A Berkeley craftsman that sold swiftly when it went on the market just over a year ago is back: 2637 Woolsey Street in The Elmwood didn’t hang around long in February 2008 after it listed for $925,000. [Hat tip: reader Debtpocalypse.] Update: In fact it sold on March 3, 2008 for $1,075,000.
The fact that it’s ready for its comeback doesn’t astound me — after all there are all sorts of reasons people might be regretting home buying decisions from 12 months ago. What does surprise me is that the asking price today is $25,000 higher than last time. This speaks of an attempt to flip (there’s talk of refinished floors and an updated bathroom, but no more), or a remarkable confidence in today’s floundering market. Update: Even if the house sold for comfortably over its asking price a year ago, is it realistic to expect it to do the same today?
Note that a comparable home at 2932 Piedmont Avenue is failing to sell after 119 days on the MLS and two price cuts, from $1,195,000 to its current $995,000.
Wow, they’re listing with Realty Advocates too, a “reduced fee” realtor. Nothing like cutting costs on a $1 million property.
A beautiful house in a beautiful location! Nothing like a nice walk to House of Curries. However sorry about my french, but $1M can buy a sh*tload of Naan.
Well, 94705 was one of the few reas to actually appreciate in 2008, albeit at only 1% but appreciation nonetheless. However, definitely being sold at a loss at $925K on a $1.075m purchase (plus costs). Realtor fees are steep on a $million plus house so I’m not surprised at the use of a discount broker for someone who is taking a loss.
[...] writer (Tracy at http://www.BayAreaHomeGirl.com) has the basic facts right: my clients bought it just over a year ago, 3/3/08 and they paid [...]
From the listing agent’s response:
Somehow to Tracy, a $150,000 loss ($1,075,000 paid minus $950,000 now asking) “speaks at an attempt to flip, or a remarkable confidence in today’s floundering market.”
Huh? Taking a $150k loss is an indicator of a flip?
——————————————————————–
Mathematically speaking, $1.075 minus $950K = $125K
An eventual transaction at $925K would generate the $150K loss you twice invoke. (You didn’t mistakenly betray the seller’s true reservation price, right?)
While you’re invoking comps, I’m not sure how observed declines in a “median” informs pricing in the upper quartile. Redfin currently indicates that the “average” price in Berkeley is ~$600K. (FD: I have no idea how that specific number is calculated, although I assume it is a simple average – a.k.a., “the mean”.) At $950K, the listing carries a multiple over 1.5X the “average” Berkeley house for sale.
Shouldn’t one invoke the pricing trends of comparable houses, rather than a median house? I would say, “Yes”: if I am in the market for a used BMW, I am not so interested in how a “median used car price” has behaved during the past year.
Just sayin’….
Finally, I am sorry for the financial misfortune that the seller must absorb. We have likely all weathered various losses the past 12 months. I would take issue, however, with your characterization of an eventual “lucky buyer” enjoying a “benefit” from a transaction at offer. It seems to me such a perspective presupposes an eventual buyer at $950K will necessarily be getting a bargain. In the absence of more information, I am unpersuaded. Instead, we may simply one party who overpaid selling to a subsequent party who also overpays (despite the first party absorbing a capital loss on the transaction).
If I’m not mistaken, Zillow shows this property transacted for $330K in August of 1990, or about 19 years ago. A transaction at current asking would constitute a CAGR of 5.75% over that time period. I hardly doubt incomes in either Berkeley or the broader Bay Area, have grown at a comparable rate since 1990… and ultimately, while homes may be a financed asset, they are eventually purchased from income. Which is why the growth in income correlates well with house prices over long periods of time.
Very best of luck with the sale.