Losses Outside of Irvine

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<blockquote>If we had a true home auction company which the banks could turn their properties over to, say alanhomeauctions.com, and alanhomeauctions set a an auction date,</blockquote>


but the banks don't yet own the property. its held in trust temporarily so the bank doesnt get to decide the home should be sent to sotheby's for 5 star auction treatment. so who and what determines adequate time and marketing? well, here's what the law says:



<em><blockquote>A Notice of Trustee's Sale is prepared and published in an adjudicated paper of general circulation in the city in which the property is located. The Notice of Trustee's Sale is published one time per week for three weeks. The actual Sale is established by adding at least 20 days to the date that the Notice of Trustee's Sale was first published in the newspaper. The Notice of Trustee's Sale is posted on the property and in a public place.

</blockquote></em>

here's the timeline:



<em><blockquote>California Foreclosure Timeline



Day 1-Day 90

Redemption Period

Lasts 90 days from the recordation of the Notice of Default



Day 90-Day 120

Publication Period

Lasts 30 days from the end of Redemption



Day 120-Day 141

Trustee's Sale

Held 21 days after first publication</blockquote></em>



there's plenty of time for those who are interested to find out about the auctions even before publication. for ex, a number of people here could rattle off a list of homes and addresses they have watched go from for sale, to attempted short sale, to default, etc...



apparently this is not adequate enough so what is, and who pays for it? the bank does not yet have title and the borrower is long gone. maybe it's the court's job to maintain homebuyer interest lists, hire an auction marketing firm to post extra ads and buy local tv time or something???



let's say some homeowner decides to just dump his property. he doesn't want to wait, doesnt hire a realtor, and simply lists on redfin with a reduced price far below that of any the other homes for sale in his neighborhood. so it'll sells right away and he just eats the equity loss (assuming he has any.) are you saying that pricing should not be included in comps because he should have spent more time on mktg?
 
[quote author="acpme" date=1209097075]let's say some homeowner decides to just dump his property. he doesn't want to wait, doesnt hire a realtor, and simply lists on redfin with a reduced price far below that of any the other homes for sale in his neighborhood. so it'll sells right away and he just eats the equity loss (assuming he has any.)</blockquote>


If there were 5 comps of similar properties that sold at about the same time and four were about price $A and one was for 60% of price $A, yes I would say you have to throw out the outlier. IPOP is already doing this when he is reporting his Irvine Case Shiller indicies, throwing out the high and the low sale and taking the average of the rest. This is done all the time for statisctial purposes.



The problem now is that the market lacks fluidity and prices are declining so rapidly that no one knows what the comp is. Our guesses on IHB are probably closer to reality than anyone elses because we do more research. In a normal stable market I would expect that trustee sales to be a little below comps, maybe 10-20% or possibly greater.



You are grasping at straws trying to pull in trustee sales to determine current market price.
 
[quote author="alan" date=1209101183]You are grasping at straws trying to pull in trustee sales to determine current market price.</blockquote>


only realtors try to argue that foreclosure auctions are not comps!



if you have one odd auction result, that's an outlier. when you have RECORD numbers of foreclosures, throwing out that data is ridiculous. if there's not enough traditional sales data, you claim that means there's something flawed in the mkt and the comps are unreliable. in actuality, that tells you a whole lot about pricing and everything you need to know about <em>the market</em>. the variable hasn't changed-- sales prices of homes. the source of the data is obviously very different -- foreclosure auctions instead of traditional sales. you treat the fact that the source has changed as a reason the data should be thrown out, when on the other hand it's an EXTREMELY impt fact that makes the data all the more compelling!



you're basically targeting an answer (what you think price should be) and when the data doesn't support that answer, then the data are wrong.



also, you never answered the question: what is the definition of adequate marketing and what party is responsible for it?
 
