[bearishgurl]

wanttobuy, to be blunt, what’s wrong with the property in your link? Based on privacy (courtyard) and square footage, how much better of a deal can you find out there?? It sold for $400K new in 1985 and $535K in 1986 (probably after the orig buyer installed the pool and landscaping) and the seller is asking $779K today after making a few upgrades.

I haven’t checked out the title myself but the listing doesn’t indicate that it’s distressed. Based upon the spartan furnishings here, perhaps it’s a “pre-distress” sale. What’s stopping you from making an offer on this one and spending $40K to $80K or so to fix it the way you want it? Why are you asking the Piggs for more listings??

The open living area in this listing (for entertainment purposes) is sporting a floor to ceiling stone FP and it is surrounded by a canyon! I don’t think it gets too much better than this in this price range!!

Barring PBT plumbing possibly used in its construction and never replaced, this one looks like a good buy to me. I don’t know the comps around there but I see possible “sweat equity” there.

Your “expert” opinion, sdr??

[bearishgurl]

wanttobuy, to be blunt, what’s wrong with the property in your link? Based on privacy (courtyard) and square footage, how much better of a deal can you find out there?? It sold for $400K new in 1985 and $535K in 1986 (probably after the orig buyer installed the pool and landscaping) and the seller is asking $779K today after making a few upgrades.

I haven’t checked out the title myself but the listing doesn’t indicate that it’s distressed. Based upon the spartan furnishings here, perhaps it’s a “pre-distress” sale. What’s stopping you from making an offer on this one and spending $40K to $80K or so to fix it the way you want it? Why are you asking the Piggs for more listings??

The open living area in this listing (for entertainment purposes) is sporting a floor to ceiling stone FP and it is surrounded by a canyon! I don’t think it gets too much better than this in this price range!!

Barring PBT plumbing possibly used in its construction and never replaced, this one looks like a good buy to me. I don’t know the comps around there but I see possible “sweat equity” there.

Your “expert” opinion, sdr??

[bearishgurl]

wanttobuy, to be blunt, what’s wrong with the property in your link? Based on privacy (courtyard) and square footage, how much better of a deal can you find out there?? It sold for $400K new in 1985 and $535K in 1986 (probably after the orig buyer installed the pool and landscaping) and the seller is asking $779K today after making a few upgrades.

I haven’t checked out the title myself but the listing doesn’t indicate that it’s distressed. Based upon the spartan furnishings here, perhaps it’s a “pre-distress” sale. What’s stopping you from making an offer on this one and spending $40K to $80K or so to fix it the way you want it? Why are you asking the Piggs for more listings??

The open living area in this listing (for entertainment purposes) is sporting a floor to ceiling stone FP and it is surrounded by a canyon! I don’t think it gets too much better than this in this price range!!

Barring PBT plumbing possibly used in its construction and never replaced, this one looks like a good buy to me. I don’t know the comps around there but I see possible “sweat equity” there.

Your “expert” opinion, sdr??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]I disagree with both of you, bg and sdr. You are focusing on comps too much. It has more to do with the buyers.

A buyer needs to decide what something is worth to them. And this is a full spectrum of fields from location and schools to home construction and lot size. But it all boils down to the simple question, is this house worth $XXXXX more than that one? If the cheaper neighborhoods get cheaper it makes the expensive neighborhoods look more expensive and thus not as worth the premium they command in turn driving down prices.[/quote]

What else besides comps is there to focus on, jstoesz?? They tell the story of what a recent buyer was willing to pay. Again, buyers purchasing in the “cheaper” neighborhoods often don’t have the wherewithal to purchase in the “expensive” neighborhoods, thus you need to take into account that we’re talking about two separate sets of buyers here. It doesn’t matter if the currently “expensive” areas “look” more expensive. They were too expensive before that buyer started shopping and they’re too expensive for him/her now. This buyer will not be able get an accepted offer in any areas in which they cannot qualify to purchase. Not only are these pricier areas “not worth the premium” to this buyer, they couldn’t afford to purchase there even if they thought it WAS “worth the premium.” If the “expensive” property is not in distress, another buyer with more resources will eventually come along who will get a successful accepted offer on the property or it will be removed from the market by the seller to await a “better day” :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]I disagree with both of you, bg and sdr. You are focusing on comps too much. It has more to do with the buyers.

