By looking at the sales history on Redfin, we can see the value of this Mission Viejo house went up by "just" $91,000 between 1991 and 1999 - though it actually decreased in value by $69,000 from 1991-1995 and a seller lost money on the transaction.
The property proceeded to more than double in value between 1999 and 2004 (bubble anyone?) from $410,000 to an astounding $840,000. Even more astounding is a bagholder was found in July of 2005 who was willing to pay nearly $1 million for this property ($975,000).
Was this an actual transaction? Or is this a Redfin mistake and what we're actually seeing is some sort of refinance/cash out? Sorry, but this doesn't look like a million-dollar place to me. Easily livable, yes. Luxury? No way.
Today's market seem to agree with me. Now the property is up for sale for what would be a very sizable loss...
Asking price: $754,900
Asking price/ sq ft: $258
Income requirement: $188,725
Purchase price: $975,000
Purchase date: 7/21/2005
Size: 5 beds, 2.5 baths, 2,923 sq ft (built in 1970)
HOA dues: $16
Type: Single Family Residence
Style: Spanish
Stories: Two Levels
Lot size: 7,704 sq ft
From listing: Hardwood Floors, Spanish Pavers, Curb APPEAL with Arched walkways! Newer carpet, Large family room with wet bar and fireplace.
Trying to put ourselves into a buyer's frame of mind about this place...Pros: Location near a park and fairly close to the lake. Good-sized lot (common for this age) and home. Lots of bedrooms - bring your relatives!
Cons: Not enough bathrooms. Curb appeal is a C/C+ at best. Photos make it look poorly lit in parts. Inside looks like it needs some updating.
In conclusion: Not bad, but nothing special. This is before looking at the price.
The potential loss on this property is pretty significant. Assuming a sale at the full asking price, the shortfall would be $265,394, including 6% sales costs.
The decline from the peak - not including transaction costs - would be about 23%.
2 comments:
wow. kinda shocking that even at 23% off the ridiculously inflated top price, it's still obscenely overpriced for what it is.
This is a bank owned property I believe. So the former owners no longer have the loss, except to their credit, the bank does.
Post a Comment