<a href="http://www.redfin.com/stingray/do/listings-search#sold_within_months=6&lat=33.81638052906373&long;=-117.95665383338928&zoomLevel=19&region_id=38482&region_type=2&market=socal">Brookhurst Village Condominiums in Anaheim</a> has 34 units available and <a href="http://activerain.com/blogsview/391058/Anaheim-foreclosures-and-short">this realtor</a> thinks it's a good opportunity to buy



<blockquote><em>"Anaheim foreclosures and short sales are causing Brookhurst Village Condominiums in Anaheim to plummet (Address 1250 S. Brookhurst St., Anaheim, CA 92804). I remember showing the 2 and 3 bedroom condos for sale in the complex last summer and there were many properties for sale between $275,000 to $360,000.



Now, just 6 months later, there are 31 condos available, most of which are priced around $165,000 to $240,000!!!! That's a 40% drop in 6 months!!!!



Right now is the time to buy! With interest rates very low and sellers' willingness to pay for closing costs, you could break even compared to renting in less than one year"</em></blockquote>
 
Either this is a 42% loss (according to <a href="http://www.zillow.com/Charts.htm?chartDuration=5years&zpid=25437896">Zillow</a>) or a 35% loss (according to <a href="http://www.redfin.com/CA/Orange/284-S-Norwood-St-92869/home/4430220">Redfin</a>). It's an ouch either way.



284 S Norwood St

Orange, CA 92869



Price: $439,900



Beds: 3

Baths: 2

Sq. Ft.: 2,085

$/Sq. Ft.: $211

Lot Size: 6,400 Sq. Ft.
 
35% loss in Orange. And for the record I hate it when folks add on to their house by just building directly on top of the garage. It just looks bad, IMO.



374 N Swidler St

Orange, CA 92869



<strong>Price: $450,000 </strong>



Beds: 5

Baths: 2

Sq. Ft.: 1,857

$/Sq. Ft.: $242

Lot Size: 7,036 Sq. Ft.



Sales History

Mar 29, 1995 $190,000

Apr 01, 1999 $225,000

<strong>Jan 23, 2006 $700,000 </strong>



<a href="http://www.redfin.com/CA/Orange/374-N-Swidler-St-92869/home/3415782">http://www.redfin.com/CA/Orange/374-N-Swidler-St-92869/home/3415782</a>



<img src="http://i-0.rfimg.us/photo/46/bigphoto/774/P633774_0.jpg" alt="" />
 
40% loss in Garden Grove. Check out $/sqft. And points if you can make out what is written on the garage door besides "bitches."



12151 Firebrand St

Garden Grove, CA 92840



<strong>Price: $399,000</strong>



Beds: 4

Baths: 2

Sq. Ft.: 2,405

<strong>$/Sq. Ft.: $166 </strong>

Lot Size: 7,680 Sq. Ft.



Sales History

<strong>Nov 14, 2005 $670,000 </strong>



<img src="http://i-0.rfimg.us/photo/46/bigphoto/122/S519122_1_0.jpg" alt="" />



<a href="http://www.redfin.com/CA/Garden-Grove/12151-Firebrand-St-92840/home/3957140">http://www.redfin.com/CA/Garden-Grove/12151-Firebrand-St-92840/home/3957140</a>
 
Very sad. I helped sellers relocate one block West and South on Fallingleaf about 2 years ago at $675K, I think. Aside from R.E. news, there have been 2 homicides (one involving police) and a suicide in the last 6 months. There is also a half-way house on Oertly a couple more blocks away. Talk about disclosure issues!!!



I've written this before, but I wonder what effect this overall belt-tightening will have in Irvine.
 
[quote author="caycifish" date=1210834937]40% loss in Garden Grove. Check out $/sqft. And points if you can make out what is written on the garage door besides "bitches."</blockquote>


While getting points is almost always a good thing, I think if I were to post what else is tagged on that garage, well... the points would start to turn negative with that kind of language.
 
As a bonus, within a one-mile radius, <a href="http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/search_main.aspx?searchtype=address&lang=ENGLISH">Megan's Law site</a> shows less than a dozen offenders, with only one across the street.
 