A buyer needs to decide what something is worth to them. And this is a full spectrum of fields from location and schools to home construction and lot size. But it all boils down to the simple question, is this house worth $XXXXX more than that one? If the cheaper neighborhoods get cheaper it makes the expensive neighborhoods look more expensive and thus not as worth the premium they command in turn driving down prices.[/quote]

What else besides comps is there to focus on, jstoesz?? They tell the story of what a recent buyer was willing to pay. Again, buyers purchasing in the “cheaper” neighborhoods often don’t have the wherewithal to purchase in the “expensive” neighborhoods, thus you need to take into account that we’re talking about two separate sets of buyers here. It doesn’t matter if the currently “expensive” areas “look” more expensive. They were too expensive before that buyer started shopping and they’re too expensive for him/her now. This buyer will not be able get an accepted offer in any areas in which they cannot qualify to purchase. Not only are these pricier areas “not worth the premium” to this buyer, they couldn’t afford to purchase there even if they thought it WAS “worth the premium.” If the “expensive” property is not in distress, another buyer with more resources will eventually come along who will get a successful accepted offer on the property or it will be removed from the market by the seller to await a “better day” :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]I disagree with both of you, bg and sdr. You are focusing on comps too much. It has more to do with the buyers.

A buyer needs to decide what something is worth to them. And this is a full spectrum of fields from location and schools to home construction and lot size. But it all boils down to the simple question, is this house worth $XXXXX more than that one? If the cheaper neighborhoods get cheaper it makes the expensive neighborhoods look more expensive and thus not as worth the premium they command in turn driving down prices.[/quote]

What else besides comps is there to focus on, jstoesz?? They tell the story of what a recent buyer was willing to pay. Again, buyers purchasing in the “cheaper” neighborhoods often don’t have the wherewithal to purchase in the “expensive” neighborhoods, thus you need to take into account that we’re talking about two separate sets of buyers here. It doesn’t matter if the currently “expensive” areas “look” more expensive. They were too expensive before that buyer started shopping and they’re too expensive for him/her now. This buyer will not be able get an accepted offer in any areas in which they cannot qualify to purchase. Not only are these pricier areas “not worth the premium” to this buyer, they couldn’t afford to purchase there even if they thought it WAS “worth the premium.” If the “expensive” property is not in distress, another buyer with more resources will eventually come along who will get a successful accepted offer on the property or it will be removed from the market by the seller to await a “better day” :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]I disagree with both of you, bg and sdr. You are focusing on comps too much. It has more to do with the buyers.

A buyer needs to decide what something is worth to them. And this is a full spectrum of fields from location and schools to home construction and lot size. But it all boils down to the simple question, is this house worth $XXXXX more than that one? If the cheaper neighborhoods get cheaper it makes the expensive neighborhoods look more expensive and thus not as worth the premium they command in turn driving down prices.[/quote]

What else besides comps is there to focus on, jstoesz?? They tell the story of what a recent buyer was willing to pay. Again, buyers purchasing in the “cheaper” neighborhoods often don’t have the wherewithal to purchase in the “expensive” neighborhoods, thus you need to take into account that we’re talking about two separate sets of buyers here. It doesn’t matter if the currently “expensive” areas “look” more expensive. They were too expensive before that buyer started shopping and they’re too expensive for him/her now. This buyer will not be able get an accepted offer in any areas in which they cannot qualify to purchase. Not only are these pricier areas “not worth the premium” to this buyer, they couldn’t afford to purchase there even if they thought it WAS “worth the premium.” If the “expensive” property is not in distress, another buyer with more resources will eventually come along who will get a successful accepted offer on the property or it will be removed from the market by the seller to await a “better day” :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]I disagree with both of you, bg and sdr. You are focusing on comps too much. It has more to do with the buyers.

