End Of The Year Goes Out With A Bang In Brentwood!
Brentwood said goodbye to 2011 with some imprressive price drops in December. Being one of the most sought after neighborhoods in Los Angeles, it may come as a suprise to some. The truth is, no neighborhood has now been spared by the real estate decline going into it's 5th year. Places like Brentwood that claimed, "this area is different", or "that's happening only in the outlying areas" are just plain wrong, or in denial. Short sales and foreclosures have now begun in all of the best neighborhoods of Los Angeles. The debate is no longer if prices are declining, but how much.
All that being said, let's turn out attention to some specific sales in Brentwood and discuss these individual houses. The first one on Albata Street is particularly interesting. This home was built in 2007 and sold in November of that year, which was the peak on The Westside. It demonstrates a 29.2 percent decline in just 49 months. by my calculations, that's a loss of $207,000 per year on new construction.
If anyone has more information about these houses, please provide us with insight so we can discuss them intelligently.. As for those who resort to name calling or personal attacks, they will be deleted immediately. A zero tolerance policy is now in effect.
BRENTWOOD
11426 Albata Street 90049
4+4, 4000 sqft
YB 2007, 5250 sqft Lot
Sold on 11/15/07 for $2,895,000
Sold on 12/19/11 for $2,050,000 (-29.2%)
3432 Mandeville Canyon 90049
3+2, 2016 sqft
YB 1955, .34 acre Lot
Sold on 6/2/99 for $750,000
Sold on 12/22/11 for $941,150 (+25.5%)
SHORT SALE
738 N. Kenter Avenue 90049
4+5, 2987 sqft
YB 1957, 11515 sqft Lot
Sold on 12/27/11 for $1,400,000
SHORT SALE
152 Granville Avenue 90049
5+4.5, 3757 sqft
YB 1947, .34 acre Lot
Sold on 11/14/00 for $1,875,000
Sold on 12/12/11 for $2,300,000 (+25.3%)
SHORT SALE
632 Hanley Avenue 90049
5+5, 5561 sqft
YB 1983, 10070 sqft Lot
Sold on 7/28/93 for $1,180,000
Sold on 12/23/11 for $2,020,000 (+71.2%)
11174 Sunset Boulevard 90049
3+3.5, 3448 sqft
YB 1951, .30 acre Lot
Sold on 12/7/11 for $1,425,000
13020 Baltic Street 90049
4+3, 2636 sqft
YB 1952, 9899 sqft Lot
Sold on 12/16/11 for $1,617,250
733 S. Burlingame 90049
4+3, 2950 sqft
YB 1926, 9000 sqft Lot
Sold on 12/22/11 for $2,200,000
Spanish Hacienda
379 Fordyce Road 90049
4+4, 3400 sqft
YB 1950, 40956 sqft Lot
Sold on 12/6/11 for $900,000 ??????
Posts
20 comments:
It looks like I will have to moderate each comment now. Perhaps the market is getting worse and some are getting angrier. The market doesn't care, it just is.
Instead of being angry, they should get smart and read "How to strategically default" at Businessinsider.com. It would be a better use of their time, rather than ranting on this blog. Why keep throwing good money after bad?
I'm seeing some material drops in PV, which I know isn't the westside, but it is a good substitute for some who oftentimes telecommute. I don't have specifics but my general observation is that this market is down 30% since the downturn began. My thought is the substitution effect is going to come into play and the westside price declines are going to accelerate.
The declines might even be worse. Usually, for a short-term flip, there are some improvements put in, so the cost basis is usually much higher than the buy price.
This is a little off topic, but I came across an excellent rent vs buy calculator at :
finance.yahoo.com/calculator/lifestyle/hom06
It spells out your decision for you financially. The only problem is, you can't put in negative numbers for appreciation. I was generous and put in a 1% average per year for the next 5 years. Needless to say, it looks like I will be renting until we see some appreciation that at least keeps up with inflation.
Problem I have with the calculators is that 13 years ago they told me to rent.
That is fine and all, but even if the bubble pricing (still around today) didnt happen, they would still be telling me to rent. Thus the question then becomes, what is the "endgame". Is it to rent for the rest of your life?
In some places, that answer is yes, and for the older folks, thats probably the right idea too, but what about me, now 37 and still on the sidelines?
Honestly, I think the problem with the calculators is that they stop after 30 years of comparison. If you are 25 and are making decisions that will affect (at least part of) the next 60 years of your life, why not draw the calculator out to 60 years -- see exactly where the breakpoint is between renting and buying. Is the breakpoint year 31? Or is it 50? Or is it an inverse relationship where it never makes sense to buy? Inquiring minds want to know.
I ask because had I ignored the calculators in 1999, I would now be in year 13 toward payoff, with another 17 to go. As it stands I am now at year 0 with 30 to go.
Bottom line, I do not want to be making payments of any kind (other than taxes) when I am 85. Frankly, I dont want to be making them at age 70 either, but thats where I fear things are headed for me.
it all depends on your Age, How long you plan on staying in the house, Amount of down payment, Loan Term and Market Trend. Each person is different. If you know those parameters, then you can plug it in and see how it works for you. Perhaps the main factor is what the equity would be when you plan to sell. Given the current market trend and where we are in the real estate cycle, that is a big risk.
if your time frame is 10 years or less and have a down payment of 20% less I would say no. Interest will kill you.
If you base your decision on looking back at better days, you may not see the current reality as clearly as you would if you look at the facts today.
