Nice looking house, but probably headed for the dumpster
I’ve been accused by at least one reader of cherry picking listings that sell for unfortunate prices but I’m not cherry picking, I’m reporting, day after day, week after week, what’s happening out there. I’m just willing to tell readers what the original asking prices were whereas most realtors won’t. For instance, a recent article in Greenwich Time reported the happy news that there were 38 sales last year in the $5 – $7.5 price range but failed to mention how many of those started out far, far higher years ago (and made no mention that, of those 38, only 5 entered contract after August 20 of last year – no more market for them).
Anyway, with apologies to those offended readers, here’s the latest contract to come across the GMLS hot sheet this afternoon: 25 Wilshire Road, up in the nosebleed territory of Close Road. Last listing price for this 4.67 acre, 1974 house was $2.350 but its price in January, 2011 was $3.450 million. If it sells close to its latest asking price, and I think it will, given its assessment of $1.9 million, it will go down in the records of the GMLS as yet another property that sold within, say, 10% of its asking price and no mention will be made of the unfortunate waste of a year for the heirs of the owner while they tried to move it at its first, most unfortunate price.
Which is why I write about this stuff.
would be nice to see recent examples of where sucker buyers overpaid….
Media failure to help the public understand the reality of their local market occurs everywhere.
In my small, mountain community the local paper just reported – per the owner of the largest local real estate agency – that the “market is looking up” despite the fact that both the number of houses sold and the median sale prices were lower in 2011 than in 2010.
He also opined that 2012 was starting off strong with a locally-above-median sale in January of a house for $550,000. But they failed to disclose that that house sold for about 10% less than the seller paid a few years ago and that at the rate of sale for $500,000-$1,000,000 properties in our little backwater there is currently a nine YEAR inventory of such houses on the market.
Chris, a couple of points to clarify:
This lot is not 4.6 acres but 6 acres because it also includes 1.42 acres across the street on the lake.
Total assessment is $2.1 million when you include the additional parcel.
I bet you it sold for less than its assessed value. That is well below its last asking price. So this makes your point even stronger.
Chris, you make an excellent point. The examples you gave us so far are:
425 North Maple asked $3.125 and got $1.75
25 Wilshire asked $3.495 and will get below $2
35 Winding asked $3.25 and will get below $1.6
So whether it is close to town or far from town, sellers consistently ask almost twice what the property is worth.
Mazama,
I would bet that the majority of the advertising dollars that support your local media come from the real estate industry. If that is true, it is your job to know that most of what is printed is BS. Just saying.
Maybe I’m having a mood today, but I sort of like the house. Water views are pretty (granted, back of the house is not so much). But, with some creative remodeling, could be nice. And six acres to hide from your crazy Greenwich neighbors sounds quite lovely right about now.
I like the house too, RE Junkie and I would certainly not tear it down. But in today’s market, with today’s buyers, I’ll bet it’s history, when it sells.
Too bad. But you’re probably right. Someone who can afford to pay 2 million for the house, upkeep 4 (or 6) acres of land – and a tennis court, and pay $20K in taxes probably won’t want to live in the house. Welcome to Greenwich.
How does the town’s assessment relate to the “market” or sales value? In short, what bearing does the 1.9 (or 2.1) have on sales price?
The assessments are useful, I think, when spread over time and a wide area. Before the recent reevaluation and before the crash, for example, Riverside and Old Greenwich were trading, on average, at 2.3 (? something like that) the assessment.
But to apply an assessment to a particular house can be misleading. Appraisers do a good job but they can err – that’s why we have appeals therefrom.
Thank you for the explanation. (Although I confess I’m still a muddled mess.) I had been reading 70% of market but I was unclear what that meant and if recent town assessments (post 2008 crash) had made the 70% rule moot or more relevant. The assessment number as a tool in house hunting seems too unreliable.
An assessment is supposed to be 70% of estimated market value so multiply by 1.3 (roughly) to get what the town thinks it’s worth. Again, it’s one bit of data that can be useful, but I certainly wouldn’t rely on it solely.
This house is an “upside-down house”. You enter on the top floor and go downstairs to the other level. Also you can barely see the water – that MLS photo is misleading. That photo was taken once you go down the driveway walk across the street go onto a small dock and maybe you get a good photo.
An MLS photo misleading? How DARE YOU!
“ . . . so multiply by 1.3 (roughly) to get what the town thinks it’s worth.”
That’ll get you to 91%. (1.4 gets closer at 98%)
If you want the ‘correct’ number, divide by 0.7