Point Loma reducing a little

[bearishgurl]

Good L@rd!!

When I see a “quality rehab” sold comp, such as the one jp mentioned, http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/2210-Plum-St-92106/home/5353603?utm_source=myredfin&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=listings_update going for $750K on one of the best streets in SD, I am VERY envious that I am unable to be a “buyer” in today’s market!!

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]jpinbp x 2[/quote]
Glad you went from:
[quote=sdcellar]so it actually seems like a pretty darn good deal to me.[/quote]
to agreeing with JP’s point of:
[quote=jpinpb]Great deal, no, IMO. But decent price overall.[/quote]

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]It IS, for a fully “rehabbed” property in the prime areas of PL.[/quote]I guess that’s where we disagree. It’s a darn good deal at 2000-2001 price. At 2003 price, it’s OK.

[quote=bearishgurl]Yes, there IS a point in discussing the two areas (as it applies to how much to invest in them), AN, because YOU (in essence) stated these sellers overspent in PL. YOU stated that YOU were able to do the job(s) for less in MM but (1) they are not, in actuality, the SAME JOBS, and (2) comparing MM to PL is comparing apples to oranges.[/quote]
No, there isn’t a point in discussing the two area, since you just stated, they’re apples to oranges. It doesn’t matter whether the rehab was done in MM or PL, the labor cost is the same and the material cost is the same. So, again, there’s no point in bring up MM further. What I disagree with is this statement from you:
[quote=bearishgurl]
I wouldn’t be surprised if the 2003 owners sunk 100K+ into the property in materials alone in ADDITION to labor costs and sales costs.[/quote]
Do you still think the upgrades cost over $100k in just materials?

[quote=bearishgurl]You were RIGHT that these sellers overspent but it is NOT because it was in the “wrong area.” It was because they HAD to sell the property at the “WRONG TIME,” for whatever reason . . . a very unfortunate situation for them but very fortunate for the buyers :=][/quote]I never stated that the sellers overspent, since I don’t know how much they spent on upgrades. I was just disputting your $100k+ in materials statement.

[sdcellar]

It is a pretty good darn deal, since I doubt most people will do much better. I was x2ing jpinpb based on her general take, not her exact words (and you, of anybody, should care little about exact words).

I’m pretty sure you think you got a pretty good darn deal on your place. The buyer of this place did at least as well as you did.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]It is a pretty good darn deal, since I doubt most people will do much better. I was x2ing jpinpb based on her general take, not her exact words (and you, of anybody, should care little about exact words).

I’m pretty sure you think you got a pretty good darn deal on your place. The buyer of this place did at least as well as you did.[/quote]
Wrong assumption. I think I got just an OK to a little less than OK deal. If I could get mine at 2001 price, then I would say it’s a pretty good darn deal but I didn’t, unfortunately.

Good darn deals are houses that you can get at 2000 price, like the many houses in Temecula/Murrieta/Chula Vista/etc. The high end $1M+ have some good darn deals as well, like this one: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110000157-14710_Caminito_Porta_Delgada_Del_Mar_CA_92014

BTW, I wasn’t talking about your and her exact words. I was talking about the general take of good darn deal to decent price overall.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]It IS, for a fully “rehabbed” property in the prime areas of PL.[/quote]I guess that’s where we disagree. It’s a darn good deal at 2000-2001 price. At 2003 price, it’s OK.[/quote]

AN, you’ve still got in your mind that today’s listings should sell for “2000-2001 price” and “2003 price,” irrespective of how much $$ (and owner labor) was spent on improvements since then. Do you think EVERY property in EVERY area in ANY condition should adhere to [certain year] pricing?? Do you think EVERY area fell victim to “don’t-ask, don’t-tell financing?” Don’t you realize that sold prices are all subjective depending on seller investment, possible seller financing or concessions and most importantly, location of property???
[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]Yes, there IS a point in discussing the two areas (as it applies to how much to invest in them), AN, because YOU (in essence) stated these sellers overspent in PL. YOU stated that YOU were able to do the job(s) for less in MM but (1) they are not, in actuality, the SAME JOBS, and (2) comparing MM to PL is comparing apples to oranges.[/quote]No, there isn’t a point in discussing the two area, since you just stated, they’re apples to oranges. It doesn’t matter whether the rehab was done in MM or PL, the labor cost is the same and the material cost is the same. So, again, there’s no point in bring up MM further. What I disagree with is this statement from you:

I wouldn’t be surprised if the 2003 owners sunk 100K+ into the property in materials alone in ADDITION to labor costs and sales costs.

