Tag Archives: Price cuts

Price cuts, notable and unnotable

6 Lauder Way, originally $16.9 million and later $15.5 was reduced today to $13.9.

The owners of Copper Beech weren’t so bold. They dropped their price $100,000 to $7.895 million. If you’ve been holding back, now’s your chance.

56 Sound View Drive, the condos still under construction near Town Hall, saw one unit dropped from $3.195 to $2.995. Okay.

124 Porchuck, a mock-Tudor sort of house, sold for $2.895 in 2005, had some renovations performed and is back up for sale today at $3.195.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Then and now

16 Barnstable

16 Barnstable

Sold, 2007: $2.3 million, 75 days

Ask, 2009: $1.9 million (1 year at $2.295)

Comments Off on Then and now

Filed under Uncategorized

Cutting to the Bone

9 Boulder Brook, a very nice spec house built by one of the best companies in town, has seen its price reduced $100,000 today to $6.450 million. I sympathise with builders who are watching their profit drain away from projects and this builder doesn’t need my advice but if you are in a similar situation and do need advice, here it is: buyers in this market have already reduced your house, in their mind, far more than $100,000, so a price cut in that amount isn’t going to do much to persuade them to bid.

Just my opinion.

Comments Off on Cutting to the Bone

Filed under Uncategorized

Sales still happen

215 Orchard

215 Orchard

And not necessarily at rock-bottom prices. This one on Orchard, across from Central Middle School, sold last week for an even $3 million. That’s down from its asked-for price of $3.8 back in 2006 but it’s not all that painful. Who knew there was a $3 million buyer out there?

 

126 Cat Rock

126 Cat Rock

But here’s an example of a house that still won’t sell, despite being very close to its 2001 price, when it sold at full price for $3.6million. Today it’s at $3.7 million. Other than reader Stanwich, who loves the road, Cat Rock is often a difficult sell, particularly in a weak market. My guess, and it’s just a guess, is that, if these owners have to sell in the near future, they’re going to have to take a loss.

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

2004, 2009 – that was then, this is now

In 2004, 7 Orchard Drive in Milbrook sold for $3.780 million. The buyers relisted it for $4.895 in May, 2006 and today, several brokers and price changes later, it’s offered at $2.999 million.

Comments Off on 2004, 2009 – that was then, this is now

Filed under Uncategorized

New pricing

I had coffee with another realtor this morning and she told me that she and a friend had gone through Friday’s Greenwich Time real estate ads looking for prices that reflected the “new” market vs. those that were still pegged at the old. No surprise to me, she and her friend felt that most houses advertised were still in the old market.

That said, here are two price reductions listed today. Old or new market? Buyers will decide that – I just report.

57 Byram Shore Road

57 Byram Shore Road

 

This house on a half acre with water views sold for $1.450 in February 2002, was renovated and put back up for sale in January ’05 for $5.775 million. It eventually dropped to $3.950 and expired unsold. The owner tried again in ’06 at $4.495 and again was unsuccessful. It was again returned to the market in November ’08, this time at $4.650 and today was reduced to $4.295.

435 Lake Avenue, a total renovation, was priced at $12.750 million last fall and dropped today to $10.5 million. That’s quite a drop and perhaps reflects the seller’s over-estimate of his house’s worth. He may still be engaged in wishful thinking but it is a very nice house and 18% lower is better than 18% higher.

8 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

More price cuts

Twenty-three of them today (plus a couple of “new” listings that are just recycled old ones with new prices). Of note, perhaps, is 309 Taconic, which has fallen from $31 million in November ’07 to $18 million today.

228 Stanwich, which has been in free fall recently, was reduced to $1.599 on Februry 25th and lost another $100,000 today for a new price of $1.499.

17 Thornhill in Riverside (but north of the Post Road) asked $845,000 in October ’08 and is asking $625,000 as of today.

And 66 Sherwood Avenue, a new listing, asks $2,89,876 but notes that sellers “will entertain offers starting at $2,495,000. I guess if our market is going to drop to the bottom like the English market has, we might as well adopt their pricing strategy, too.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Market report for Tuesday morning

Before my page buckles me into my armour and helps me into my Honda for the broker open house tour, I thought I’d report on some news that came across the wire this morning.

