Walmart offers foreclosure houses! Why so many?
Technology for Real Estate Professionals: Web: Walmart Joins Online Listings Derby With FREE Classified Ads
In fact, a search for all classes in 95125 returned 646 listings on Walmart classifieds, including an astounding 318 foreclosures. I have been reading about “shadow inventory” on the bubble blogs, but this is the first time I’ve found so many foreclosure listings in one place. I checked mlslistings.com, the public face of the MLS for Santa Clara County, and they had 341 listings in 95125. Zillow only returned 46.
Well that’s mighty peculiar. Any one know the full story behind this?
June 14th, 2008 at 8:04 am
It looks like that Foreclosure Seekers site reposts the same houses once a day. That would explain it. Lots and lots and lots of duplicates.
June 14th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Also the source of that huge number of “foreclosures” is Realtytrac which is a fee service that extracts documents from county records. Realtytrac is only included in online site Trulia that I have found, Redfin doesn’t have Realtytrac.
Realtytrac basically picks up *any* document available from the lender and calls it a “preforeclosure”. Those realty trac listings if you look at them are preforeclosure. Very few (like one in 50) are actual foreclosures. For 95125 which is Willow Glen, on Trulia realtytrac has 161 preforeclosures, and out of that, about 45 have remaining balances under 300K. I don’t think any property will actually foreclose in 95125 with a loan balance under 300K, so that is all bogus.
Heres a realtytrac preforeclosure on dry creek road which is a 2 million dollar street for 420K.
http://www.trulia.com/foreclosure/2001098942–Dry-Creek-Rd-San-Jose-CA-95125
So all I can say is, for these automated sources like apparently walmart and trulia that use realtytrac, ignore these listings.
June 14th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Property Shark has foreclosures with the street numbers and links to the property reports. Here’s what I found in 95125 and other RBA zips. All the homes are in San Jose because I didn’t find any RBA zips in the entire list other than 95125 (Willow Glen) and 95129 (Westside/Cupertino school district). Yup, I ignored all the Gilroy places.
Almost every place listed below has a loan from the option-ARM era, 2004 or later, only 2-3 otherwise. So I wouldn’t exclude properties based on the loan amount, but on the loan date. Those FBs probably had their loan reset (I sent a bunch of stuff on this topic to burbed who still hasn’t run it) and cannot make the payments, their loan payments could have easily doubled on them and they cannot refi because every one of them is underwater.
Current foreclosures, offered for sale on Monday 6/16 at 10 am outside the courthouse:
238 Meadow Pine Pl 95125, loan balance $848K, loan date 3/8/2006, 513 sf built in 2004
4946 Rio Vista 95129, $335K unpaid, 5/31/02 loan date, 1188 sf built 1956
728 Drake 95125, unpaid $568K, loan date 11/9/05, 1450 sf built 1954
2098 Ardis 95125, unpaid $1,169K, loan dt 4/21/05, 3326 sf on 10K lot, 4br/3ba built 2006
Sale date Tues 6/17/08:
1154 Lennon 95125, unpd $629K, ln dt unavail, 1356 sf built 1948
3108 Tuscalana 95125, unpd $217K, ln dt 9/19/05, 1712 sf built 2003
455 W Virginia 95125, $420K unpd, ln dt 8/24/04, 1246 sf built 1950
that’s the CURRENT stuff, stuff about to be offered for sale. I only include 95125 & 95129, no other RBA zips were listed. Then I’d have to look at the other stuff month by month.
June 2008 previously “offered” for sale:
1155 Curtner 95125 (yes I know this is a busy street), unpd $660K, ln dt 12/8/06, 1952 sf built 1939
1276 Bird Ave 95125 (another busy st), unpd $317K, ln dt 5/18/06, 1305 sf built 1938
1075 Broadway 95125, unpd $162K, ln dt 6/18/07, 1312 sf built 1904
2420 Rinconada 95125, unpd $774K @4/26/07, 1270 sf built 1960
4830 Miramar 95129, unpd $866K @8/18/06, 2325 sf built 1900
858 Minnesota 95125, unpd $52,892 @4/28/99, 1634 sf built 1981. Zoned APD (?). This is the first property with a loan from before the option-ARM era and also the smallest amount.