Do you still think the upgrades cost over $100k in just materials? . . . I never stated that the sellers overspent, since I don’t know how much they spent on upgrades. I was just disputting your $100k+ in materials statement.[/quote]

Yes, and regarding labor costs, I think my estimates are LOW, because I mostly have experience with (very talented) DIYer’s and “handymen” who often tell me that contractor labor is typically 3x the cost of mat’ls and they never know what they are “getting into” (i.e. termite damage around potential window replacements, etc, etc) until they have already torn out the old item. The mat’ls alone in this property cost +/- $100K (+$40K/-$15K) due to unknown factors and parts of the property not shown in the photos. Labor costs are only partly known due to possible seller labor on jobs not requiring specialized equipment or knowledge. Properties of this era also had a “wall heater” or “hot water heat.” We do not know if it has been recently replaced with “central heat” and/or upgraded plumbing and electrical work, mostly requiring permits (read: professional licenses). Without invoices from the seller and knowing what they may have tackled (successfully) themselves, we don’t really know how much money in labor they have sunk into it.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]
AN, you’ve still got in your mind that today’s listings should sell for “2000-2001 price” and “2003 price,” irrespective of how much $$ (and owner labor) was spent on improvements since then. Do you think EVERY property in EVERY area in ANY condition should adhere to [certain year] pricing?? Do you think EVERY area fell victim to “don’t-ask, don’t-tell financing?” Don’t you realize that sold prices are all subjective depending on seller investment, possible seller financing or concessions and most importantly, location of property???[/quote]
I think you misunderstood my point. I think 2000-2001 price are darn good deal. 2003 are OK deal. Areas that are hardest hit are areas where you can find a lot of darn good deals. Areas where they didn’t fall victim to “don’t-ask, don’t-tell financing” tend to not have many if any darn good deals. When I say 2000-2001 price, I’m not comparing apples to oranges (i.e. rehab vs non-rehab). I would compare its current condition and current price to how much a house in that condition would sell for in 2000-2001. Which would remove the rehab cost out of the equation.

The reality is, some areas are not blessed with darn good deals and there’s nothing we can do about it. But, that doesn’t mean a house selling for 2003 price in those areas would then be considered darn good deals. I would reserve the darn good deal to houses that is selling below their trend line (think undervalue).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN] . . . Good darn deals are houses that you can get at 2000 price, like the many houses in Temecula/Murrieta/Chula Vista/etc. The high end $1M+ have some good darn deals as well, like this one: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110000157-14710_Caminito_Porta_Delgada_Del_Mar_CA_92014 . . .[/quote]

Again, the reason the above (newer zip codes) areas you mentioned are currently a “good darn deal” is because these areas were (and still are, to varying degrees) depressed due to developer-pricing-inflated-into-the-stratosphere (as a consequence of “easy mtg $$” and no surrounding “comparable sold comps” at the time). The majority of their asking prices reflect that they are currently REOs and “short sales” (some “approved” and some “wishful”).

Why don’t you study the plat map(s) surrounding 2210 Plum 92106 along with those lots’ corresponding public records and tell us how many distressed properties there currently are in that immediate area? Then come back to this thread and tell us in a few days??

As to your Del Mar recent sold “PUD” for $1.1M, it is very heavily encumbered by an HOA. An owner there cannot even paint or plant ANYTHING in front without first obtaining permission from the HOA. I don’t know the current sold comps up there, but am aware that the presence of a full-service HOA (such as in this listing) diminishes the value of properties within them as even though detached, they are akin to a “detached condo.” Their value is diminished due to the individual owners’ rights being diminished (over and above SFR ownership). I would surmise it would be very difficult to find a nearby (unencumbered) SFR of comparable size in liveable condition in this particular micro-area for this price.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=sdcellar]Also, for all your blubbering, you understand that the property appears unimproved when it sold in 2003 (heck, it was your comment!), so it actually seems like a pretty darn good deal to me. If it were to sell in the mid to high fives, you don’t want to think about what your house and its improvements would get you.

I wouldn’t be very happy for that matter either, but that’s because I overpaid more than your average Pigg.[/quote]

You didnt overpay! You had the internet’s best realtor! Just ask him and he’ll tell you so;)

[an]

[quote=jpinpb]I personally think 2003 pricing is still high, which is why I started out my post about this property saying it’s still a lot. But it is Point Loma (which is much more desireable than Mira Mesa). And the interest rates are much lower than 2003. And it is highly upgraded. So when you factor in everything, then the price is not too bad. Great deal, no, IMO. But decent price overall.[/quote]
I totally agree 100%. It’s a decent price, just not as good of a deal as the ones you started the thread with. I think those are much better buy, especially the one with the view.

Here’s a property in an area where I personally think is more desirable than Point Loma:
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110000157-14710_Caminito_Porta_Delgada_Del_Mar_CA_92014
I think this is a MUCH better deal, at $75k below its 2000 price. I think that not only is the area more desirable, the house with that view is much more desirable as well.

BTW, I never claim MM is as desireable as PL. If it is, I probably wouldn’t have bought here, since it would be too expensive for my taste. PL has always been more desirable than MM though, so the desirable premium has always been there.

