Okay, I’m sure I can’t run a bank, but he shouldn’t price real estate (or photograph it)

CitiGroup’s Vikram Pandit’s house on Pecksland has been reduced to $3.999 million from its April price of $4.3 million. I wasn’t wild about it back then and even though he paid $4.1 for it in 2001, I think he’s still got a ways to go before he rids himself of this weekend home. 145 Parsonage Road, by the way, which I also saw that day and liked very much, even priced at $4.995, sold within days. Hmmm.

5 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

5 responses to “Okay, I’m sure I can’t run a bank, but he shouldn’t price real estate (or photograph it)

  1. ML

    This house needs a lot of work. Who took these pictures of the dead grass?? My Lord, cant he even hire a decent broker? Chris, I think you could have done better with your iphone. Well, maybe that why he ran Citi into the ground.

    • I understand that the grass might have been dead in April when this was first listed but for $4 million bucks the broker can’t be bothered to go back up there and take some new pictures? This gig is a lazy one, admittedly, but still ….

      UPDATE: It’s a Sotheby’s listing which I’m sure has the same photo budget its other Realogy-owned peers, Coldwell Banker, Century 21 and Murray’s Trailer Sales have: one go round, no matter how long the thing sits on the market. Unluckily for Pandit, there was no snow this winter, or his house would be displayed on the Iternet with a pretty white snowscape instead of dead grass.

  2. anon

    i’ve been in this house; it’s blah in every way shape and form; zero character; cold in the sense that it has that decorated not lived-in feel. the other teensy matter that grinds me is that 144 shares a driveway; not for very long, but share it does, with some house in the back. i agree with your assessment that this will sit.

  3. anonymous

    is there really such a thing as a photo budget or were you telling tales for the sake of good reading? It’s a question I’ve never thought to ask a broker when selling a house. I am surprised there aren’t more homeowner supplied photos for listings since agents seems to care less about dead grass and toilet seats up. and why aren’t homeowners up in arms when there are lousy photos? they are the ones with the greater vested interest.

    • There certainly are (very limited) advertising budgets for listings. I don’t know whether an agent needs special permission from world-wide headquarters to get updated photographs but it certainly seems that way, since the pictures never change. For that matter, I’m pretty sure that agents pay out of their own pocket for any photographs at all, even the original ones, which explains the plethora of snapshots obviously taken with iPhones or worse.