4630 Japonica 95129, unpd $507K @8/5/05, 1230 sf built 1972 also zoned APD (?)
225 Azvedo Cir 95125, $639K @6/26/07, 2184 sf built 2005.
2303 Plateau Dr 95125, $134K @5/23/06, 1937 sf built 2004.
229 Meadow Pine Pl 95125, $668K @11/16/06, 1937 sf built 2004
1604 Mackey Ave 95125, $479K @5/18/07, 913 sf built 1950
1545 Minnesota Ave 95125, $407K @4/10/03, 1455 sf on 1/4 acre lot, built 1941. Sale date was 6/11, think anyone got it?
You know 95125, any comments about these places? Isn’t Minnesota the main shopping drag? Certainly it’s “old Willow Glen.”
June 14th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Madhaus I know the loan date makes more sense but the reality is if you owe 400K on a house in 95125, you aren’t going to foreclose. Those are refi-able, everything will appraise for THAT. And if you have a 300K loan, even if its subprime, you can rent for more than the loan amt.
As to those listings, Minnesota is one of the main drags connecting to Lincoln but the problem is drives right into 87 so if you are anywhere near the 87 side forget it. Anyway this one appears to be a condo. Google street view works for the whole area which is tremendous for me as a real estate investor. Just put the address into google and you can see a picture of the property.
I suspect Propertyshark is only listing the first mortgage which is the problem. The house on Lennon- that is a great street in prime willow glen, it would not be foreclosing on 629K- put that one in google and you will see what I mean. When that comes on the market from the bank it will list for much more than 629K.
The rest of those are all condos, or on busy streets. One of the issues/opportunities of WG is you are right up against numerous freeways. Whenever there is a hot real estate market these freeway plots get bought up (and some of them happen to have the same zipcode) and after the boomlet those become worthless again.
June 14th, 2008 at 11:32 am
whoops Madhaus I see you were talking about the second Minnesota listing with the 1/4 acre lot. Thats not old willow glen it is up against Meridian. That is the Major street section. That property is only useful as a business storefront if you have an acct or law firm. It has value but not for residential.
June 14th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
WG, you can view 5 property reports a day free on PropertyShark, that might list 2nd mortgages (I say that because it’s spotty, my property has an old loan that was paid off more than 5 years ago). Can also check records in Clerk’s office, will list liens but not how much (for that you have to go in person). Anyway that will tell you how likely these places are to foreclose but these places are clearly NODs, 90 days late minimum, not pre-foreclosures. Anyway, maybe you want to check out the report on Lennon since you said it’s prime area.
June 14th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
With the duplication you guys mentioned, imagine my surprise when I did a quick search to look in my neighborhood – none of the three houses in my immediate area are on the site. All three are listed with Coldwell Banker, so maybe they don’t pull from them??? Weird, anyway.
June 14th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
SJMN sales reports are up, this is week ending May 22nd, the San Mateo data here. Volume continues declining, but the percent changes are not as extreme as in the last two months, as Spring Bounce thuds to its painful conclusion. Summer begins in just eight days.
The big surprise this week is 94301, North-central Palo Alto, with a truly WTF increase worthy of any bubble. Ready?
Community Zip Med sale %chg $/sf #sls %chg
Palo Alto 94301 $2,250,000 186.6% $1,167 17 -15.0%
I would see this as the rest of the county sinking below the waves as a few hardy survivors all fight for the same places to hold on above the sharks. Just as declining property values are a game of musical chairs where getting a chair represents selling your property, Palo Alto is the one game where the chair is a purchase. Until, of course, it too succumbs to Dutch tulip mania.
Other RBA zips with increases this week (all % changes are year over year).
Community Zip Med sale %chg $/sf #sls %chg
Burlingame 94010 $1,738,000 36.3% $686 34 -17.1%
Cupertino 95014 $1,155,000 12.0% $665 54 -34.9% Almost like Palo Alto writ small.
Los Altos 94022 $1,802,500 6.0% $860 29 -19.4%
Los Altos 94024 $1,674,000 5.0% $811 28 7.7% both zips rising together, but not by much. 94022 had been down most of this spring. Note the other surprise, volume is actually up in ‘24, one of the only places countywide that can make this claim.
Los Gatos 95032 $1,350,000 42.7% $626 23 -11.5% other 2 LG zips are down, this one’s up a bunch.
Millbrae 94030 $1,043,000 56.1% $627 8 -75.0%
Redwood City 94062 $1,295,750 5.3% $570 17 -37.0% The “Woodside” zip, including Emerald Lake Hills
Redwood City 94065 $917,000 11.8% $601 14 -51.7% Redwood Shores
San Mateo 94402 $1,410,000 50.6% $724 19 -34.5% I assume this is SM West/280, because that is a staggering $/sf figure.