8-st-claire-ave8 St. Claire Ave. (OG) is under contract, one step ahead of the repo man. Asking was around $925,000. I had builders interested at $650 but they never bothered to bid. It will be interesting to see what someone did bid.

Price reductions Twelve

Those two condos at 56 Milbank (we called them Whole Foods ) have finally dropped a million bucks each to $4.9 million, after two years at $5.9 million each.

44 Grahampton, purchased for $5.125 in ’04 and put up for sale in October ’07 for $6.995 has dropped to $5.450 today.

218-valley-rd

218 Valley Road, Cos Cob, sold for $331,000 in 1996 and was relisted at $1.150 million in June, 2007. Five price cuts later, it’s down to $649,000 today.

 

10 Taconic Road sold as new construction in 2001 for $4.795 million (full price, seven days on the market – ahaaaa). Listed at $8.67 million this past August today it has a new broker and a new price, $7.775.

24 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Over pricing in the days of darkness

52 Pecksland Rd

52 Pecksland Rd

Never a good idea. This very nice house on Pecksland was purchased for $3.495 million in November 2005 and put back up for sale in September, 2008 for $3.995. That didn’t work out well and it sustained several price cuts before finally expiring unsold today at an asking price of $3.1 million. It sold for $2 million back in 1999, but that was one renovation and addition ago, so I wouldn’t think it will drop to that range. But somewhere between $2 and $3 million ought to find its strike price.

Comments Off on Over pricing in the days of darkness

Filed under Uncategorized

Deep Pockets

The Greenwich MLS is closed today and there are no new listings or price reductions to amuse me so I thought I’d spend a little time checking in on the 79 houses currently for sale asking $7.5 million or more. Since none is moving, I wondered whether the sellers had made any concession to the market and dropped their price. To a surprising extent, they have not.

I did not check all 79 listings but rather picked a handful at random. It amazes me how many are still at their original price, six months or more after first being offered. And many of those that have seen price cuts have dropped just a million dollars which, from $9 million, doesn’t seem like much of a concession. There are a few notable exceptions. The Helmsley place was slashed $30 million but that’s to $95 million from an original $125 and I doubt many of us will be diving for our checkbooks to take advantage . Tommy Hilfiger’s Round Hill house has dropped from $28 million to $22, and poor old 309 Taconic from $31 million all the way down to $19 – they’re practically giving it away. 247 Byram Road, waterfront, has dropped $4 million from its first $12 million ask and I suppose that’s progress. That’s pretty much it (oh, there are a few more that come to mind, the spec house on Cornelia and the other spec on S. Baldwin are both down multiple – millions). Are all these owners really so financially secure that they can wait out this market and get their price at some undetermined time yet to come? They give that appearance, but I don’t believe it, especially of the spec builders. I think things will get interesting in the next few months.

But perhaps not. 21 Topping Road, a land parcel just down the hill from Leaona, failed to sell for $37.5 million way back in 2003. It’s been back on the market since last September demanding $49.5 million. So far, no sale and no price cut. No one’s going to steal that property!

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Price reductions

Despite what I say below about being at a loss to precisely assess relative values these days, I’m not completely helpless nor are my colleagues. So if you’re going to reduce your price, make sure that you move the price below what we’ve already marked it down to. There’s a house in Riverside, for instance, held by a relocation company, that’s been sitting on the market well below what it’s original owner paid for it. I don’t know who is ultimately responsible for the loss in this case – owner or relocation company, but that’s immaterial. What I do know is that the house is sitting vacant and not going up in value, and it’s asked for price of $2.195 million is too high (or it would have sold, obviously). I’ve already calculated that the seller will, or at least should, accept an offer below $2.0 million so when the price dropped last week by $100,000 to $2.195, it didn’t stir me to action. We already knew you’d sell it for that and we’ve gone on ahead of you – tell us something we don’t already know, like maybe, you’ll sell it for $1.595. That would make us all sit up and take notice.

Because I’m a nice guy, I won’t use this occasion to bash the home owner on Stanwich who is reducing his price $10,000 every week, but I will suggest that price cuts of $100,000 would probably be more productive than little nibbles. If, say, you’re at $2.8 million, we’re all pretty confident that you’ll accept an offer of $2,790,000, so moving the price there does nothing – give us something we can email our clients about, please?

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized