| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
wheat
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat, Dec 10 2011, 7:13 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $499,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced) |
 |
|
| Wonder wrote: | | wheat wrote: | | Wonder wrote: | | Wheat wrote: | | It's been listed for more than 10% below its January 2006 sale price for at four months now with gradual price reductions since then. |
Actually Wheat, when adjusted for realtor commissions, this house was essentially listed well above or at its peak purchase price until September 11th, less than three months ago. Unfortunately, the seller missed some of the best potential months before getting realistic about price and now (as of 12/3) they've gone deep at one of the slowest points of the year.
Let's hope it works for them. |
What a silly concept. You don't "adjust for realtor commissions" in determining fair market price, because the sale price is what represents what a buyer would pay, and therefore the market value, not the net proceeds to the seller. Nice try though. You're also assuming the 1/2006 sale price was peak market. |
Wheat,
The fact that You disagree with me doesn't change the fact that what you posted was wrong.
Also, if you don't think realtor commissions factor into home sale prices, then you are simply wrong, again.
In general, it seems to me your point is that home values are worse than people realize. You may be right about this. However, my point is the pricing strategy of this seller is clouding the picture and therefore this home is not a good barometer for home values. |
You're wrong. But even if we went with your logic, then you would have to subtract the commission not only from the purchase price in 2006, as you suggest, but also from the asking price in 2011. And once you did that, 4 months is still correct. You can't subtract a commission from one side of the equation but not the other or you would be comparing apples-to-oranges.
Have you looked at how many homes for sale in the peak spring and summer season never sold and were pulled from the market this year?
I don't think local home values are worse than people realize. Anyone who has tried to sell and probably quite a few sensible people who follow the market objectively realize it just fine. They are worse, though, than some realtors are promoting, including at the recent event sponsored by the library. Suggesting it's only been 9% from the peak point of value is laughable. Sure if you come up with excuses why a majority of sales "don't count" and ignore all the failed sales that pulled from the market you can try and make that stat work, but it bears no resemblance to reality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Wonder
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Dec 10 2011, 10:44 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $499,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced) |
|
|
| Wheat wrote: | | It's been listed for more than 10% below its January 2006 sale price for at four months now with gradual price reductions since then. |
The above comment is simply not accurate. The facts prove you wrong. Just deal with the fact that you're human and you made a mistake.
My comments about "adjusting for commissions" were in relation to the seller's pricing strategy. When a seller lists their house By Owner for 5% less than they paid, their pricing strategy is essentially "I am going to get what I paid, less realtor commissions". That mindset is not the same as adjusting to dire market conditions. My point is, the seller did not adjust their price to the market conditions until 3 months ago, after the primary selling season. I'm sure they had their reasons, but now, in less than 3 months, they have drastically reduced their price heading into a historically slow season. I hope it works out for them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wheat
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Dec 10 2011, 11:15 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $499,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced) |
|
|
| Wonder wrote: | | Wheat wrote: | | It's been listed for more than 10% below its January 2006 sale price for at four months now with gradual price reductions since then. |
The above comment is simply not accurate. The facts prove you wrong. Just deal with the fact that you're human and you made a mistake.
My comments about "adjusting for commissions" were in relation to the seller's pricing strategy. When a seller lists their house By Owner for 5% less than they paid, their pricing strategy is essentially "I am going to get what I paid, less realtor commissions". That mindset is not the same as adjusting to dire market conditions. My point is, the seller did not adjust their price to the market conditions until 3 months ago, after the primary selling season. I'm sure they had their reasons, but now, in less than 3 months, they have drastically reduced their price heading into a historically slow season. I hope it works out for them. |
I have no idea why you are in denial of simple facts. The seller adjusted the price to $589,900 on 8/17/2011. If you want to split hairs that is slightly less than 10% below the purchase price in January 2006 of $652,000, though still more than the supposed 9% reduction average for the Township as quoted at the recent forum, and it was a week shy of 4 months ago, though still far closer to 4 than 3. And there have been gradual reductions since then.
This is all a matter of public record and anyone can go to the Internet and confirm it for themselves. Those are the in disputed facts, not your spin on them.
I have no idea what was in the seller's head and never commented on it. That's a whole different discussion but you shouldn't confuse them with simple facts about market prices. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wheat
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Dec 10 2011, 11:27 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $499,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced) |
|
|
| Wonder wrote: | | Wheat wrote: | | It's been listed for more than 10% below its January 2006 sale price for at four months now with gradual price reductions since then. |
When a seller lists their house By Owner for 5% less than they paid, their pricing strategy is essentially "I am going to get what I paid, less realtor commissions". That mindset is not the same as adjusting to dire market conditions. My point is, the seller did not adjust their price to the market conditions until 3 months ago, after the primary selling season. I'm sure they had their reasons, but now, in less than 3 months, they have drastically reduced their price heading into a historically slow season. I hope it works out for them. |
BTW, you're also wrong about the seller listing the house "for sale by owner" for 5% less than what they paid. The house has been handled by a realtor, with commissions, since March of this year. So you're whole statement about what was their mindset is shaky. Like many people they initially listed well above their previous purchase price but by the time they were reducing it below that they certainly had no reason to base their price on break-even based on a lack of commission since they were going to pay one. That also invalidates your made up theory about why you would reduce the commissions from their ask price since you're incorrect that they don't have any.
