This is the third of 3 articles summarizing data in the MB Market Update spreadsheets for 4/15/08 (click to download), focusing this time on the Tree Section.
Total SFR inventory in the Tree Section as of 4/15/08 was 45, with 25 homes priced below $2m and 20 priced above $2m. (Those figures remain essentially the same at this writing, just +1 in the $2m+ range.)
Speaking of figures remaining level – there were 4 new listings in the Trees in this period, and 4 sales (new escrows). That's flat, or zero population growth, if you prefer.
Of the new offerings, 3 are all on busy streets:
- A true "starter home" under $900k at 3301 N. Valley. For $875k, you get 2br/1ba plus another room that could be a bedroom, 1050 sq. ft. and a small (2500 sq. ft.) corner lot. Inside it's tidy and cozy, perhaps just right for an entry-level buyer.
Suffering by comparison: 3612 Poinsettia, a smaller would-be starter priced at $849k, and particularly 2505 Pacific, which is on Valley, is the same size and isn't nearly as cute, but which began at $995k recently.
835 Marine (pictured) is the stylish home just off the triangular strip of grass between Ardmore and Marine near Pacific – if you drive the area you know it. It's bigger than you'd think at 3br/2ba and 1800 sq. ft., and it is really, really tricked out and modernized inside. (See pics for more.) That said, the sellers don't appear to be deluded about the location, and they're content to start at $1.250m.
- 3011 N. Valley is a bona fide charmer that is also fairly large (4br/4ba, 3250 sq. ft.). Purchased 2 years ago for $1.9m (see "A Loss at 2 Yrs?"), now offered at $1.849m.
In addition to the sale at 850 18th, we watched buyers grab:
738 26th (pictured), a unique and traditionally styled (if a bit quirkily remodeled) home with 4br and 2900 sq. ft. – it went into escrow in its first weekend in March, but that didn't stick and it hung around 6 weeks more at $1.799m;
- 2309 Pacific, a longtime listing of new construction that began at $2.299m last May, and drew offers when it cut to $2.099m;
- 2705 Palm, a short-term listing of a high-quality new home that wasn't yet complete, asking $2.699m; and
- 3517 Elm, a nicely remodeled cottage with 3br/2ba and 1400 sq. ft.; started at $1.385m in October and was down $100k to $1.285m.
Dropping out of the race were 2 lower-end listings that tried for just 2 months each – 1708 Oak ($899k) and 3601 Poinsettia ($1.139m). We also removed 2404 Palm from our spreadsheet as the sign came down and we confirmed it's no longer for sale.
And a surprise dropout was 1144 Elm (pictured), a brand-new home in a compromised location that had drawn our notice last November as the first new construction in the Trees to start out below $2m (see "First Newbie Under $2m.")That was news at the time, but since Elm came on, we've seen other newbies drop in price below $2m, with 3 selling below $2m (2709 Oak, 1901 Poinsettia and 3104 Pacific).
Elm tried coming down further to set a new (recent) low for new construction at $1.879m, but still had no takers. We might assume it has been rented; all we know for sure is that the listing canceled.
The most noteworthy price cuts were at:
794 27th (pictured), a highly stylized Asian contemporary with the downside of a location on Pacific. It's starting to look like the current owner overpaid substantially at $2.5m in May 2006 – after a start at $2.599m in February, it's already down $300k to $2.299m, gearing up for a sizable loss;
- 2611 Palm, new construction that we strain to call a "new" home because it's the longest-running listing of a new home in MB (west of Sepulveda) at 463 DOM as of April 15. (The overall record-holder is 2812 Elm at 580 DOM.) Its twin (reversed floor plan) was 2309 Pacific, which just sold when listed at $2.099m. So Palm took a new hit of $114k and now sits at $2.285m; and
- 2310 John, a newer listing of a newer contemporary home, cut $100k to $2.099m.
- 1906 Flournoy, a 4br/2ba, 1800 sq. ft. ranch-style home, got $1.7m even (recall that is sold quickly); and
- 742 27th, a spiffed-up remodel much-discussed here after MBC ran a pricing poll (see the first story and the poll results), had begun at $2.4m, cut to $1.999m and ultimately drew more than one offer, closing at $2.075m (-$325k/-14%), a nice finish.
An even happier ending came at 2507 Valley, also much-discussed at MBC as the seller fell into default last year, tried to sell using the tactic of increasing his price, then tried to sell short and failed, ultimately losing the home at auction. The full price history:- The home was purchased new in Feb. 2004 for $1.54m;
- Attempted sale prices in 2007 ranged from $1.799m-$2.249m;
- An investor picked it up for $1.643m last October;
- The investor tried to get $1.790m, but decided to cut losses after 90 days;
- The investor took $1.5m to shed it from the books.
