Newer Irvine listings with crazy WTF asking prices from equity sellers

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
GH said:
Perspective said:
You can make an offer on 250 Desert Bloom asking $1.680,000 for a 3,435 sq ft house on a 4,200 sq ft lot; or a new build in Orchard Hills asking $1,660,705 for a 3,795 sq ft house on a 6,380 sq ft lot (with a ~1.4% tax rate relative to Portola Springs ~1.75%?).

https://www.redfin.com/CA/Irvine/12-Fairview-Unknown/home/56738250?utm_source=myredfin&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=iphone_email&utm_nooverride=1

Easy decision for me.

Tax rate is also only around 1.4% for the PS house ($19K total tax paid at $1.38M valuation per OC tax record).    Plus the OH home needs landscape and other upgrades to really be comparable to the PS one.  Am not saying the PS one is not overpriced (the difference in the asking and tax record valuation says it all) but they are not as wide apart as you are portraying.

Wouldn't you trade a 52% larger lot needing landscaping for avoiding a shared courtyard driveway (all other things being equal).
 
Perspective said:
You can make an offer on 250 Desert Bloom asking $1.680,000 for a 3,435 sq ft house on a 4,200 sq ft lot; or a new build in Orchard Hills asking $1,660,705 for a 3,795 sq ft house on a 6,380 sq ft lot (with a ~1.4% tax rate relative to Portola Springs ~1.75%?).

https://www.redfin.com/CA/Irvine/12-Fairview-Unknown/home/56738250?utm_source=myredfin&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=iphone_email&utm_nooverride=1

Easy decision for me.

OH! THERE'S the plan one at Saviero they never built a model for and is STILL unsold from phase one.

Heard thru the grapevine Tay Mo will accept way less than asking on this one so maybe now is your time to pounce on that easy decision.
 
Ready2Downsize said:
Perspective said:
You can make an offer on 250 Desert Bloom asking $1.680,000 for a 3,435 sq ft house on a 4,200 sq ft lot; or a new build in Orchard Hills asking $1,660,705 for a 3,795 sq ft house on a 6,380 sq ft lot (with a ~1.4% tax rate relative to Portola Springs ~1.75%?).

https://www.redfin.com/CA/Irvine/12-Fairview-Unknown/home/56738250?utm_source=myredfin&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=iphone_email&utm_nooverride=1

Easy decision for me.

OH! THERE'S the plan one at Saviero they never built a model for and is STILL unsold from phase one.

Heard thru the grapevine Tay Mo will accept way less than asking on this one so maybe now is your time to pounce on that easy decision.

Downstairs master doesn't make it a good choice for families with young kids.  But if I had 2 teenagers they would love that upstairs with a huge loft in between their bedrooms.
 
Ready2Downsize said:
Perspective said:
You can make an offer on 250 Desert Bloom asking $1.680,000 for a 3,435 sq ft house on a 4,200 sq ft lot; or a new build in Orchard Hills asking $1,660,705 for a 3,795 sq ft house on a 6,380 sq ft lot (with a ~1.4% tax rate relative to Portola Springs ~1.75%?).

https://www.redfin.com/CA/Irvine/12-Fairview-Unknown/home/56738250?utm_source=myredfin&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=iphone_email&utm_nooverride=1

Easy decision for me.

OH! THERE'S the plan one at Saviero they never built a model for and is STILL unsold from phase one.

Heard thru the grapevine Tay Mo will accept way less than asking on this one so maybe now is your time to pounce on that easy decision.

whats way less than asking? Same price as a Strada home? If so I'm all over it.  ;D
 
$1.1 Million for under 2200 square feet and no upgrades, window coverings or landscaping?

Good Lord. I hope this kool aid market doesn't turn sour.

Pretty confident if someone is a verified buyer of 250 Desert Bloom for Strada prices they can buy 12 Fairview for the same.

 
aquabliss said:
If this thing sells, I'm putting my house the market for $2M and moving to Hidden Canyon.

haha except by the time you take your $2M cash to Hidden Canyon, the realtor at Hidden Canyon will smile and hand you a $4M price tag (written in Chinese).
 
Anyone ever do any analysis of what a healthy market should have looked like from 1995 to 2015 then factor in the boom/bust of 2006-2010 section.

Someone once said that houses typically double in price every 10 years. 

I often think about 2005 as not being that long ago, but it was 10 years ago!  (wow-  I am getting old)

So with that mentality
In 2005 - house costs $100
In 2015 - House should cost $200
However, if the house costs $140 in 2015 shouldn't it be pretty typical given that it would be 70% of a semi inflated 2005 number?

