Selling Smart in the UT

[urbanrealtor]

Following is a response to Roger Showley’s article in the UT called “How to Sell Smart”

Here is a link to the article:
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/mar/08/1h08seller221328-how-sell-smart/

Dude is not dumb but I think I will stick to Kelly Bennett’s articles for good analysis.

Here is my response:

I am replying to you and cc’ing my blogmates(“blogmates” really sounds much naughtier than it actually is).
Full disclosure: I am a Realtor specializing in financially distressed property sales. I never sought that as a specialty but the market is what it is.
Regarding your article about how to sell your home:
One of the major items you really missed is price.
While you did focus on getting a CMA (briefly), you also made specific mention of the purchase prices (without dates) and improvement costs.
This can be troublesome for sellers.
Here is why:
When a seller sees a purchase for 1.5M with 300k in improvements and a new asking price of 1.9M, it appears that 300k in expense yielded 400k of value increase.
It gives the illusion of static prices and relevant value coefficients for improvements (in this example, 1.33).
It ignores, for example, if the 1.5M was in 2005 (it was) and the improvements in 2006 (they were) and the location is in Solana and the final sale price was, say, 1.7M (it wasn’t–$1.7M would be too high) and the seller side closing costs are (conservatively) $140K. This would make it a net loss.
Further, most (though not all) remodeling adds less value than its cost. Eg: A $25k kitchen upgrade will generally add about as much resale value as a $100k upgrade. Generally remodeling adds value only for the occupant (not the buyer).
In other words, your incomplete examples give a false sense of possibility.
In actual fact, the property you referenced (429 Santa Dominga) never sold and was pulled off the market in less than a month. The comparable sales show why. It was overpriced.
I don’t say this to be harsh but instead to point out that shallow analyses and trite advice can be misleading and unhelpful in this market.
A better guide would have been to show to comparable properties that sold for different prices and then to speculate what made the difference (eg: staging, showing availability, better paint).
I am unconvinced that this is “selling smart”, or for that matter, smart writing.

[ocrenter]

wow, they paid how much for a 70’s 3400 sqft tract home?

[ocrenter]

wow, they paid how much for a 70’s 3400 sqft tract home?

[ocrenter]

wow, they paid how much for a 70’s 3400 sqft tract home?

[ocrenter]

wow, they paid how much for a 70’s 3400 sqft tract home?

[ocrenter]

wow, they paid how much for a 70’s 3400 sqft tract home?

[LuckyInOC]

At the bottom of the UT article…

“Due to technical issues, comments have been temporarily disabled. Comments can be made in the Forums section.”

Could it be the author is technically full of crap?

Lucky In OC

[LuckyInOC]

At the bottom of the UT article…

“Due to technical issues, comments have been temporarily disabled. Comments can be made in the Forums section.”

Could it be the author is technically full of crap?

Lucky In OC

[LuckyInOC]

At the bottom of the UT article…

“Due to technical issues, comments have been temporarily disabled. Comments can be made in the Forums section.”

Could it be the author is technically full of crap?

Lucky In OC

[LuckyInOC]

At the bottom of the UT article…

“Due to technical issues, comments have been temporarily disabled. Comments can be made in the Forums section.”

Could it be the author is technically full of crap?

Lucky In OC

[LuckyInOC]

At the bottom of the UT article…

“Due to technical issues, comments have been temporarily disabled. Comments can be made in the Forums section.”

Could it be the author is technically full of crap?

Lucky In OC

[UCGal]

[quote=LuckyInOC]At the bottom of the UT article…

“Due to technical issues, comments have been temporarily disabled. Comments can be made in the Forums section.”

Could it be the author is technically full of crap?

Lucky In OC

[/quote]

Their comments have been “broken” for a few days. I wanted to see the comments after the Marines had their press conference about the crash in my ‘hood last week… The original articles, last december, brought out all sorts of nut-jobs. Same thing… as this article – comments are broken.

[UCGal]

[quote=LuckyInOC]At the bottom of the UT article…

“Due to technical issues, comments have been temporarily disabled. Comments can be made in the Forums section.”

Could it be the author is technically full of crap?

Lucky In OC

[/quote]

Their comments have been “broken” for a few days. I wanted to see the comments after the Marines had their press conference about the crash in my ‘hood last week… The original articles, last december, brought out all sorts of nut-jobs. Same thing… as this article – comments are broken.

[UCGal]

[quote=LuckyInOC]At the bottom of the UT article…

“Due to technical issues, comments have been temporarily disabled. Comments can be made in the Forums section.”

Could it be the author is technically full of crap?

Lucky In OC

[/quote]

Their comments have been “broken” for a few days. I wanted to see the comments after the Marines had their press conference about the crash in my ‘hood last week… The original articles, last december, brought out all sorts of nut-jobs. Same thing… as this article – comments are broken.

[UCGal]

[quote=LuckyInOC]At the bottom of the UT article…

“Due to technical issues, comments have been temporarily disabled. Comments can be made in the Forums section.”

Could it be the author is technically full of crap?

Lucky In OC

[/quote]

Their comments have been “broken” for a few days. I wanted to see the comments after the Marines had their press conference about the crash in my ‘hood last week… The original articles, last december, brought out all sorts of nut-jobs. Same thing… as this article – comments are broken.

[Author]

Posts