelabra (for the table) for $6. These were from retail stores, NOT garage sales.

San Diego is NOT Tijuana but nonetheless, we are living in a free country and nothing is ever set in stone. My “shopping motto” is to never be in a hurry and always be willing to walk, but not before leaving your name and number and an offer if you see something you’re in the market for.

For example, you have gutted an old kitchen and are in the process of installing new cabinets. In the case of a cooktop or range you have made an offer on and will hear back within the week, keep using your hot plate and toaster oven until you have resolved the item you made an offer on. If you get into too much of a hurry and keep shopping, you could easily end up overpaying by hundreds, even thousands.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal][quote=sdrealtor]

But this was a short sale and should have been done in an open market bidding system that is transparent to all buyers. You been on that diatribe many times. This was as far from transparent as a deal could be. Change of heart?

If you saw a 1.15M short sale in contingent status would you bother to go look at it if you were looking to spend 900K? I’m guessing you arent running around looking at short sales in contingent status with accepted offers at asking prices $250K more than you are willing to spend. I cant imagine that the percentage of buyers who would do that even approaches 1%.[/quote]

Ok… I’m confused.
How was this not transparent.

Looking at the listing history on redfin.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/3345-Lucinda-St-92106/home/5742637

It was first listed in Jan 2009, delisted the next day – then put back on with a new MLS in Feb 09. rinse and repeat – list/delist… but basically on the market the whole time… until Jan 2010 when it’s marked contingent. That must not have worked – because in Aug 2010 it’s relisted.
Later that month – it’s listed again (7th MLS since Jan 09) at $1,050,000. A couple price changes upward… then it’s contingent in Oct and then Dec 09. It’s relisted Feb 16, 11, with a price change to 1,130,000. 2 days later it’s marked contingent.

It seems like anyone who wanted to make an offer on this could. And that at least 3 offers had occurred previously (3 contingents before the final one.)

How was this not transparent?[/quote]

Agree, UCGal. From the photos on Redfin (more realistic than SDL’s “glamorous ones”) showing the condition of floors/kitchen and work needed (drywall/insulation, flooring etc) and the fact that the property is listed “as-is” would scare off a lot of buyers, I could easily believe that one or more previous buyers in escrow backed out. These partial hillside “mid-century” modern homes are not for everyone. It is very possible this one had problems with structural supports and did not pass engineering tests. I think $900K was a fair price for a buyer with addt’l resources to complete the work on it and knows how (and who to use) to get that work done. The LA may have contacted someone they knew who had this knowledge and experience and told them about this once-in-a-lifetime listing after the repeated escrow fallouts. I certainly know a few of these contractor-types.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal][quote=sdrealtor]

But this was a short sale and should have been done in an open market bidding system that is transparent to all buyers. You been on that diatribe many times. This was as far from transparent as a deal could be. Change of heart?

If you saw a 1.15M short sale in contingent status would you bother to go look at it if you were looking to spend 900K? I’m guessing you arent running around looking at short sales in contingent status with accepted offers at asking prices $250K more than you are willing to spend. I cant imagine that the percentage of buyers who would do that even approaches 1%.[/quote]

Ok… I’m confused.
How was this not transparent.

Looking at the listing history on redfin.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/3345-Lucinda-St-92106/home/5742637

It was first listed in Jan 2009, delisted the next day – then put back on with a new MLS in Feb 09. rinse and repeat – list/delist… but basically on the market the whole time… until Jan 2010 when it’s marked contingent. That must not have worked – because in Aug 2010 it’s relisted.
Later that month – it’s listed again (7th MLS since Jan 09) at $1,050,000. A couple price changes upward… then it’s contingent in Oct and then Dec 09. It’s relisted Feb 16, 11, with a price change to 1,130,000. 2 days later it’s marked contingent.

It seems like anyone who wanted to make an offer on this could. And that at least 3 offers had occurred previously (3 contingents before the final one.)

