Maybe yes, maybe no, but, looking at things from a national perspective, probably not. Two points: Greenwich is not the national market – not yet, anyway, and seems to be at least holding its own against further decline. And, as the pessimistic author points out, if you believe all this massive federal spending is going to send inflation through the roof which he does, then there’s something to be said for locking in your housing costs now.
And you do need a place to live. I think that, if you find a house you like and it’s a relative bargain, you won’t go too far wrong. But I may be just whistling past the graveyard.
It denies the rumors. Of course, this is the same firm that insisted, until it refused to redeem them, that auction rate securities were as good as and the equivalent of cash, so you may want to take that denial with a dash of salt.
20 Center Drive in Old Greenwich came on the market in June, 2009 asking $879,000. It didn’t sell so in March, 2010, the owners fired their broker and switched to another, who dropped the price to $819,000 and, eventually, all the way to $775,000. Still no luck, the listing expired last September and came back on this March with yet another broker, priced at $859,000. Now my philosophy is that if a house won’t sell at one price the solution is not to raise it and apparently the market shares that thinking: the house didn’t sell and today it’s been marked down to $839,000.
Here’s the problem: a potential buyer knows that the owners were willing to accept $775,000 and probably less, so why would he offer $839,000, let alone $859,000? You can always go down, but going back up causes problems for sellers.
If this doesn’t work, I’ll contact WordPress. I suspect the problem is with them, rather than with someone hacking this blog. Comments are, by default supposed to be open.
UPDATE; SO FAR, SO GOOD.
56 Clapboard Ridge
56 Clapboard Ridge is a magnificent, 1840 house beautifully restored and updated. I loved it. But it was listed at $12 million back in June, 2010 and won’t sell. So today, its price was reduced to $11.5 million. It’s just a suspicion on my part, but no buyer interested in this house at this price range would have been deterred by a mere $500,000. So what’s the point, except to reinforce the message that no discounters need apply? The same message would have been just as forcefully expressed by simply leaving the price untouched, so why bother?
There’s a house which I won’t identify because it hasn’t sold yet and I don’t want to be accused of interfering with a sale, but it is of such poor quality that I am astonished to see it is yet again under contract. That makes two sales in the past five years and I wonder what people are thinking? Then again if the new buyers, like the current sellers, don’t expect to live there long, I suppose they figure it won’t fall down during their stay. But sheesh.
- 10 Winding Lane
This nondescript house (it had to be a land sale) was listed in December for $2.5 million, dropped to $2.395 and just sold for $2.525. There’ just isn’t much (good) land in the mid-country.
Comments have somehow been turned off – working on enabling them again so bear with me.
15 Ben Court
I guess we’ll find out, if these two new listings are indicative.
This Old Greenwich house sold for $3.125 in 2004. The owners have done nothing to it since, and have listed it for sale for $3.6 million.
The owners of 4 Buxton Lane paid $2.4 million for it in October, ’09 and claim to have put in $100,000 in improvements. They’re asking $2.990 for their efforts.
Neither of these is located on what I’d describe as a premium street, so if they come close to getting what they’re asking, that should tell us something. I’ll keep an eye on both houses’ fate and report back.
The last Lotto commissioner (who was caught, anyway) to fix the drawing of a lottery was some guy in Pennsylvania in the great Triple Pick Fix of 1980. The conspirators weighted all the ping pong balls except those numbered 4 and 6. made massive bets on combinations of those two numbers and by golly, won a bunch of money. Now that seems like a pretty smart deal – in fact, Frank and I were just discussing doing something like that but here’s the rub: the cheaters were caught.
The official and his cohorts pled not guilty but damned if they weren’t found guilty anyway and sentenced to the hoosgow. We’re going to have to do better if we’re going to make Fudrucker’s appointment pay off.
Or lunch orders, anyway. Rajamataz orders a tunafish sandwich for lunch today,with extra mayonnaise. Dealbreaker speculates on the hidden meaning.
Atlas Shrugged collapses at the box office. Too bad – I’d have liked to have seen it. Guess I’ll reread the book instead.
Fudrucker to head state lottery commission.
Because it’s useless. Last time I went, and spoke, there was lots of testimony on the huge, deleterious effect these new regs will have on housing values. The grey beards nodded wisely, thanked us all for our import and admitted that there were all sorts of things brought to their attention that night that would cause them to re-think the matter. The upshot? The regulations being proposed tonight are even worse, more stringent, than the original ones.
The fix is in – the P&Z is determined to have its way and screw the public because the P&Z knows best. I wouldn’t waste my time or my breath. the fight, if there is to be one, will have to be conducted at the RTM. P&Z isn’t going to change its mind.
Dingos maul child down under. I’m surprised some idiot hasn’t imported them here – we’ve seen just about every other pest brought to our shores.
- 5 Raymond St
This is a perfectly okay house that sold, full price, for $1.625 in May, 2004. The buyers tried getting $2.2250 in June of ’08 and finally sold it in ’09 for $1.450. Those buyers, in turn, listed it for $1.975 last december, dropped it to $1.875 and now have a contract. Assuming the agreed upon price is anywhere close to the ask, then I guess Old Greenwich is coming back.