Still at 2003 price levels

50 Londonderry

50 Londonderry

50 Londonderry Road has sold for $1.7 million; it sold for $1.729 million in 2003. I liked this house – good location, no significant Merritt noise, 2.45 acres, pool, and renovated in 1997. It felt like a very pleasant home when I saw it during a broker open house and obviously someone else liked it too. This sale puts the lie to that idiot blogger (ahem) who speaks of all 1967-era houses as being teardowns. There are exceptions, and this is clearly one of them. But my larger point, that you can get this type of home almost for free after paying land costs, still stands.

Which makes this a great deal.

9 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

9 responses to “Still at 2003 price levels

  1. D

    What scares me is that they’re at this level with mortgage rates almost half what they were (~6% in ’03 vs ~3.5% now)… rates will eventually have to return to historic norms – watch out below…

  2. Anonymous

    Rates may be lower, but it is much much harder to qualify for a mortgage.

  3. D

    Maybe for moderate income people, but not when you’re trying to get a $1-2M jumbo which represents 50% or less loan-to-cost… at that low leverage banks are falling over each other to do it. Wasn’t there even a recent article saying banks are even doing 100% of cost loans for these customers? Fine print is they’re requiring security in additional assets (brokerage accounts, etc) so its not 100% of value… but still 100% of cost.

  4. Anonymous

    Yes. It’s easy to get a 2mm jumbo with 50% down. It always will be. But it’s impossible to get a 2mm jumbo with 10% down. This was very easy in 2003.

  5. Anonymous

    Putting $200k down on a $2million house should never have been allowed and good riddance to that buyer.

    It just seems foolish to think that the income to support a $1.8m mortgage is something you can count on for 30 years at %6. How could someone not have saved more at that income level?

    There something different about allowing $20k on a $200k house since the jobs to support a $180k mortgage are more plentiful and cover a broader spectrum of the population.

    • Enrique

      How about the 33 yo young professional who has just $200k saved up, has a large enough salary to afford the cash flow requires to service a $2m note but hasn’t had enough time to come up with more? I’d much rather see this candidate get the loan than the 45 yo guy with 400k in the bank and a shorter shelf life to pay for that house. Point is you can’t judge the buyers potential solely on their cash savings IMO

  6. Anonymous

    I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, but it explains why prices aren’t higher despite lower interest rates.