How was this not transparent?[/quote]

Agree, UCGal. From the photos on Redfin (more realistic than SDL’s “glamorous ones”) showing the condition of floors/kitchen and work needed (drywall/insulation, flooring etc) and the fact that the property is listed “as-is” would scare off a lot of buyers, I could easily believe that one or more previous buyers in escrow backed out. These partial hillside “mid-century” modern homes are not for everyone. It is very possible this one had problems with structural supports and did not pass engineering tests. I think $900K was a fair price for a buyer with addt’l resources to complete the work on it and knows how (and who to use) to get that work done. The LA may have contacted someone they knew who had this knowledge and experience and told them about this once-in-a-lifetime listing after the repeated escrow fallouts. I certainly know a few of these contractor-types.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal][quote=sdrealtor]

But this was a short sale and should have been done in an open market bidding system that is transparent to all buyers. You been on that diatribe many times. This was as far from transparent as a deal could be. Change of heart?

If you saw a 1.15M short sale in contingent status would you bother to go look at it if you were looking to spend 900K? I’m guessing you arent running around looking at short sales in contingent status with accepted offers at asking prices $250K more than you are willing to spend. I cant imagine that the percentage of buyers who would do that even approaches 1%.[/quote]

Ok… I’m confused.
How was this not transparent.

Looking at the listing history on redfin.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/3345-Lucinda-St-92106/home/5742637

It was first listed in Jan 2009, delisted the next day – then put back on with a new MLS in Feb 09. rinse and repeat – list/delist… but basically on the market the whole time… until Jan 2010 when it’s marked contingent. That must not have worked – because in Aug 2010 it’s relisted.
Later that month – it’s listed again (7th MLS since Jan 09) at $1,050,000. A couple price changes upward… then it’s contingent in Oct and then Dec 09. It’s relisted Feb 16, 11, with a price change to 1,130,000. 2 days later it’s marked contingent.

It seems like anyone who wanted to make an offer on this could. And that at least 3 offers had occurred previously (3 contingents before the final one.)

How was this not transparent?[/quote]

Agree, UCGal. From the photos on Redfin (more realistic than SDL’s “glamorous ones”) showing the condition of floors/kitchen and work needed (drywall/insulation, flooring etc) and the fact that the property is listed “as-is” would scare off a lot of buyers, I could easily believe that one or more previous buyers in escrow backed out. These partial hillside “mid-century” modern homes are not for everyone. It is very possible this one had problems with structural supports and did not pass engineering tests. I think $900K was a fair price for a buyer with addt’l resources to complete the work on it and knows how (and who to use) to get that work done. The LA may have contacted someone they knew who had this knowledge and experience and told them about this once-in-a-lifetime listing after the repeated escrow fallouts. I certainly know a few of these contractor-types.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal][quote=sdrealtor]

But this was a short sale and should have been done in an open market bidding system that is transparent to all buyers. You been on that diatribe many times. This was as far from transparent as a deal could be. Change of heart?

If you saw a 1.15M short sale in contingent status would you bother to go look at it if you were looking to spend 900K? I’m guessing you arent running around looking at short sales in contingent status with accepted offers at asking prices $250K more than you are willing to spend. I cant imagine that the percentage of buyers who would do that even approaches 1%.[/quote]

Ok… I’m confused.
How was this not transparent.

Looking at the listing history on redfin.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/3345-Lucinda-St-92106/home/5742637

It was first listed in Jan 2009, delisted the next day – then put back on with a new MLS in Feb 09. rinse and repeat – list/delist… but basically on the market the whole time… until Jan 2010 when it’s marked contingent. That must not have worked – because in Aug 2010 it’s relisted.
Later that month – it’s listed again (7th MLS since Jan 09) at $1,050,000. A couple price changes upward… then it’s contingent in Oct and then Dec 09. It’s relisted Feb 16, 11, with a price change to 1,130,000. 2 days later it’s marked contingent.

It seems like anyone who wanted to make an offer on this could. And that at least 3 offers had occurred previously (3 contingents before the final one.)