Just some friendly advice that you may want to do a little free Internet research before you start stating "facts" that are easily disputed by the public record. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wonder
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Dec 11 2011, 7:45 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $499,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced) |
|
|
| wheat wrote: | | Wonder wrote: | | Wheat wrote: | | It's been listed for more than 10% below its January 2006 sale price for at four months now with gradual price reductions since then. |
When a seller lists their house By Owner for 5% less than they paid, their pricing strategy is essentially "I am going to get what I paid, less realtor commissions". That mindset is not the same as adjusting to dire market conditions. My point is, the seller did not adjust their price to the market conditions until 3 months ago, after the primary selling season. I'm sure they had their reasons, but now, in less than 3 months, they have drastically reduced their price heading into a historically slow season. I hope it works out for them. |
BTW, you're also wrong about the seller listing the house "for sale by owner" for 5% less than what they paid. The house has been handled by a realtor, with commissions, since March of this year. So you're whole statement about what was their mindset is shaky. Like many people they initially listed well above their previous purchase price but by the time they were reducing it below that they certainly had no reason to base their price on break-even based on a lack of commission since they were going to pay one. That also invalidates your made up theory about why you would reduce the commissions from their ask price since you're incorrect that they don't have any.
Just some friendly advice that you may want to do a little free Internet research before you start stating "facts" that are easily disputed by the public record. |
Wheat,
I based my opinion on the dates and price changes posted on this thread on Cranbury.info. Apparently, that was a mistake. According to Zillow, you're right. Have a nice day! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
home
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jan 21 2012, 3:51 pm EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $449,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced) |
|
|
| new price: $449,900. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guest 333
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Apr 22 2012, 8:15 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $449,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced) |
|
|
| What's the story with this house? Why has it not sold? I see people there looking at it regularly. Is there a problem with it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
home
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Jun 3 2012, 10:43 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $419,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced) |
|
|
| new price: $419,900. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest 2
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Jun 5 2012, 2:44 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $419,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced) |
|
|
Went on the market at a CRAZY high price for such a small house - and then they slowly reduced but now buyers are wary and they can't shake the uncertainty.
This is a prime example of what happens when you fish for a high price. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bob
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Jun 5 2012, 2:58 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $419,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced) |
|
|
| Guest 2 wrote: | Went on the market at a CRAZY high price for such a small house - and then they slowly reduced but now buyers are wary and they can't shake the uncertainty.
This is a prime example of what happens when you fish for a high price. |
I'm not going to argue that it didn't go on the market high, but I don't understand your statement "crazy high price for such a small house." This is a 4 bedroom, 3 bath house with a separate living room, family room and office/den on top of the 4 bedrooms, and separate dining room and breakfast area. And the bedrooms are decent-sized, except that like all the old houses the master isn't huge like the more recent McMansions. Hardly "so small," in fact it is in-line with the average home on Main Street, larger than many. So I don't think the price was out of whack with the size, just that the state of the market for Main at the time and since. They started $100K above what it was bought for in 2006 when in fact the market had declined since then.
That's not why it's not selling now though. The problem is it is a short sale and needs some foundation work. At the current price it is still a deal, but most people get scared away by the hassles of dealing with a bank in a short sale. In a healthy market it would get snapped up in a second by a flipper if not a true buyer. But this isn't a healthy market. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sean
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jun 6 2012, 5:30 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $419,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced) |
|
|
| Also ceilings are under 7 feet, under 6'6" in some spots |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
home
Joined: Sun, Aug 5 2012, 9:03 am EDT
Posts: 274
|
| Posted: Sun, Aug 5 2012, 10:22 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $399,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced) |
|
|
| new price: $399,900. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-25r3
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Feb 18 2013, 12:03 am EST Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $399,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced) |
|
|
| What's the latest on this house? For Sale sign has been gone for months but it still doesn't look occupied or maintained. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John2-po53
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jun 9 2014, 11:06 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $399,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced; sold) |
|
|
| This house went into foreclosure in November 2013; it doesn't look like the short sale went through. Anyone have any info on this house? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-011q
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Jun 10 2014, 9:14 am EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $399,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced; sold) |
|
|
| John2-po53 wrote: | | This house went into foreclosure in November 2013; it doesn't look like the short sale went through. Anyone have any info on this house? |
I have not seen a for-sale sign. It's likely not on the market. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John2-q17r
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Jul 28 2014, 1:20 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Cranbury home $399,900 (33 S. Main Street; reduced; sold) |
|
|
| The foreclosure process started in November 2013. The homeowners apparently have decided to walk as - I guess - they became discouraged when a short sale did not go through. They didn't want to even talk to me about potentially buying it despite an offer of a small cash incentive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