 
Coleman said:
Anyone ever do any analysis of what a healthy market should have looked like from 1995 to 2015 then factor in the boom/bust of 2006-2010 section.

Someone once said that houses typically double in price every 10 years. 

I often think about 2005 as not being that long ago, but it was 10 years ago!  (wow-  I am getting old)

So with that mentality
In 2005 - house costs $100
In 2015 - House should cost $200
However, if the house costs $140 in 2015 shouldn't it be pretty typical given that it would be 70% of a semi inflated 2005 number?

The rule of thumb you should use, is that house prices track the annual inflation rate very closely over long periods, beating it by maybe a point or two. This doesn't work well for the period from 2008 to present because mortgage rates dropped 40% (from ~6.5% to below 4%). So, an adjustment to the standard rule of thumb is necessary.
 
Depends on where you bought in the housing cycle and the location. I've been thru several downturns in which prices significantly dropped. So if you buy at THE bottom, then maybe you'll get a double in 10 years in the right location. Plenty of places where houses barely even move in price in a low inflation environment.

A house would have to go up 7% every year for 10 years in a row to nearly double. To get that we'd have to see more inflation because ultimately houses will move with inflation.

My mom has owned her house for over 50 years and it has not doubled 5 times.

I've owned my house for 17 years and it would have to rise 48% in the next three years to double twice. (It did double after the first 10 years but then it dropped significantly).

The house I owned in Tustin Ranch will be 30 years old in 4 more years. It would have to nearly double again from today's prices to double three times (So......... a little more than doubled in 26 years time but it has been thru two significant downturns in which the value dropped 30% each time).

I would give better odds that we'll see houses not go up much or drop than doubling in the next 10 years from today's prices UNLESS we get significant inflation and wage increases.

 
min wage will increase 66% in 2 years, ripple effect everywhere which will lead to increase prices throughout
Also lead to slower growth in small businesses, a lot will actually cut staff or even shut down or move

Interest rates will go up next year with high probability
Days of doubling home values in 10 years would be more like 20-30 years...
 
Because everything is cyclical, there's a boom in foreign investments, sure, but even that boom has to eventually slow down
I just don't see houses doubling from today in 10 years time as today doesn't seem like a down market
 
Housing prices tend to go up with inflation. Inflation is around 2%. that means prices double every 36 years, but on a non-inflation basis they stay the same.

That's the guideline you should use.
 
do people actually think prices will rise exponentially?  If you think prices will double every ten years, I suppose you do.  Its one thing to say a house may double in price in a one 10 year period, its another thing to expect that to continue as a trend.  Like someone mentioned earlier, if you bought at a bottom, perhaps a house may double in ten years.  Otherwise no way in hell. Without studying a chart, I would expect that the only time that has happened was many years ago when you could purchase a house for 10K or during the early to mid 2000's which we all know was a bubble. 
Houses will likely track inflation as it has done for many years.

Based on wages and income housing is currently overpriced.  People are using a much higher percentage of their incomes for housing.  At some point (which I believe to be now or very soon), incomes will not be able to support housing prices.  So unless you expect wages to rise significantly as well, do not expect housing prices to grow exponentially.  I actually would expect flat prices or maybe even a slight decline over the next several years.  Homes bought today will NOT double in ten years.  Based on today's valuation, I think you would be lucky if your house went up 10-15% over the next 10 years.  Just my two cents.
 
hello said:
do people actually think prices will rise exponentially?  If you think prices will double every ten years, I suppose you do.  Its one thing to say a house may double in price in a one 10 year period, its another thing to expect that to continue as a trend.  Like someone mentioned earlier, if you bought at a bottom, perhaps a house may double in ten years.  Otherwise no way in hell. Without studying a chart, I would expect that the only time that has happened was many years ago when you could purchase a house for 10K or during the early to mid 2000's which we all know was a bubble. 
Houses will likely track inflation as it has done for many years.

Based on wages and income housing is currently overpriced.  People are using a much higher percentage of their incomes for housing.  At some point (which I believe to be now or very soon), incomes will not be able to support housing prices.  So unless you expect wages to rise significantly as well, do not expect housing prices to grow exponentially.  I actually would expect flat prices or maybe even a slight decline over the next several years.  Homes bought today will NOT double in ten years.  Based on today's valuation, I think you would be lucky if your house went up 10-15% over the next 10 years.  Just my two cents.

Agree with everything, except the part about people spending a higher percentage of their income on housing. Current loans' front-end DTIs are averaging 24% in the US (with 37% back-end DTIs). We'll never know the real DTIs during the 2000s because borrowers lied about income and loan payments didn't always reflect the fully-indexed rate on a fully-amortized payment.
 
Back
Top