A buyer needs to decide what something is worth to them. And this is a full spectrum of fields from location and schools to home construction and lot size. But it all boils down to the simple question, is this house worth $XXXXX more than that one? If the cheaper neighborhoods get cheaper it makes the expensive neighborhoods look more expensive and thus not as worth the premium they command in turn driving down prices.[/quote]

What else besides comps is there to focus on, jstoesz?? They tell the story of what a recent buyer was willing to pay. Again, buyers purchasing in the “cheaper” neighborhoods often don’t have the wherewithal to purchase in the “expensive” neighborhoods, thus you need to take into account that we’re talking about two separate sets of buyers here. It doesn’t matter if the currently “expensive” areas “look” more expensive. They were too expensive before that buyer started shopping and they’re too expensive for him/her now. This buyer will not be able get an accepted offer in any areas in which they cannot qualify to purchase. Not only are these pricier areas “not worth the premium” to this buyer, they couldn’t afford to purchase there even if they thought it WAS “worth the premium.” If the “expensive” property is not in distress, another buyer with more resources will eventually come along who will get a successful accepted offer on the property or it will be removed from the market by the seller to await a “better day” :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter] . . . I’ve heard that Idaho has a rather large contingent of libertarians who believe they are living without benefit of govt money. They don’t account for the fact that they are safe from invading nations and gangs of thieves, and they apparently don’t count the roads to get into their communities, etc., but they are “independent”. They also don’t account for all the innovative products and medicines that were developed either in part or whole because of government funding. See, they’re living “off the sweat of their own brow,” according to them. . .?[/quote]

Lol, CAR, these “Libertarian Idahoans” must be aware that they’re not safe from their own many “bretheren” who have stockpiled their collections of personal weapons (some automatic) in their upright safes, ground safes and underground bunkers. Didn’t you know? They’re all getting ready for the “apocalypse” in 2012 :=[

One slightly sideways look or random drinking binge and all h@ll could break loose in one of those “idyllic” towns or mountain communities up there :=!

The state of Idaho is THE favorite destination and retirement haven for former disgruntled law enforcement personnel from everywhere (who likely took a [mental] disability retirement) and other social misfits who have “checked out” of mainstream society (or were formerly arrested in other states for possessing unlicensed firearms, possessing loaded firearms without a permit, etc).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter] . . . I’ve heard that Idaho has a rather large contingent of libertarians who believe they are living without benefit of govt money. They don’t account for the fact that they are safe from invading nations and gangs of thieves, and they apparently don’t count the roads to get into their communities, etc., but they are “independent”. They also don’t account for all the innovative products and medicines that were developed either in part or whole because of government funding. See, they’re living “off the sweat of their own brow,” according to them. . .?[/quote]

Lol, CAR, these “Libertarian Idahoans” must be aware that they’re not safe from their own many “bretheren” who have stockpiled their collections of personal weapons (some automatic) in their upright safes, ground safes and underground bunkers. Didn’t you know? They’re all getting ready for the “apocalypse” in 2012 :=[

One slightly sideways look or random drinking binge and all h@ll could break loose in one of those “idyllic” towns or mountain communities up there :=!

The state of Idaho is THE favorite destination and retirement haven for former disgruntled law enforcement personnel from everywhere (who likely took a [mental] disability retirement) and other social misfits who have “checked out” of mainstream society (or were formerly arrested in other states for possessing unlicensed firearms, possessing loaded firearms without a permit, etc).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter] . . . I’ve heard that Idaho has a rather large contingent of libertarians who believe they are living without benefit of govt money. They don’t account for the fact that they are safe from invading nations and gangs of thieves, and they apparently don’t count the roads to get into their communities, etc., but they are “independent”. They also don’t account for all the innovative products and medicines that were developed either in part or whole because of government funding. See, they’re living “off the sweat of their own brow,” according to them. . .?[/quote]

Lol, CAR, these “Libertarian Idahoans” must be aware that they’re not safe from their own many “bretheren” who have stockpiled their collections of personal weapons (some automatic) in their upright safes, ground safes and underground bunkers. Didn’t you know? They’re all getting ready for the “apocalypse” in 2012 :=[

One slightly sideways look or random drinking binge and all h@ll could break loose in one of those “idyllic” towns or mountain communities up there :=!

The state of Idaho is THE favorite destination and retirement haven for former disgruntled law enforcement personnel from everywhere (who likely took a [mental] disability retirement) and other social misfits who have “checked out” of mainstream society (or were formerly arrested in other states for possessing unlicensed firearms, possessing loaded firearms without a permit, etc).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter] . . . I’ve heard that Idaho has a rather large contingent of libertarians who believe they are living without benefit of govt money. They don’t account for the fact that they are safe from invading nations and gangs of thieves, and they apparently don’t count the roads to get into their communities, etc., but they are “independent”. They also don’t account for all the innovative products and medicines that were developed either in part or whole because of government funding. See, they’re living “off the sweat of their own brow,” according to them. . .?[/quote]

Lol, CAR, these “Libertarian Idahoans” must be aware that they’re not safe from their own many “bretheren” who have stockpiled their collections of personal weapons (some automatic) in their upright safes, ground safes and underground bunkers. Didn’t you know? They’re all getting ready for the “apocalypse” in 2012 :=[

One slightly sideways look or random drinking binge and all h@ll could break loose in one of those “idyllic” towns or mountain communities up there :=!

The state of Idaho is THE favorite destination and retirement haven for former disgruntled law enforcement personnel from everywhere (who likely took a [mental] disability retirement) and other social misfits who have “checked out” of mainstream society (or were formerly arrested in other states for possessing unlicensed firearms, possessing loaded firearms without a permit, etc).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter] . . . I’ve heard that Idaho has a rather large contingent of libertarians who believe they are living without benefit of govt money. They don’t account for the fact that they are safe from invading nations and gangs of thieves, and they apparently don’t count the roads to get into their communities, etc., but they are “independent”. They also don’t account for all the innovative products and medicines that were developed either in part or whole because of government funding. See, they’re living “off the sweat of their own brow,” according to them. . .?[/quote]

Lol, CAR, these “Libertarian Idahoans” must be aware that they’re not safe from their own many “bretheren” who have stockpiled their collections of personal weapons (some automatic) in their upright safes, ground safes and underground bunkers. Didn’t you know? They’re all getting ready for the “apocalypse” in 2012 :=[

One slightly sideways look or random drinking binge and all h@ll could break loose in one of those “idyllic” towns or mountain communities up there :=!

The state of Idaho is THE favorite destination and retirement haven for former disgruntled law enforcement personnel from everywhere (who likely took a [mental] disability retirement) and other social misfits who have “checked out” of mainstream society (or were formerly arrested in other states for possessing unlicensed firearms, possessing loaded firearms without a permit, etc).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Ren] . . . Like many others, I’m willing to pay a lot more to live in south Carlsbad than Vista. A LOT more. Those areas will always command a premium, and may even be close to their bottom – but what you can’t argue is that those areas aren’t affected by price drops in less desirable areas. Of course it depends on how much people (like me) are willing and able to pay for a nice area (that’s why they command a premium in the first place), but ultimately the sale price also depends on the appraisal and comps (and therefore indirectly, government intervention). No, a big drop in a less desireable area is not going to pound the prices in a nice area, because nicer areas fluctuate less, and rise and fall at different rates. But it does make some impact. That’s all I’m sayin’.