And for the record I hate it when folks add on to their house by just building directly on top of the garage. It just looks bad, IMO"



I so agree with you here. I also hate any house that is converted into a 2 story where the neighborhood is 1 story. No matter how well they do them, they just look like eyesores because they don't belong. In an older neighborhood with a good lot size, you can add on , get the square footage that you need and still have the house "fit" the neighborhood.



CDM has been drastically changed in the last 5 years with people buying the bungalows with a second unit in the rear, tearing them down and rebuiliding a McMansion that could be a Shady Canyon home. It's really atrocious. There are a handful of bungalows that have been restored and they are so darling, but then they are sandwiched between these two McMansions that consume the entire lot and there is no charm whatsoever.



One day I went to work and when I came that evening the bungalow across the street was not only razed, but every piece of its existence had been hauled away. What really bugged me about a lot of these houses though is that they somehow managed to tear out the old tree on city property and replace it with a sorry ass piddley palm. The street has changed so much in the last five years and I'm not impressed.
 
Another 35% loss in Orange. And a few folks lost money on this house over the years.



1110 E Meats Ave

Orange, CA 92865



<strong>Price: $450,000</strong>



Beds: 4

Baths: 2

Sq. Ft.: 1,820

$/Sq. Ft.: $247

Lot Size: 8,800 Sq. Ft.



Sales History

May 29, 1992 $213,000

Dec 01, 1993 $179,000

Aug 29, 1997 $157,357

Feb 18, 1998 $208,500

Mar 12, 2002 $345,000

<strong>Mar 13, 2007 $695,000 </strong>



<a href="http://www.redfin.com/CA/Orange/1110-E-Meats-Ave-92865/home/4348798">http://www.redfin.com/CA/Orange/1110-E-Meats-Ave-92865/home/4348798</a>
 
38% loss in Fullerton from the peak. And this house was already a loser for the 05 buyer.



1353 W Maxzim Ave

Fullerton, CA 92833



<strong>Price: $365,000 </strong>



Beds: 3

Baths: 2

Sq. Ft.: 1,875

$/Sq. Ft.: $195

Lot Size: 7,000 Sq. Ft.



Sales History

<strong>Sep 14, 2005 $593,000 </strong>

Jul 25, 2006 $575,000



<a href="http://www.redfin.com/CA/Fullerton/1353-W-Maxzim-Ave-92833/home/3331830">http://www.redfin.com/CA/Fullerton/1353-W-Maxzim-Ave-92833/home/3331830</a>
 
41% loss in Fullerton.



328 N Orchard Ave

Fullerton, CA 92833



<strong>Price: $415,000</strong>



Beds: 4

Baths: 2

Sq. Ft.: 1,856

$/Sq. Ft.: $224

Lot Size: 8,050 Sq. Ft.



Sales History

<strong>Sep 19, 2006 $710,000 </strong>



<a href="http://www.redfin.com/CA/Fullerton/328-N-Orchard-Ave-92833/home/3175055">http://www.redfin.com/CA/Fullerton/328-N-Orchard-Ave-92833/home/3175055</a>



<img src="http://i-0.rfimg.us/photo/46/bigphoto/697/P639697_0.jpg" alt="" />
 
27% loss in Costa Mesa from peak. I love that location (proximity to a freeway, for example) is starting to matter again.



3350 Nevada Ave

Costa Mesa, CA 92626



<strong>Price: $498,900 </strong>



Beds: 3

Baths: 2

Sq. Ft.: 1,774

$/Sq. Ft.: $281

Lot Size: 5,018 Sq. Ft.



Sales History

Feb 27, 1996 $209,500

<strong>Nov 15, 2005 $685,000 </strong>

Feb 19, 2008 $541,603



<a href="http://www.redfin.com/CA/Costa-Mesa/3350-Nevada-Ave-92626/home/3700945">http://www.redfin.com/CA/Costa-Mesa/3350-Nevada-Ave-92626/home/3700945</a>



<img src="http://i-0.rfimg.us/photo/46/bigphoto/000/U8002000_0.jpg" alt="" />
 
nearly 30% loss in Brea so far. Again, location, location, location. This house is in the freakin' boonies. They also are experienced market chasers.