How was this not transparent?[/quote]

Agree, UCGal. From the photos on Redfin (more realistic than SDL’s “glamorous ones”) showing the condition of floors/kitchen and work needed (drywall/insulation, flooring etc) and the fact that the property is listed “as-is” would scare off a lot of buyers, I could easily believe that one or more previous buyers in escrow backed out. These partial hillside “mid-century” modern homes are not for everyone. It is very possible this one had problems with structural supports and did not pass engineering tests. I think $900K was a fair price for a buyer with addt’l resources to complete the work on it and knows how (and who to use) to get that work done. The LA may have contacted someone they knew who had this knowledge and experience and told them about this once-in-a-lifetime listing after the repeated escrow fallouts. I certainly know a few of these contractor-types.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal][quote=sdrealtor]

But this was a short sale and should have been done in an open market bidding system that is transparent to all buyers. You been on that diatribe many times. This was as far from transparent as a deal could be. Change of heart?

If you saw a 1.15M short sale in contingent status would you bother to go look at it if you were looking to spend 900K? I’m guessing you arent running around looking at short sales in contingent status with accepted offers at asking prices $250K more than you are willing to spend. I cant imagine that the percentage of buyers who would do that even approaches 1%.[/quote]

Ok… I’m confused.
How was this not transparent.

Looking at the listing history on redfin.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/3345-Lucinda-St-92106/home/5742637

It was first listed in Jan 2009, delisted the next day – then put back on with a new MLS in Feb 09. rinse and repeat – list/delist… but basically on the market the whole time… until Jan 2010 when it’s marked contingent. That must not have worked – because in Aug 2010 it’s relisted.
Later that month – it’s listed again (7th MLS since Jan 09) at $1,050,000. A couple price changes upward… then it’s contingent in Oct and then Dec 09. It’s relisted Feb 16, 11, with a price change to 1,130,000. 2 days later it’s marked contingent.

It seems like anyone who wanted to make an offer on this could. And that at least 3 offers had occurred previously (3 contingents before the final one.)

How was this not transparent?[/quote]

Agree, UCGal. From the photos on Redfin (more realistic than SDL’s “glamorous ones”) showing the condition of floors/kitchen and work needed (drywall/insulation, flooring etc) and the fact that the property is listed “as-is” would scare off a lot of buyers, I could easily believe that one or more previous buyers in escrow backed out. These partial hillside “mid-century” modern homes are not for everyone. It is very possible this one had problems with structural supports and did not pass engineering tests. I think $900K was a fair price for a buyer with addt’l resources to complete the work on it and knows how (and who to use) to get that work done. The LA may have contacted someone they knew who had this knowledge and experience and told them about this once-in-a-lifetime listing after the repeated escrow fallouts. I certainly know a few of these contractor-types.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]Looking at the listing history on redfin.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/3345-…
[/quote]

I haven’t seen his/her trust deeds but you have to ask yourself here why someone would buy a Mosher in 2006 for $1,365K (paid abt 250K to 350K too much) and then fall behind on their payments so soon. Was it strategic??

The various “inspections” on this property just happen to “already be on file.” Did the 2006 buyer find out only AFTER they purchased the property about its (expensive) problems and then get the inspections (in attempt to entice their lender to accept a short payoff) or did a previous buyer in escrow order the inspections and then back out?

Perhaps the work needed on the property proved to be too much for the previous owner to handle.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]Looking at the listing history on redfin.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/3345-…
[/quote]

I haven’t seen his/her trust deeds but you have to ask yourself here why someone would buy a Mosher in 2006 for $1,365K (paid abt 250K to 350K too much) and then fall behind on their payments so soon. Was it strategic??

The various “inspections” on this property just happen to “already be on file.” Did the 2006 buyer find out only AFTER they purchased the property about its (expensive) problems and then get the inspections (in attempt to entice their lender to accept a short payoff) or did a previous buyer in escrow order the inspections and then back out?