If you bought a house in 1994 and sold it in 2005, yes, you probably did very well.
This isn't 1994. It's 2012. There are many factors that LateSummer has covered in his posts that point to a weak real estate market at the present time.
The argument that "things work out in the long run" or "just give it time" -- those are arguments to make people who are stuck feel better. Let's face it: There are a lot of people stuck. Dreaming of a brighter future in the long terms definitely feels good.
But keep your eye on the present circumstances. Is there a reason to buy right now? It's hard to come up with a compelling one.
I agree with the lifelong renter. When do you bite the bullet?
I bought in '94 in Santa Monica, when the market was crappy.
I bought a foreclosure (BTW there were tons of foreclosures on the market in every price range then in SM, which I really do not see today)
Certain conditions for me made it attractive. Low price of entry (but high interest rate...something like 8%)
Proximity to good schools, parks, beaches, shopping. Walkable neighborhood
We were paying $1500 for a tiny 2 bedroom rental. I think we ended up paying about $2300 on a mortgage. That seemed like a fair trade off. Rentals were expensive as NO ONE wanted to buy (sound familiar?) We bought a 3 bedroom/2 bath house, so bigger than the tiny rental.
And guess what? Prices went DOWN another 10% in 1995-96. That didn't feel good. But it was not the end of the world or downright shameful like some would make you feel on this blog.
You know why? We were where we wanted to be....we were in with a payment we could afford...for the longish haul.
Cut to 2005...we wanted more room. So instead of selling our house, we borrowed on it to buy another house in SM. And we rent the original house out now for a crazy amount. And we have a bigger house too.
I am telling you this long winded story to illustrate the fact that NO ONE will tell you its a good time to buy (unless you listen to your realtor)....you have to buy when it makes sense for you and your family AND the rental market is high.
1994 is not 2012 as the other poster said. We are only half way dow the biggest RE bubble in history on The Westside. Also, good jobs have taken a huge hit since outsourcing kicked into high gear after 1994.
Perhaps the most important thing you just said was, there were foreclosures at every price level available in Santa Monica and nobody wanted to buy. Also, rents were almost or about comparable to purchasing. Big difference from today, where purchasing is almost double, there is a sprinkling of foreclosures and many would stll like to buy. That tells me that we have a ways to go from here.
i don't believe 1994 is comparable to 2012 at all.
I must be the lifelong renter that Anon 8:35 is referring to. I've owned 4 houses during the last 18 years. I've made money on 3 of them and lost money on 4 of them.
I'm planning on waiting until the dust clears in this market. There are so many downside risks, it doesn't make sense to buy right now. The argument that "things work out in the long run" or "dipping a little isn't so bad" doesn't make sense.
Do you know that if you have 20% equity in a house and the price drops 10% and it costs 6% to sell the house, then you just lost 80% of your equity (16% of 20% = 80%).
That's not good.
Not to mention 3% closing costs, 1% in taxes, plus maintenace and insurance puts you underwater in a down trending market.
There goes $100,000 - $200,000 at least, to be the proud debtor of your "own home" and all the worry of how much more it can drop.
In the Anon 9:49 post above, I meant I've made money on 3 of the houses I've owned and lost money on one of them.
LateSummer, you can correct the post, if you want.
Latesummer
this blog has gone six days without a post - it may be because there is more interest in North of Montana than in Brentwood. try a North of montana thread, see if you get more and better posts.
Mike C. Judge bought a four-bedroom, 4.5-bath home at 327 Alta Ave. in Santa Monica from Richard Loren Taite for $4.5 million on Nov. 1.
Taite paid $3.6 million for the property in May 2009. The 3,742-square-foot house was built in 1974 in North of Montana. It is located in The Palisades subdivision.
Judge is the creator and also a voice over of the animated TV series "King of the Hill". He is also the creator and starred in MTV's "Beavis and Butt-Head".
Does anyone know if the house was improved in any way between 2009 and today? I would assume so since the market is down in that time period - let's discuss specific sales histories
Yes, lets discuss how the 1% handle their housing needs.
Let's see what area people on this blog would like to see next.
Beverly Hills
Brentwood
Pacific Palisades
Santa Monica
Westwood
Venice
Marina del Rey
Culver City
Mar Vista
Beverlywood
West LA
Rancho Park
Century City
Cheviot Hills
West Hollywood
Malibu
Bel Air
Go ahead people, choose one of these areas and we will see what's next.
Right on, Anon at 10:27 pm! As much as I like NOM 90402, I'm more realistic and not in the 1 percent or so that can afford that particular area.
If blog visitors here want to be in NOM 90402, then they had better start working for firms like Bain Capital right out of college or have family funds.
I remember teachers asking "What do you want to be, Amy -- "A nurse" and "What do you want to be, Jason? -- "A detective."
"And what about you, Anonymous? -- Oh, I'd like to be a private equity fund manager or a venture capitalist."
For NOM 90402 nowadays, you must be groomed very, very early.
So, let's start looking at less expensive parts of Culver City, Beverly Hills, and Santa Monica, where the school districts and services are relatively good, and the prices below $1 million.
Agreed.
1m entry level homes with good city services and schools
I vote Westwood, Brentwood and West LA
How about a discussion of places on the West Side where you can buy a small SFR for under 900k in a district with spectacular primary schools?
Most middle schools on the West side are crummy, so forget that but let's talk about places where I can spend 900k and get a great primary school
Post a Comment