It’s okay to admit that – it doesn’t change the fact that Del Mar is still waaaaay better than Escondido and may be close to being priced right.

Yes, I’m becoming more bullish in my old age.[/quote]

Ren, I understand what you’re saying here. I’m not even particularly “bullish.” But the property you are planning to buy in South Carlsbad in the future will be on tract, no? I don’t believe the way you’re describing it here is the way appraisals are done in the real world. First of all, there could be geographical barriers to using a sold comp from =>6 blocks away (ie freeways, canyons, zip codes, etc). I don’t see sold comps from a different tract used for appraisal purposes to value a property on a certain tract unless there are no recent comparable sales on the SUBJECT’s tract for them to use for a comparable sale.

I’m simply stating that “custom” properties in highly sought-after coastal/urban enclaves and also situated on acreages will not be affected much, if at all, by the lowering of the GSE’s guarantee. For example, it is more difficult for an appraiser to find sold comps for a “custom” property which may have sit-down views at a rare angle, lots of built in mahogany in excellent condition, a particular lot configuation (in an urban area) allowing for concealed boat parking, a Mills Act contract in place, a specially-ordered $50K roof, a garage with a 12′ high garage door to park “toys” in, and the list goes on. The appraiser here will have to make a lot of adjustments to arrive at a value. For this reason, custom properties’ values are “subjective.” In the eyes of the right buyer, they are worth more. There are thousands of these properties in SD County. Their appraisals do not have anything to do with what happens on a tract – even a tract six blocks away.

The buyers who buy the customs in coveted areas and the buyers who buy in a tract even just 6 blocks away are two completely different animals.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Ren] . . . Like many others, I’m willing to pay a lot more to live in south Carlsbad than Vista. A LOT more. Those areas will always command a premium, and may even be close to their bottom – but what you can’t argue is that those areas aren’t affected by price drops in less desirable areas. Of course it depends on how much people (like me) are willing and able to pay for a nice area (that’s why they command a premium in the first place), but ultimately the sale price also depends on the appraisal and comps (and therefore indirectly, government intervention). No, a big drop in a less desireable area is not going to pound the prices in a nice area, because nicer areas fluctuate less, and rise and fall at different rates. But it does make some impact. That’s all I’m sayin’.

It’s okay to admit that – it doesn’t change the fact that Del Mar is still waaaaay better than Escondido and may be close to being priced right.

Yes, I’m becoming more bullish in my old age.[/quote]

Ren, I understand what you’re saying here. I’m not even particularly “bullish.” But the property you are planning to buy in South Carlsbad in the future will be on tract, no? I don’t believe the way you’re describing it here is the way appraisals are done in the real world. First of all, there could be geographical barriers to using a sold comp from =>6 blocks away (ie freeways, canyons, zip codes, etc). I don’t see sold comps from a different tract used for appraisal purposes to value a property on a certain tract unless there are no recent comparable sales on the SUBJECT’s tract for them to use for a comparable sale.

I’m simply stating that “custom” properties in highly sought-after coastal/urban enclaves and also situated on acreages will not be affected much, if at all, by the lowering of the GSE’s guarantee. For example, it is more difficult for an appraiser to find sold comps for a “custom” property which may have sit-down views at a rare angle, lots of built in mahogany in excellent condition, a particular lot configuation (in an urban area) allowing for concealed boat parking, a Mills Act contract in place, a specially-ordered $50K roof, a garage with a 12′ high garage door to park “toys” in, and the list goes on. The appraiser here will have to make a lot of adjustments to arrive at a value. For this reason, custom properties’ values are “subjective.” In the eyes of the right buyer, they are worth more. There are thousands of these properties in SD County. Their appraisals do not have anything to do with what happens on a tract – even a tract six blocks away.

The buyers who buy the customs in coveted areas and the buyers who buy in a tract even just 6 blocks away are two completely different animals.

[Author]

Posts