Perhaps the work needed on the property proved to be too much for the previous owner to handle.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]Looking at the listing history on redfin.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/3345-…
[/quote]

I haven’t seen his/her trust deeds but you have to ask yourself here why someone would buy a Mosher in 2006 for $1,365K (paid abt 250K to 350K too much) and then fall behind on their payments so soon. Was it strategic??

The various “inspections” on this property just happen to “already be on file.” Did the 2006 buyer find out only AFTER they purchased the property about its (expensive) problems and then get the inspections (in attempt to entice their lender to accept a short payoff) or did a previous buyer in escrow order the inspections and then back out?

Perhaps the work needed on the property proved to be too much for the previous owner to handle.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]Looking at the listing history on redfin.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/3345-…
[/quote]

I haven’t seen his/her trust deeds but you have to ask yourself here why someone would buy a Mosher in 2006 for $1,365K (paid abt 250K to 350K too much) and then fall behind on their payments so soon. Was it strategic??

The various “inspections” on this property just happen to “already be on file.” Did the 2006 buyer find out only AFTER they purchased the property about its (expensive) problems and then get the inspections (in attempt to entice their lender to accept a short payoff) or did a previous buyer in escrow order the inspections and then back out?

Perhaps the work needed on the property proved to be too much for the previous owner to handle.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]Looking at the listing history on redfin.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/3345-…
[/quote]

I haven’t seen his/her trust deeds but you have to ask yourself here why someone would buy a Mosher in 2006 for $1,365K (paid abt 250K to 350K too much) and then fall behind on their payments so soon. Was it strategic??

The various “inspections” on this property just happen to “already be on file.” Did the 2006 buyer find out only AFTER they purchased the property about its (expensive) problems and then get the inspections (in attempt to entice their lender to accept a short payoff) or did a previous buyer in escrow order the inspections and then back out?

Perhaps the work needed on the property proved to be too much for the previous owner to handle.

[jpinpb]

[quote=]Ok… I’m confused.
How was this not transparent.

Looking at the listing history on redfin.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/3345-Lucinda-St-92106/home/5742637

It was first listed in Jan 2009, delisted the next day – then put back on with a new MLS in Feb 09. rinse and repeat – list/delist… but basically on the market the whole time… until Jan 2010 when it’s marked contingent. That must not have worked – because in Aug 2010 it’s relisted.
Later that month – it’s listed again (7th MLS since Jan 09) at $1,050,000. A couple price changes upward… then it’s contingent in Oct and then Dec 09. It’s relisted Feb 16, 11, with a price change to 1,130,000. 2 days later it’s marked contingent.

It seems like anyone who wanted to make an offer on this could. And that at least 3 offers had occurred previously (3 contingents before the final one.)

How was this not transparent?[/quote]

Exactly. It is a fairly upfront transaction. And yes, I was looking at properties over my price range and making low ball offers. Many that weren’t accepted. But the longer something is on that market (even off and on counts, IMO as for sale) then the greater potential of price reduction and willingness to accept a lower offer.

And BG, I have a story that I will post soon on the kitchen appliances thread along the same line about retail stores negotiating.

Now w/regard to this place selling in today’s market as 900k being fair, the point is not too long ago for similar condition it was fetching much more. People were buying many properties that had problems for way more than it was worth. sdr had clients of his own who overspent during the bubble on a place that had problems from the get-go. But during the bubble when prices were going up, people turned a blind eye to condition and bought whatever they could.

[jpinpb]

[quote=]Ok… I’m confused.
How was this not transparent.

Looking at the listing history on redfin.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/3345-Lucinda-St-92106/home/5742637

It was first listed in Jan 2009, delisted the next day – then put back on with a new MLS in Feb 09. rinse and repeat – list/delist… but basically on the market the whole time… until Jan 2010 when it’s marked contingent. That must not have worked – because in Aug 2010 it’s relisted.
Later that month – it’s listed again (7th MLS since Jan 09) at $1,050,000. A couple price changes upward… then it’s contingent in Oct and then Dec 09. It’s relisted Feb 16, 11, with a price change to 1,130,000. 2 days later it’s marked contingent.