1634 San Juan Dr

Brea, CA 92821



<strong>Price: $649,980 </strong>



Beds: 5

Baths: 3.5

Sq. Ft.: 3,360

<strong>$/Sq. Ft.: $193</strong>

Lot Size: 7,242 Sq. Ft.



Listing Price History



Aug 15, 2007 $875,000

Sep 01, 2007 $865,000

Sep 13, 2007 $849,000

Sep 25, 2007 $839,000

Sep 30, 2007 $825,000

Oct 09, 2007 $795,000

Oct 17, 2007 $799,000

Oct 28, 2007 $775,000

Nov 11, 2007 $750,000

Dec 04, 2007 $700,000

Apr 30, 2008 $685,000

May 10, 2008 $675,000

May 13, 2008 $695,000

May 19, 2008 $685,000

May 21, 2008 $675,000

Jun 03, 2008 $649,980



Sales History

Mar 22, 1991 $330,000

Aug 28, 1992 $325,000

May 03, 2001 $435,000

Dec 08, 2005 $849,000

<strong>Dec 15, 2006 $925,000 </strong>



<a href="http://www.redfin.com/CA/Brea/1634-San-Juan-Dr-92821/home/4126828">http://www.redfin.com/CA/Brea/1634-San-Juan-Dr-92821/home/4126828</a>



<img src="http://i-0.rfimg.us/photo/46/bigphoto/476/U7003476_3.jpg" alt="" />
 
I don't think the location is that bad on that home.



37% off is almost 50%. Where's that humble pie with that donkey Pat Veling's name on it.
 
<em>--Neighbors have begun using green spray paint to disguise browned-out lawns at foreclosed houses.</em>



<a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2008/06/squatters-green.html">Temecula.....going DOWN !</a>



<img src="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/images/2008/06/05/k20auvnc.jpg" alt="" />
 
40% loss in South Coast Metro. This one hurts me since I have good friends who bought a model match in this complex and are now under water. Ouch.



1030 W Macarthur Blvd #107

Santa Ana, CA 92707



<strong>Price: $220,000 </strong>



Beds: 2

Baths: 1

Sq. Ft.: 905

$/Sq. Ft.: $243



Sales History

Mar 26, 2001 $133,000

<strong>Jun 28, 2006 $369,000 </strong>



<a href="http://www.redfin.com/CA/Santa-Ana/1030-W-Macarthur-Blvd-92707/unit-107/home/5567857">http://www.redfin.com/CA/Santa-Ana/1030-W-Macarthur-Blvd-92707/unit-107/home/5567857</a>



<img src="http://i-0.rfimg.us/photo/46/bigphoto/637/P622637_1.jpg" alt="" />
 
Ouch again. 43% loss in same complex, and it looks like this complex is on the march toward 2001 pricing.



1000 W Macarthur Blvd #109

Santa Ana, CA 92707



<strong>Price: $199,000 </strong>



Beds: 2

Baths: 1

Sq. Ft.: 900

$/Sq. Ft.: $221



Sales History

Mar 22, 1988 $86,000

Nov 21, 1989 $120,000

Mar 02, 1998 $130,401

Apr 21, 2000 $130,400

Sep 21, 2000 $105,500

Nov 19, 2001 $133,500

<strong>Oct 27, 2005 $350,000 </strong>



<a href="http://www.redfin.com/CA/Santa-Ana/1000-W-Macarthur-Blvd-92707/unit-109/home/5565828">http://www.redfin.com/CA/Santa-Ana/1000-W-Macarthur-Blvd-92707/unit-109/home/5565828</a>



<img src="http://i-0.rfimg.us/photo/46/bigphoto/089/P634089_1.jpg" alt="" />
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top