And let's not lose sight of this fact: One man's depreciated asset is now a family's great new home.
27 comments:
Okay, so broad strokes here...(and I'm talking about MB here, not certain streets -- talk about micro bulls, but keep it up, the banter is hilarious)
Anyway...inventories up, asking prices down.
Simple enough huh?
Happy hunting.
Well, as Forrest Gump said, "Simple is as Simple does."
MBW- Do you know whatever happened to 3012 Palm and 605 36th. Still pending I presume?
Also, looks like 2317 Pine closed for $1,878k, way over asking of $1,790k.
MBWatcher,
You might find this interesting:
A home East of Sepulveda (1700 Ruhland) is now asking $1,999,999. The Seller bought the property for $2,335,000 on 2/23/06. It has been on the market for at least 260 days. The home was built in 2005.I believe they were originally asking around 2.5 M.
I think we are really beginning to see the effects of the housing slow down in East Manhattan. There are also several other homes with 7500 square foot lots priced under 2,000,000. I know you don't cover this area but providing a few articles on specific homes there might be interesting.
Regarding 794 27th. The original ad in the BR for this house stated it was celebrity owned. Shortly after that I saw an item in the Hot Properties column of the LA Times that had the exact same description of this MB house. The celebrity mentioned was Teri Polo, star of "Meet the Parents" fame, with Ben Stiller et al.
re: 605 36th, it closed yesterday for $1.355m. Recall that it started last year at $1.559m; came back this year at $1.399m. Purchased for about $300k less in Oct. 2003.
3012 Palm is still pending, I'm told.
And 2317 Pine was that great example of a terrific home drawing immediate serious interest – multiple offers still happen.
Rob W - re: 27th, you're right about the owner. I was never sure why "celebrity owned" was part of the pitch, though.
Finally, Wtg/Sidelines – good example on Ruhland, thanks.
701 25th - not on the MLS, but it appears that an agent recently set up a listing on Zillow.com. There it's priced at $3.6m. Not a dreamy "Make Me Move" price – an agent's work, it appears.
The home has a double lot – the info typed into Zillow says it's a 19,000+ sq. ft. lot, but I'd assume a typo and assume 9000 or so. (Based on a look at the lot using other sources.) OK-sized house according to the records, 4br/2ba and 2300 sq. ft.
Something doesn't add up here.
Man, this sucks, I remember when you could buy a tear down in east Manhattan for $150,000. Should have bought the block. Oh, well, I'll just wait because based on the comentary here I'm sure it's coming back down.
MBW- Thanks for the updates on those homes. 605 36th was overpriced to begin with. Don't think I ever saw a house on 36th street for that size sell for over $1.4M, except the Flip House on Blanche which we all know David overpaid. Maybe, it was at one time worth $1,425k (any comments here would be great)
Plus, it was probably the first agent's fault (understand he's not very good anyway, and overpriced the house to begin with). Of course, EK got it sold.
We're still looking, and I'm somewhat surprised 1412 Elm and 2904 Laurel are still sitting even given the negatives.
605 36th was just beat up. There are some really cute homes on that street but I think there were renters in 605 for awhile. It was just worn down.
NOT THAT RENTERS ARE BAD! Before someone launches a grenade.
My point being that homeowners, when they live in their own home, usually maintain them better than someone who is renting it.
Okay, fire!
8:11- 605 36th was remodeled after the renters moved out and it looked good. In fact, we made an offer, and there were 4 other offers, so I wouldn't talk unless you saw it. Of course, it is not a walk street house that everyone here inspires to own.
1412 Elm was briefly in escrow this week, if I'm not wrong.
Yes I saw it. It was worn. Sorry about your offer.
I haven't posted here in awhile, but I had an interesting conversation with a realtor friend the other day and wanted share their insight.
First off, he told me that things are incredibly slow and in the office they work 7 deals fell through in the last week or so. He works in one of the larger offices in town and apparently the lenders are really turning the screws on many deals that would have been easily approved a year ago. The lenders are even requesting high income earning (300K and up) borrowers with very high credit scores to lower/eliminate credit card debt and payoff car loans/leases or they will not approve. And even after doing so, in many cases, the lenders are still not approving. Maybe this isn't news to many readers here, but to hear these comments first hand from someone I know and trust, and listen to the frustration in his voice, it was quite surprising.
