A tipster notes that the infamous 868 Arkansas has finally sold for a reported $975,000. That’s $76,000 over the list price we featured in January, and $26,000 over the previous list price of last October. That also happens to be the exact same amount that was offered (and declined) in the fall of 2005 ($14,000 under the list price at the time).
∙ Another Try (And Reduction) For 868 Arkansas [SocketSite]
∙ The Article (And The House) [SocketSite]
∙ Home prices slip after 4 hot years [SFGate]
So the market has actually been flat for this (choose one: home/block/neighborhood/city) over the past 18 months? That’s funny because I keep reading about a “HOT” market in which homes are selling for “OVER ASKING” and generating “MULTIPLE BIDS”. Perhaps the Chronicle should publish a correction: “Home prices don’t slip…they just fall flat”.
“Home prices don’t slip…they just fall flat”.
It’s really dangerous to believe blanket statements about any market. I’m amazed there is an expectation that one sentance can encompass so many differents micro markets in this city.
It’s true some places are Hot, many are going over asking, offer dates have come back to many places, and many properties are sitting like cold ducks.
It’s all about timing and pricing. Underpricing that home as a selling tactic would not have worked last year as buyer sentiment was much darker then. The market picked up this year beginning of the year so over asking bidding was again a viable and successful tactic.
Who knows what next weeks Buyer sentiment will bring but no use slamming those reporting it.
Blanket – I don’t disagree and I wasn’t trying to slam anyone, but I do think your statement about “under pricing” just reinforces my point. Forget the “over asking” aspect: how do you interpret this home selling for no more than was offered in 2005?
when I see something sit and sit for a long time, then suddenly go for way over asking, I don’t immediately think “market picked up.” I start thinking “cash back at close?”
It was originally offered at 949k on 11/03/05.
It seems it was overpriced to begin with. The owner was looking for the overbid that never materialized.
http://sfarmls.rapmls.com/scripts/mgrqispi.dll?APPNAME=Sanfrancisco&PRGNAME=MLSLogin&ARGUMENT=Nu8w8BXYEccrbVWnlnAijE%2B%2FfkzZCjSgjnvpkJTsTGI%3D&KeyRid=1
Prices are all over the place in S.F. My neighbors house sold for way more than I thought it would considering a similar property sold for 200k less six months earlier. And it sold in less than a week in late 2006. Using my example to determine the market really doesn’t mean very much, and the same can be said for using 868 Arkansas and writing the market has been flat the last eighteen months. It all depends…
‘I don’t immediately think “market picked up.” I start thinking “cash back at close?”‘
Isn’t this illegal?
There was no cash back at close – not that it doesn’t happen – but it didn’t in this case.
Cash back at close is not illegal as long as the lender knows about it and in general it isn’t really cash back but a credit towards one time closing fees a gross conservative estimate of 3%.
There are ways around the cash back at close some of which are illegal, some of which aren’t. It can be a grey area and can fall under lender fraud which is under intense investigation by the FBI right now.
Cash back at coe is not illegal. It can be in a form of a credit for non recurring closing costs. The selling agent can give a rebate as well. See zip realty for details.
Ann – I dont think it’s a flat line. This home sold in 2004 in the mid $700k range, the owner did upgrades and had closing costs, but they still cleared over a $100k profit in three years time. Not a bad investment overall and not what I would call a ‘flat market’ but I can see your point.
That’s a great investment but the gains were realized between 2004 and 2005. $975K was offered for the house in 2005 and it sold for $975K in 2007. I might be missing something, but in this case that sounds flat to me.
Plus I seem to remember from the original article in the paper that the owner put a lot of money into renovating it.
what was offered and what it was worth are two different things. Obviously, if it didn’t sell for 949k in 2005 the market said it wasn’t worth it.
Here’s what it looked like in 04
http://sfarmls.rapmls.com/scripts/mgrqispi.dll?APPNAME=Sanfrancisco&PRGNAME=MLSLogin&ARGUMENT=kfd9MCwmQSYr%2Bw2xWwmmXZPBtozo1ciPox0e%2FhcV7rA%3D&KeyRid=1
No, the market/offer said it was worth $975K in 2005 but for some reason the seller thought it was worth more. Then the market said it wasn’t worth $949K in 2006 when it didn’t receive any offers. And now the market says it’s worth $975K.
I don’t believe she received an offer at 975k in 2005 even though she claimed so in the SFGATE article. I do believe the market said it wasn’t worth it in 2006.
She listed it for $989k in June 06. Maybe, painting the building help sell it.
I guess another question would be, what’s so special about flat? The S&P 500 is up approximately 15% since Fall 2005. A 9x leveraged position in the index would have had a return that would make even a homeowner proud.