Upper MId to Lower High End Market in NCC

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]
FYI, the one we are talking aboout that is listed at $950K is a short sale and should sell for about that. If it wasnt a short sale and the sellers listed during the prime selling season like the one across the street they would have no problem getting $1M maybe more. The one across the street is actually pretty comparable inside except it has a large sub zero fridge (its not a walk in unless you smoke enough and care to climb in). Its hard to say what it will sell for but I dont think it should sell for much more than $1.1M and that would require a short sale. The difference between the two homes should be no more than $100K.

I’m done …[/quote]

Okay, sdr, if I have this correct your *expert opinion* for the eventual sales price of 1031 Calle Anacapa is $950K (essentially the asking price). Your *expert opinion* on the eventual sales price of 1030 Calle Anacapa is $1.1M. Thanks for cluing in us clueless Piggs that both properties have been ATM’d to death (as if that makes any difference in what whey are *worth*).

Fair enough. Now that you’re “done,” you’re free to have a smoke. And, in the future, don’t ask for opinions from poor-slob Piggs who aren’t “experts” if you don’t want them.

[pemeliza]

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100022547-1030_Calle_Anacapa_Encinitas_CA_92024

Wow, that house on 1030 Calle Anacapa sold for 865k in 1999. 1031 Calle Anacapa at 950k can’t be much higher than a 2001 nominal price then. Say what you want about the bears they have been right thus far.

sdr, is this the floor for these houses? Another 10-20% and they are at 1999 levels.

I am seeing some sales at this price range in Mission Hills trending toward the 2001 level as well.

[pemeliza]

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100022547-1030_Calle_Anacapa_Encinitas_CA_92024

Wow, that house on 1030 Calle Anacapa sold for 865k in 1999. 1031 Calle Anacapa at 950k can’t be much higher than a 2001 nominal price then. Say what you want about the bears they have been right thus far.

sdr, is this the floor for these houses? Another 10-20% and they are at 1999 levels.

I am seeing some sales at this price range in Mission Hills trending toward the 2001 level as well.

[pemeliza]

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100022547-1030_Calle_Anacapa_Encinitas_CA_92024

Wow, that house on 1030 Calle Anacapa sold for 865k in 1999. 1031 Calle Anacapa at 950k can’t be much higher than a 2001 nominal price then. Say what you want about the bears they have been right thus far.

sdr, is this the floor for these houses? Another 10-20% and they are at 1999 levels.

I am seeing some sales at this price range in Mission Hills trending toward the 2001 level as well.

[pemeliza]

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100022547-1030_Calle_Anacapa_Encinitas_CA_92024

Wow, that house on 1030 Calle Anacapa sold for 865k in 1999. 1031 Calle Anacapa at 950k can’t be much higher than a 2001 nominal price then. Say what you want about the bears they have been right thus far.

sdr, is this the floor for these houses? Another 10-20% and they are at 1999 levels.

I am seeing some sales at this price range in Mission Hills trending toward the 2001 level as well.

[pemeliza]

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100022547-1030_Calle_Anacapa_Encinitas_CA_92024

Wow, that house on 1030 Calle Anacapa sold for 865k in 1999. 1031 Calle Anacapa at 950k can’t be much higher than a 2001 nominal price then. Say what you want about the bears they have been right thus far.

sdr, is this the floor for these houses? Another 10-20% and they are at 1999 levels.

I am seeing some sales at this price range in Mission Hills trending toward the 2001 level as well.

[sdrealtor]

pemliza
50K looks about like a 2001 price. Its a short sale and the lender will still have to approve it but I think there is a pretty good chance they would. I beleive that would be pretty close to a floor for that house with no more than 10% downside. I dont see 20% downside on it.

Peak prices on that neighborhood were about 1.5M but that’s for a nicer house.