My friend also mentioned that there are many homes being pulled off the market as the sellers try and negotiate with the lenders in hopes of re-listing at a lower price and/or selling off the MLS. He said that one of the differences between this poor market and the bubble bursting of the early 90’s is that the lenders, realtors and sellers are, so far, working much closer together nowadays in the hopes of avoiding the extremely steep price decline that happened back then.
Lastly, they told me the most active portion of the market right now are buyers with very large down payments (30%-50% or more) in the high end of the local market, and even that area is slowing quickly (oxymoron?).
Oh well, there you have it, another anonymous post that paints a glum picture. I really wish it was not the case.
How bad can things get?
Here is an example from 10 minutes away:
An odd sight -- 24 brand new homes, listed as for sale in public auction. You don't see that every day: brand new homes, straight to auction. The homes are in Gardena, the auction is May 10th, starting bids are $498,000.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2008/04/photo-of-the-da.html
This is just the beginning.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/new-home-sales-sink-85-17-year/story.aspx
New-home sales sink 8.5% to 17-year low
Despite huge price declines, inventory on market rises to 27-year high
By Rex Nutting, MarketWatch
Last update: 12:07 p.m. EDT April 24, 2008
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- U.S. home builders have slashed their prices by a record amount, but sales still plunged by 8.5% to a 17-year low in March, the Commerce Department estimated Thursday.
The decline in new-home sales to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 526,000 was much weaker than the 577,000 pace expected by economists surveyed by MarketWatch. See Economic Calendar.
New-home sales are down 36.6% compared with a year ago and are down 62% from the peak in July 2005. February's sales pace was revised lower to 575,000 from 590,000.
"There is little to support any claims that the housing market is stabilizing, let alone forming a bottom," wrote Richard Moody, chief economist for Mission Residential.
"The growing imbalance between housing demand and supply suggests continued construction cuts and price declines, and in turn, an extended period of sluggish economic growth," wrote Michelle Meyer, an economist for Lehman Bros.
The figures likely overstate the number of sales because they don't account for canceled sales, which have ballooned. The report is based on contracts signed, not sales closed.
Perhaps the only ray of hope was data showing that inventories of unsold homes fell for the 12th consecutive month in March, an indication that builders are making some progress to get their inventories under control. However, with sales plunging even faster, the supply of homes on the market rose to 11 months, the most in 27 years.
Inventories are likely understated as well because of canceled sales contracts.
The number of completed homes for sale fell for the third straight month to 189,000 after peaking in January at 198,000. Completed homes represent more than 40% of the total inventory, just off the record percentage set in February and an indication of how much speculation had taken over in the home building industry.
Most analysts believe it could take several more years to bring inventories back in line with fundamentals. Builders are competing against an influx of supply from foreclosed homes and homes being sold by distressed owners.
Median sales prices for new homes have fallen 13.3% in the past year to $227,600, the biggest decline in 38 years.
Average sales prices are down 11.3% to $292,200, the biggest drop since the record book begins in 1963.
"The fact that prices are falling so rapidly is scaring off potential buyers despite the improvement in affordability," wrote Sal Guatieri, an economist for BMO Capital Markets.
Sales fell in all four regions, dropping 19.4% in the Northeast to a 27-year low, falling 12.9% in the West to a 17-year low, falling 12.5% in the Midwest to a 27-year low, and slipping 4.6% in the South to a 12-year low.
Government statisticians have low confidence in the monthly report, which is subject to large revisions and large sampling and other statistical errors. In most months, the government isn't sure whether sales rose or fell. The standard error in March, for instance, was plus or minus 16.1%. Read the full government report.
The government says it can take up to five months to establish a new trend in sales. Over the past five months, sales have been on a 590,000 annual pace, 35% slower than a year earlier.
In all of 2007, 776,000 new homes were sold, down from 1.05 million in 2006.
In separate reports, the Commerce Department said orders for U.S.-built durable goods fell for the third straight month in March, the first time that's happened since the 2001 recession. See full story.
Meanwhile, the Labor Department reported first-time claims for unemployment benefits fell by 33,000 to a two-month low of 342,000.
Rex Nutting is Washington bureau chief of MarketWatch.
1:04- That's Gardena, and did you see the list prices over $700k, no wonder they never sold. I'm not saying that is not a horrible sign. But the key is what those houses get at auction. If it's close to $600k that's not so bad given that the most I've ever seen a townhome in Gardena sell for would be $649k for those sizes. So again, don't be all doom and gloom until the auction actually occurs and we have valid price points, at least for Gardena. THanks for informing us of that auction though, as a real estate investor, I just may attend and see. Again, capitalize on what's going on around rather than be doom and gloom.