It seems like anyone who wanted to make an offer on this could. And that at least 3 offers had occurred previously (3 contingents before the final one.)

How was this not transparent?[/quote]

Exactly. It is a fairly upfront transaction. And yes, I was looking at properties over my price range and making low ball offers. Many that weren’t accepted. But the longer something is on that market (even off and on counts, IMO as for sale) then the greater potential of price reduction and willingness to accept a lower offer.

And BG, I have a story that I will post soon on the kitchen appliances thread along the same line about retail stores negotiating.

Now w/regard to this place selling in today’s market as 900k being fair, the point is not too long ago for similar condition it was fetching much more. People were buying many properties that had problems for way more than it was worth. sdr had clients of his own who overspent during the bubble on a place that had problems from the get-go. But during the bubble when prices were going up, people turned a blind eye to condition and bought whatever they could.

[jpinpb]

[quote=]Ok… I’m confused.
How was this not transparent.

Looking at the listing history on redfin.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/3345-Lucinda-St-92106/home/5742637

It was first listed in Jan 2009, delisted the next day – then put back on with a new MLS in Feb 09. rinse and repeat – list/delist… but basically on the market the whole time… until Jan 2010 when it’s marked contingent. That must not have worked – because in Aug 2010 it’s relisted.
Later that month – it’s listed again (7th MLS since Jan 09) at $1,050,000. A couple price changes upward… then it’s contingent in Oct and then Dec 09. It’s relisted Feb 16, 11, with a price change to 1,130,000. 2 days later it’s marked contingent.

It seems like anyone who wanted to make an offer on this could. And that at least 3 offers had occurred previously (3 contingents before the final one.)

How was this not transparent?[/quote]

Exactly. It is a fairly upfront transaction. And yes, I was looking at properties over my price range and making low ball offers. Many that weren’t accepted. But the longer something is on that market (even off and on counts, IMO as for sale) then the greater potential of price reduction and willingness to accept a lower offer.

And BG, I have a story that I will post soon on the kitchen appliances thread along the same line about retail stores negotiating.

Now w/regard to this place selling in today’s market as 900k being fair, the point is not too long ago for similar condition it was fetching much more. People were buying many properties that had problems for way more than it was worth. sdr had clients of his own who overspent during the bubble on a place that had problems from the get-go. But during the bubble when prices were going up, people turned a blind eye to condition and bought whatever they could.

[jpinpb]

[quote=]Ok… I’m confused.
How was this not transparent.

Looking at the listing history on redfin.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/3345-Lucinda-St-92106/home/5742637

It was first listed in Jan 2009, delisted the next day – then put back on with a new MLS in Feb 09. rinse and repeat – list/delist… but basically on the market the whole time… until Jan 2010 when it’s marked contingent. That must not have worked – because in Aug 2010 it’s relisted.
Later that month – it’s listed again (7th MLS since Jan 09) at $1,050,000. A couple price changes upward… then it’s contingent in Oct and then Dec 09. It’s relisted Feb 16, 11, with a price change to 1,130,000. 2 days later it’s marked contingent.

It seems like anyone who wanted to make an offer on this could. And that at least 3 offers had occurred previously (3 contingents before the final one.)

How was this not transparent?[/quote]

Exactly. It is a fairly upfront transaction. And yes, I was looking at properties over my price range and making low ball offers. Many that weren’t accepted. But the longer something is on that market (even off and on counts, IMO as for sale) then the greater potential of price reduction and willingness to accept a lower offer.

And BG, I have a story that I will post soon on the kitchen appliances thread along the same line about retail stores negotiating.

Now w/regard to this place selling in today’s market as 900k being fair, the point is not too long ago for similar condition it was fetching much more. People were buying many properties that had problems for way more than it was worth. sdr had clients of his own who overspent during the bubble on a place that had problems from the get-go. But during the bubble when prices were going up, people turned a blind eye to condition and bought whatever they could.

[Author]

Posts