[sdrealtor]

pemliza
50K looks about like a 2001 price. Its a short sale and the lender will still have to approve it but I think there is a pretty good chance they would. I beleive that would be pretty close to a floor for that house with no more than 10% downside. I dont see 20% downside on it.

Peak prices on that neighborhood were about 1.5M but that’s for a nicer house.

[sdrealtor]

pemliza
50K looks about like a 2001 price. Its a short sale and the lender will still have to approve it but I think there is a pretty good chance they would. I beleive that would be pretty close to a floor for that house with no more than 10% downside. I dont see 20% downside on it.

Peak prices on that neighborhood were about 1.5M but that’s for a nicer house.

[sdrealtor]

pemliza
50K looks about like a 2001 price. Its a short sale and the lender will still have to approve it but I think there is a pretty good chance they would. I beleive that would be pretty close to a floor for that house with no more than 10% downside. I dont see 20% downside on it.

Peak prices on that neighborhood were about 1.5M but that’s for a nicer house.

[sdrealtor]

pemliza
50K looks about like a 2001 price. Its a short sale and the lender will still have to approve it but I think there is a pretty good chance they would. I beleive that would be pretty close to a floor for that house with no more than 10% downside. I dont see 20% downside on it.

Peak prices on that neighborhood were about 1.5M but that’s for a nicer house.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]permabear,
Agree with everything you said. Just wanted to reiterate that my point wasnt that there is demand for good value but rather there are lots of ready, willing and able buyers out there looking at houses for $1M+. It wasnt directed at you but rather others who have questioned there is any demand there at those prices no matter how good a value we may beleive they are.[/quote]

sdr,

I hope you’re not directing that at me. 😉

You know that I’ve never said there aren’t any buyers looking for $1MM homes. What I’ve said is that they are looking for value, and ordinary tract homes with small yards and HOAs/Mello-Roos are not generally what 24 of those $1MM+ buyers are looking for.

There are many people who can afford a million-dollar house. The difference between your position and mine is what they intend to get for that $1MM+. You also have to note **how many** houses are priced at these levels vs. the number of buyers who are willing and able to pay those prices for the $1MM++ houses currently on the market.

As you’ve noted on the houses mentioned above, they are close to 2001-2002 prices. At that level, many “deflationist bears” are willing to jump in (including ourselves, BTW). It’s why I’ve pointed out in some of these threads that the $1MM++ market is actually better priced than the mid-range stuff, and people who are looking at $800K stuff (priced at 2004 levels) might be willing to stretch a bit more and get into the $1MM houses that are priced at 2001/2002 levels. Many of us are looking for prices seen in particular time periods (pre-bubble), not necessarily a particular price range.

So, if a house is listed for near its 2001 price, you and I agree that it should sell fairly quickly. 2001 levels are exactly what I’ve been targeting since I started reading/posting on housing blogs in 2003/2004 (when everyone said I was crazy), and I’ll stand by this assertion until this is over and I’m proven wrong.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]permabear,
Agree with everything you said. Just wanted to reiterate that my point wasnt that there is demand for good value but rather there are lots of ready, willing and able buyers out there looking at houses for $1M+. It wasnt directed at you but rather others who have questioned there is any demand there at those prices no matter how good a value we may beleive they are.[/quote]

sdr,

I hope you’re not directing that at me. 😉

You know that I’ve never said there aren’t any buyers looking for $1MM homes. What I’ve said is that they are looking for value, and ordinary tract homes with small yards and HOAs/Mello-Roos are not generally what 24 of those $1MM+ buyers are looking for.

There are many people who can afford a million-dollar house. The difference between your position and mine is what they intend to get for that $1MM+. You also have to note **how many** houses are priced at these levels vs. the number of buyers who are willing and able to pay those prices for the $1MM++ houses currently on the market.

