«
»

Friday, February 20th, 2009 at 5:29 AM

Number of Vacant Listings

If you’re looking for a deal, your best chance is with a vacant property.

Here’s a glimpse of the detached and attached ACTIVE listings, and percent of vacants:

Oct. 12th:  6,876 vacant/16,947 total = 40.6%

Feb. 20th:  5,600 vacant/14,518 total = 38.6%

**********************************************************************

Here’s a look at the PENDING file:

Oct. 12th: 3,940 vacant/6,095 total pendings = 64.6%

Feb. 20th: 3,940 vacant/5,934 total pendings = 66.4%

Don’t you love the statistical quirks – the exact same number of vacant pendings!

***********************************************************************

SOLDS between January 1st and February 19th:

2008 – 1,375 vacants/2,094 total = 65.7%

2009 – 2,484 vacants/3,209 total = 77.4% of all solds were vacant

Though sales are up 53% YOY, you can see why, the vacants are up 81%. 

There are bank deals, and everything else.

Thinking of selling? 

Do what the banks do – vacate the property and price it 5% under the comps!

Posted on Friday, February 20th, 2009 at 5:29 AM in Thinking of Buying?, Thinking of Selling?, Vacants | 15 Comments » | Print Print You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Reader Comments: 15 Responses

  1. I must have missed something. When did the banks stop overpricing their REOs and start listing them at 5% under the comps?

    GeneK | February 20th, 2009 at 7:12 am

  2. “When did the banks stop overpricing their REOs and start listing them at 5% under the comps?”

    I have very limited experience with the whole RE thing, but I’m guessing that the properties that are actually selling are primarily REOs which are vacant and 5% (or more) under comps. I suspect that banks are trying to recover the face value of the loan when they sell REOs, so ones where the owner was underwater are going to be overpriced, while ones with lower LTV will be priced to move. (I’m not in SD, but I would not be surprised if some REOs are listed sky high while others on the same street are pulling down comps.)

    NateTG | February 20th, 2009 at 7:42 am

  3. Recently, or the buyers are paying more, relatively. My last eight REOs:

    LP/SP/Date

    $349,900/$320,000/Nov 10
    $147,900/$135,000/Nov 14 (bando house)
    $364,900/$370,000/Nov 25
    $176,900/$183,000/Nov 26
    $209,900/$209,900/Dec 16
    $184,900/$220,000/Jan 7
    $384,500/$385,000/Jan 21
    $264,900/$273,000/Feb 13

    Low-end REOs are selling for LP or higher, with multiple offers on virtually every REO listed, mine and others.

    One that I have in escrow now listed for $189,900 (my BPO was $210,000). Had eight offers, sold for $220,000.

    Appraiser runs over there without calling me (we had begged for a call to explain) and appraises it for $205,000, apprarently killing the deal.

    I put it back on the market, and get three other buyers who make offers at $220,000 net. I go back to the asset manager, and he says “We’ll have the same appraisal problem, let’s just sell it to the first buyer for $205,000.”

    Because the first buyer was FHA, any other FHA buyers coming later are bound to the first FHA appraisal price.

    Jim the Realtor | February 20th, 2009 at 7:52 am

  4. What happened to the conventional wisdom that empty houses never sell? (Personally, I never understood this at the low end. A small house, when removed of its stuff, looks much bigger and you overlook the 5 foot wide kitchen.

    Bigger houses/McMansions get sort of cavernous when empty, IMHO, (especially when the previous owner rips out of the appliances and columns nad speakers and….) but I could see empty condos and 2 bedroom villas looking way better when empty.

    Former RB Resident | February 20th, 2009 at 8:07 am

  5. Make and offer for $220k and have the seller counter with $205k. Wow!

    LC Jim | February 20th, 2009 at 8:19 am

  6. If I’m looking at houses, how the house looks empty makes more of a difference than the fact that it’s empty. There’s an awful lot of stuff hiding behind and under peoples’ furniture that I’d prefer not to think about being in my home.

    GeneK | February 20th, 2009 at 11:51 am

  7. Not to mention that some people might be put off having to see the faces of the people being turned-out of their home. A vacant home would seem to me to be a more neutral experience for most, (though I can picture one frequent contributor here yelling at people to “get out of his house”).

    Mozart | February 20th, 2009 at 1:09 pm

  8. That would be “Get out of my house DEADBEAT!”.

    LC Jim | February 20th, 2009 at 1:12 pm

  9. Sorry, should have put, “a few frequent contributors here”.

    Mozart | February 20th, 2009 at 1:28 pm

  10. DEADBEATS! Get a job or get out of my house! If you can’t pay the mortgage RENT. That’s that’s what everyone not in the privileged “homeowner class” does. ;-)

    shadash | February 20th, 2009 at 4:14 pm

  11. Jim,
    I was one of the first offers on this house you speak of, Manzanita.
    I was FHA and my highest and best was 225k. You told my agent that you wouldn’t put us as a back up because your first 2 were sure things.
    I’m a little confused at the situation now.

    KDeLauro | February 20th, 2009 at 7:35 pm

  12. Love that, call me out on my own blog, that’s right out of Dale Carnegie.

    Do you mind mentioning that you were asking for $5,000 of your closing costs to be paid by the seller? You were one of the three at $220,000 net, just like I said in my comment.

    Jim the Realtor | February 20th, 2009 at 10:34 pm

  13. It wasn’t supposed to be an offensive comment, it was to understand why you put it back on the market a second time when you had eight previous offers.
    I read your blog to get insight into the current market, and in this case clarification. Not to “call you out”.

    KDeLauro | February 21st, 2009 at 10:57 am

  14. In the beginning the asset manager was adamant about the $220,000 sticking, and had wanted me to get the winning buyer to release appraisal contingency as part of the original acceptance – before the appraisal was completed! I talke dhim out of it, but was on the hook.

    I took that as my directive to go find another buyer willing to pay the $220,000. You were one of the three that got hung out to dry when the AM decided to make the deal with the first buyer and get it over with.

    The last sentence of my original story was where the problem was – the three offerees were FHA, and we’re stuck with the initial FHA appraised value of $205,000.

    The Lending Tree appraiser screwed everyone in the deal by not calling me to verify comps. He appraised this listing for the exact same price as the home next door sold for a month earlier that was hammered and needed full renovation, plus was 100sf smaller. As you may recall, the subject property was in pristine condition.

    Jim the Realtor | February 21st, 2009 at 11:22 am

  15. Well, as we have someone say on this blog (I can’t remember if it was you or not), the comps are driving the prices. If a lender’s appraiser didn’t allow for the new listing being in better condition than the previous sale, maybe it’s ecause the lender who sent him doesn’t either…?

    GeneK | February 21st, 2009 at 8:00 pm

Post a new comment