It’s not just desirable places like PL that are selling about 2003 price. Here’s one in MM that sold for 10% above 2003: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110036849-8115_Columbus_St_San_Diego_CA_92126 It’s not 20% above 2003 price like the Plum house, but the upgrades are not nearly as extensive as well. Here’s another, this one is in 4S and I’m sure you would agree 4S is not as desirable as Point Loma: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110024115-15009_Cross_Stone_Dr_San_Diego_CA_92127, yet it just closed at 2004 price.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN] . . . Good darn deals are houses that you can get at 2000 price, like the many houses in Temecula/Murrieta/Chula Vista/etc. The high end $1M+ have some good darn deals as well, like this one: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110000157-14710_Caminito_Porta_Delgada_Del_Mar_CA_92014 . . .[/quote]

Again, the reason the above (newer zip codes) areas you mentioned are currently a “good darn deal” is because these areas were (and still are, to varying degrees) depressed due to developer-pricing-inflated-into-the-stratosphere (as a consequence of “easy mtg $$” and no surrounding “comparable sold comps” at the time). The majority of their asking prices reflect that they are currently REOs and “short sales” (some “approved” and some “wishful”).

Why don’t you study the plat map(s) surrounding 2210 Plum 92106 along with those lots’ corresponding public records and tell us how many distressed properties there currently are in that immediate area? Then come back to this thread and tell us in a few days??

As to your Del Mar recent sold “PUD” for $1.1M, it is very heavily encumbered by an HOA. An owner there cannot even paint or plant ANYTHING in front without first obtaining permission from the HOA. I don’t know the current sold comps up there, but am aware that the presence of a full-service HOA (such as in this listing) diminishes the value of properties within them as even though detached, they are akin to a “detached condo.” Their value is diminished due to the individual owners’ rights being diminished (over and above SFR ownership). I would surmise it would be very difficult to find a nearby (unencumbered) SFR of comparable size in liveable condition in this particular micro-area for this price.[/quote]

Who cares what it is encumbered by? It was encumbered by those same things in 1996 and 2000. The only thing less encumbered is your mental state of being.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]Who cares what it is encumbered by? It was encumbered by those same things in 1996 and 2000. The only thing less encumbered is your mental state of being.[/quote]

Obviously, the most recent sellers overpaid for it. Why don’t you go back to doing what you do best at this hour . . . that is, taking another inventory of your (rapidly diminishing) wine collection. I think its time to put your glass down for a few moments and reorder ;=}

[briansd1]

[quote=AN]
Good darn deals are houses that you can get at 2000 price, like the many houses in Temecula/Murrieta/Chula Vista/etc. The high end $1M+ have some good darn deals as well, like this one: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110000157-14710_Caminito_Porta_Delgada_Del_Mar_CA_92014

BTW, I wasn’t talking about your and her exact words. I was talking about the general take of good darn deal to decent price overall.
[/quote]

That’s pretty well said. The PL house is question was OK deal, not a great deal. I agree on that Del Mar link.

In my opinion one has to look at a housing investment in this kind of detached manner.

Bearishgurl seems overly focused on the improvements that may or may not have any value to a potential buyer. This focus adds emotional elements that don’t have much place in rational decision making.

I don’t think that cosmetic improvement such as a kitchen remodel “deserve” to be recouped. Adding square footage or adding a new bath, yes. But, after a decade, a cosmetic remodel is worthless anyway, IMO.

I laugh when I seen ads for stuff on CL that say: paid x and selling for y.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]…Bearishgurl seems overly focused on the improvements that may or may not have any value to a potential buyer. This focus adds emotional elements that don’t have much place in rational decision making.

I don’t think that cosmetic improvement such as a kitchen remodel “deserve” to be recouped. Adding square footage or adding a new bath, yes. But, after a decade, a cosmetic remodel is worthless anyway, IMO…[/quote]

I never stated anywhere that sellers should recoup ALL of their improvements. The “cosmetic improvements” on the subject we’re discussion here claimed in the listing detail to have been completed in the last 3 years. It is obvious that these particular sellers recouped little to NOTHING from any “cosmetic” and other investments they made.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=sdrealtor]Who cares what it is encumbered by? It was encumbered by those same things in 1996 and 2000. The only thing less encumbered is your mental state of being.[/quote]

Obviously, the most recent sellers overpaid for it. Why don’t you go back to doing what you do best at this hour . . . that is, taking another inventory of your (rapidly diminishing) wine collection. I think its time to put your glass down for a few moments and reorder ;=}[/quote]

My inventory has been doing nothing but growing in size and value. It doubled last year and doubled again his year.

Why?? Because I am buying wine at year 2000 prices just like my clients are buying RE at:)

Cheers

sdr

[Author]

Posts