Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Whatwhatwhat? A house in Studio City for less than $800k?

4307 BABCOCK AVENUE, Studio City, CA 91604
MLS # F1742192

Price Reduced: 11/27/07 -- $799k to $775k

Zestimate™ $831,466


Bedrooms: 2
Baths: 2
Square Feet: 1,532
Lot Size: 6,385 Sq. Ft.
Year Built: 1939
Listing Date: 11/06/07

In fairness, this house is across the street from an apartment building, but it is in the highly desirable area south of Moorpark near Whitsett. I'm telling you, last summer this house would've been listed at $825k minimum and it would've been snatched up. The kitchen is high end and there's considerable curb appeal.

Even in this market, I wouldn't be surprised if this house sells at 95% of the list price. We'll see.



7 comments:

techgradstudent said...

Kate - good to see you're still posting. Yeah, this house is not likely to sell for the asking price. But it is a nice house, just not for that price.

My best estimation is that this place is fairly valued at no more than $460K. The original owner bought it in 2001 for $370K, so that's a generous 25% adjustment for his 6 years of time living there. It looks like he took an original mortgage of $200K, so this guy can afford to lower his price significantly if he needs to sell it.

I'd offer no more than $400K and see where he goes from there. He'd still be making a handsome $200K profit, which over 6 years is still $30,000 per year gain! There's no rational reason to let someone get that much money annually just for sitting in a house. If he sells for his full price, that's giving him over $91,000 per year for the last 6 years, just for living in a house.

Talk about insanity!

The Listing Agent said...

Hey Kate, I'm glad you like my listing - It's even more fabulous in real life. We're open this Sunday, drop by :-)

Anonymous said...

And ones like this will be selling for about $800k five and even ten years from now. Stagnation here we come...

Anonymous said...

Kate made a great call on a nearby listing: 12515 Milbank. Back in August, when Milbank was cut to $925,000, Kate wrote: "My guess is that this house will sell at around $800k, time will tell."

Well, Milbank (which was relisted on Nov. 8) came down to $799,000 on Dec. 3. Now we'll see if it finds a buyer. (Owner paid $379,000 in April '00.)

Milbank house (3BR, 1,633 sq ft; 7,680 sq ft lot) is bigger than Babcock (2BR, 1,532 sq ft; 6,385 sq ft; owner paid $368,000 in Aug. '01).

It'll be interesting to watch this play out.

Kate said...

Hey, just because I thought that house would sell for $800k back in August does not mean I think it will sell for that price today!
:-)

Anonymous said...

Kate, Milbank is in escrow....rumor has it very close to the asking price.

Anonymous said...

Techgradstudent

Just a question ... Did you do a walkthrough back in 2001? If you did, you would have seen that the kitchen was a mess, the floors needed repair, etc etc etc. Perhaps the owners didn't just live in the house, but also invested money in making the house more modern. Just a thought. And the rise in prices just doesn't have to do with time passing and a percentage. An area can grow (or decrease) in desirability, an area can grow more prosperous as business booms (hence prices in LA don't match those in Detroit). A disaster can hit a town and prices plummet. Also, the house isn't in a bubble, the market dictates the price. We'll see what the market does ... that isn't a precise "science."

Oh ... and maybe it isn't a "guy" that own the house.