2:33, just say you went in there and "snatched" one of those things up at 500-K. How much do you possible think you could rent it for in that location of Gardena?
Even at 500-K, I just don't see that as a winning proposition. Gardena is a *pretty crappy* neighborhood.
Just sayin.
"somewhat surprised 1412 Elm and 2904 Laurel are still sitting even ..."
OMG, have you seen that Laurel house??? There's a huge mound of earth behind one of the hallway walls downstairs....I have no idea how it's being retained. Agent said it's permitted, I don't see how. I'm not trying to bash, but I wouldn't move in if someone paid me.
12:01: DTI limits are being enforced for all income levels, not just subprime. Now that Alt-A is collapsing, lenders are being much more proactive about A-paper loans.
I am not surprised that someone with $300k of income is getting denied for loans on local places. Someone with that income can afford, per historic multipliers, a $1.3M house (assuming no other debt, 6% par, 30 year fixed, and 20% down). Trying to buy a $2.2M house, unless you have a sizable down payment, will be above approved DTI limits.
mb renter your numbers are way off. if you are a mortgage broker you are not a good one...
6:09,
How do you feel MB Renter's numbers are way off? Given a 300k annual income, I would expect the borrowers payment to be about 25 to 33 percent of the monthly income, which works out to about $6000 - $8000/month. At 6%, that would give between a 1.0 to 1.4 million loan. Unless that person has a 30% or 40% down payment, they aren't buying a 2 million dollar house.
I figured someone was going to try to call me on the 1.3M number. See, in the past 8 years or so, that historic DTI limit has been thrown out the window for California, so the concept of "affordable" has gone from about 4x annual income to somewhere around 11x at the peak of the market in 2006.
See, a lot of teaser rates got thrown around in the South Bay the last few years, and there are a lot of people who have been paying 1% on their option arm for a while, and as a result have bought more house than the traditional 4x multiplier says is affordable.
That's fine. A lot of people are going to wind up house poor after recasts, helocs being tightened, etc. Whether or not they decide to walk away from their payments is ultimately up to them. One thing is for certain, though, we are going to see a return to that 4x multiplier in a hurry.
To give you an idea, $300k income with a 5/1 IO (good luck getting an approval on that one, btw) could probably get into a $1.7M. But that begs the question: who is the idiot who plunks down 20% down for an IO loan? "Yes, Mister Bank, I would like to rent my house from you." Either way, $300k isn't buying any new spec houses in 90266. Oh, sorry, they could get into the "Highland Gateway" nightmare of a house. My mistake.
Not sure if anybody saw this in BR today, but Poinsettia twins are now down another $100k to 2.59, from a 2.79 start. Doesn't mean much bc even at that price they are overpriced, but gradually the builder is waking up to changing times.
MBRenter:
You keep saying "a lot of people" when speaking of these mortgages. Just curious, were did you get your stats about the number of people with teaser rates? Where did you get your stats about the number of people with 11x mortgages? It seems to me that you are speculating that this is the case. Of my group of friends, albeit somewhat small, each and every one of us have, at the minimum, 5yr mortgages. Most have 10yrs. I realize this is an extremely small percentage of people, but it may be more accurate than your conjecture (unless, of course, you can show your source for this data).
On your DTI comment, I agree. I, for one, am happy to see lenders come back to their senses.
MBrenter's general contention is difficult to argue with.
The numbers of Alt-A loans funded in California are outlined in some detail here:
http://www.newyorkfed.org/regional/subprime.html
Look at the Alt-A options and their characteristics.
Here is Mr. Mortgage's take on the above data:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmeBSWI9sF8
Here is a graph of the forthcoming pay options implosion:
http://tinyurl.com/4nzwb8
Add this to a severe credit crunch and we are heading for a market where funding becomes so severely constricted that it is practically impossible for most folks to qualify for mortgages at more conservative down payments and DTI (debt to income) ratios. Gone are the days of 8x+ DTIs the market bubble needed to sustain itself. This in conjunction with expiring ARMs and pay options is the fundamental reason for why we'll be rapidly sliding down the backside of the bubble in auto-catalytic fashion.
The upshot of all this in practical terms is likely to manifest as increasing inventory, decreasing sales, increasing forced inventory in the form of foreclosures and the ratcheting down of prices over the next few years, all driven by a return to historically normative lending standards.
Post a Comment