As the headline suggests, the low asking price of this Rancho Santa Margarita condo is closer to the sales price in 1990 than the amount paid by the current owner in 2006. Makes one wonder just how far the price will in fact fall - is it even remotely possible that things could get so bad that we could approach a 1990 rollback?
104 FLOR DE SOL #60, 92688
Asking price: $175,000-$210,000
Asking price/ sq ft: $276-$332
Income requirement: $52,500
Purchase price: $325,000
Purchase date: 6/23/06
Size: 2 beds, 1 bath, 633 sq ft (built in 1986)
Income requirement: $52,500
Purchase price: $325,000
Purchase date: 6/23/06
Size: 2 beds, 1 bath, 633 sq ft (built in 1986)
2006 property tax: $3,855
HOA dues: $264
Type: Condominium
HOA dues: $264
Type: Condominium
Style: Traditional
Stories: One LevelFrom listing: BEUTIFUL CONDO, CLOSE TO CHURCH AND SHOPPING CENTER. ASSOCIATION POOL. 'SHORT SALES SUBJECT TO LENDER APPROVAL'
This property has been on the market a little more than three weeks and has not sold yet. Not surprising considering it's a short sale - they're notoriously difficult to navigate through to closing.
Speaking of difficult, notice how the listing description says nothing tangible about the condo itself ("beutiful" doesn't count), but does mention it's close to church and a shopping center? Do you think a prospective buyer would want to know something about the place before they take the time to go out and visit?
Assuming a successful sale at the high end of the asking price, the loss would be $127,600 including 6% sales costs, or 35% off the previous sale, not including sales costs.
If the property were to sell at the bottom of the price range, the loss would then be $160,500, including sales costs, or 46% off the previous price without including transaction costs.
7 comments:
it's obvious that these tiny 1-bedroom condos (633 square feet, are you kidding me?) are going to suffer the worst price rollbacks. nobody, nobody wants to live in a place that small. maybe if you knew you would never, ever share your life with another person.
I personally would not consider a place like this unless it were considerably cheaper to own than rent, and I also knew I could move up in a couple years and didn't have to worry about price declines that would cut into my down payment.
That's because it does not offer an upgrade from an apartment (other than that you can do more improvements and change what you wish), and you would lose the flexibility to move that renting affords.
Others have argued these types of units would be good for investors to pick up and rent or for individuals to own short-term, once the values drop low enough to form a bottom.
MLS #: S523948 just hit the market. It's a nice house at a nice price. Problem is, it's bank owned, bought by the bank for $843,750 on 1/7/08. It had been listed at $1,099,000 under MLS S497239. Originally purchased for $949,000 on 11/4/2004.
What's the problem? The next door neighbor is trying to sell MLS # S502011 for $984,900-$1,084,900. They originally bought for $1,050,000 on 11/4/05.
Should be interesting there...
Got popcorn, and soda...
Enjoying wathing the price DECLINES !!!!
So glad Im not one of those bagholders who bought a house within the last 4 years.
Oops, forgot to put the price for MLS #: S523948. $799,900. That makes the post much better to understand.
Nice finds. Thanks for posting.
I am convinced we will see a 1990 rollback before this mess is done. A small condo like this one purchased in 1990 will sell for less than the 1990 price at the bottom. The top of one bubble is above the bottom of the next one...
Post a Comment