As you’ve noted on the houses mentioned above, they are close to 2001-2002 prices. At that level, many “deflationist bears” are willing to jump in (including ourselves, BTW). It’s why I’ve pointed out in some of these threads that the $1MM++ market is actually better priced than the mid-range stuff, and people who are looking at $800K stuff (priced at 2004 levels) might be willing to stretch a bit more and get into the $1MM houses that are priced at 2001/2002 levels. Many of us are looking for prices seen in particular time periods (pre-bubble), not necessarily a particular price range.

So, if a house is listed for near its 2001 price, you and I agree that it should sell fairly quickly. 2001 levels are exactly what I’ve been targeting since I started reading/posting on housing blogs in 2003/2004 (when everyone said I was crazy), and I’ll stand by this assertion until this is over and I’m proven wrong.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]permabear,
Agree with everything you said. Just wanted to reiterate that my point wasnt that there is demand for good value but rather there are lots of ready, willing and able buyers out there looking at houses for $1M+. It wasnt directed at you but rather others who have questioned there is any demand there at those prices no matter how good a value we may beleive they are.[/quote]

sdr,

I hope you’re not directing that at me. 😉

You know that I’ve never said there aren’t any buyers looking for $1MM homes. What I’ve said is that they are looking for value, and ordinary tract homes with small yards and HOAs/Mello-Roos are not generally what 24 of those $1MM+ buyers are looking for.

There are many people who can afford a million-dollar house. The difference between your position and mine is what they intend to get for that $1MM+. You also have to note **how many** houses are priced at these levels vs. the number of buyers who are willing and able to pay those prices for the $1MM++ houses currently on the market.

As you’ve noted on the houses mentioned above, they are close to 2001-2002 prices. At that level, many “deflationist bears” are willing to jump in (including ourselves, BTW). It’s why I’ve pointed out in some of these threads that the $1MM++ market is actually better priced than the mid-range stuff, and people who are looking at $800K stuff (priced at 2004 levels) might be willing to stretch a bit more and get into the $1MM houses that are priced at 2001/2002 levels. Many of us are looking for prices seen in particular time periods (pre-bubble), not necessarily a particular price range.

So, if a house is listed for near its 2001 price, you and I agree that it should sell fairly quickly. 2001 levels are exactly what I’ve been targeting since I started reading/posting on housing blogs in 2003/2004 (when everyone said I was crazy), and I’ll stand by this assertion until this is over and I’m proven wrong.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]permabear,
Agree with everything you said. Just wanted to reiterate that my point wasnt that there is demand for good value but rather there are lots of ready, willing and able buyers out there looking at houses for $1M+. It wasnt directed at you but rather others who have questioned there is any demand there at those prices no matter how good a value we may beleive they are.[/quote]

sdr,

I hope you’re not directing that at me. 😉

You know that I’ve never said there aren’t any buyers looking for $1MM homes. What I’ve said is that they are looking for value, and ordinary tract homes with small yards and HOAs/Mello-Roos are not generally what 24 of those $1MM+ buyers are looking for.

There are many people who can afford a million-dollar house. The difference between your position and mine is what they intend to get for that $1MM+. You also have to note **how many** houses are priced at these levels vs. the number of buyers who are willing and able to pay those prices for the $1MM++ houses currently on the market.

As you’ve noted on the houses mentioned above, they are close to 2001-2002 prices. At that level, many “deflationist bears” are willing to jump in (including ourselves, BTW). It’s why I’ve pointed out in some of these threads that the $1MM++ market is actually better priced than the mid-range stuff, and people who are looking at $800K stuff (priced at 2004 levels) might be willing to stretch a bit more and get into the $1MM houses that are priced at 2001/2002 levels. Many of us are looking for prices seen in particular time periods (pre-bubble), not necessarily a particular price range.

So, if a house is listed for near its 2001 price, you and I agree that it should sell fairly quickly. 2001 levels are exactly what I’ve been targeting since I started reading/posting on housing blogs in 2003/2004 (when everyone said I was crazy), and I’ll stand by this assertion until this is over and I’m proven wrong.

[Author]

Posts