San Jose 95138 $997,500 6.4% $387 19 -57.8%
Very little else is up in Santa Clara county. 95138 is, again with the highest median in SJ so I’ve included it even though it is NOT RBA.
Flat or declining RBA zips:
Community Zip Med sale %chg $/sf #sls %chg
Atherton 94027 $2,400,000 -14.3% $964 4 -55.6%
Belmont 94002 $862,500 -1.9% $533 17 -22.7%
East Palo Alto 94303 $627,500 -30.9% $494 31 -22.5% Never in a million years would I suggest EPA is RBA, but note that $/sf figure. It’s higher than 2 zips in San Mateo, Los Gatos ‘33, Santa Clara ‘51, and Willow Glen.
Los Gatos 95030 $1,310,000 -13.8% $636 18 -10.0%
Los Gatos 95033 $939,500 -12.4% $415 10 -9.1%
Menlo Park 94025 $657,000 -38.0% $528 20 -63.0% Too bad east and west are all one big unhappy zip. That doesn’t look much better $/sf than EPA
Mountain View 94040 $871,250 -9.2% $563 32 -3.0% ‘40 has had a series of low medians until now, probably condo sales. This is closer to what I’d expect for what had been prime Mountain View.
Mountain View 94041 $910,000 3.4% $526 5 -54.5% Yes, ‘41 is up but by so little I’d call this flat, which I’m arbitrarily defining as under 4%. Its median is actually higher than ‘40. I’d say it’s the mix.
Mountain View 94043 $666,000 -3.5% $516 26 -27.8%
Palo Alto 94306 $1,015,750 -17.4% $775 16 -46.7% The Mayfield (southeast) area and some points west of El Camino south of Stanford. Land of 5200 sf lots and Eichlers.
Portola Valley 94028 $1,400,000 -26.6% $683 7 -22.2% Is PV losing its cachet? That price isn’t much higher than Cupertino
San Carlos 94070 $906,000 -6.5% $587 26 -42.2%
San Jose 95125 $740,500 -6.9% $466 51 -27.1% Willow Glen
San Jose 95129 $782,500 -6.9% $561 31 -13.9% Westside/CUSD. The prices were much higher 1-2 months ago, showing that it’s time to kick ‘25 and ‘29 out of the RBA.
Saratoga 95070 $1,491,500 -11.2% $645 45 -8.2% I’m wondering about Saratoga’s status as prime with the $ per square foot number.
Sunnyvale 94087 $1,020,000 -0.5% $606 49 -7.5% More SFHs are being listed as long-time owners worry about missing their last chance to cash out. But with a 7-digit median, we’ll keep it in the RBA a while longer. And the decline’s not as bad as it’s been last month.
This week, SFH medians are down more (12%) than condos (9%) countywide.
Zips with increased sales volume, minimum 20 sales:
Above-mentioned Los Altos 94024, up 7.7% on 28 sales.
Gilroy is up 2.3% on 44 sales due to bottom-feeding on foreclosures.
San Jose 95128 is up 4% on 28 sales.
95130 & 95134 are dead flat 0.0%.
June 14th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
nomadic, I only included foreclosures listed for sale in June. You can go to PropertyShark and look at May, April, March etc, unfortunately that site does it all by “Sale date” and you have to grab the whole county at once. Do you have the date of the NODs on those 3 properties, see if that helps you find them. Most properties offered for sale outside the courthouse are not purchased because the liens outweigh its value and then the bank ends up keeping them, then lowering the price $5000 every two weeks.
June 14th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
The numbers are just numbers, you can dig into a neighborhood when you are really interested.
My old neighborhood has 20 for sale now, only 1 REO, however, 80% of the rest are short sale. You can just look at how much the wishing price is and then guess whether the owner is in trouble, those with wishing prices are not yet in trouble, and therefore can still afford wishing.
One idiot even increased her asking price by 3%, surrounded by comparable homes undercutting her by 20%.
June 14th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
madhaus, my comment was directed at the “Walmart” website, not your findings. sonarrat had pointed out there must be a lot of duplication on the site. I was just pointing out there are omissions too.
June 14th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
It’s Walmart, what do you expect when they pay 32% value?
June 14th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
The Walmart classifieds bring a problem into focus. Many of the online sites license or scrape listings from a variety of sources, then turn around and sublicense their listings data to someone else. It’s like the old “telephone” game where the information can quickly become worthless. What’s worse, the listing agent is held responsible (aggregators favor the Napster model) even if he/she has no idea that the property is listed on that service. I’m not going to argue that we should go back to a limited access MLS, but buyers/lookers/fans would be well advised to check MLSListings.com because they have rules to promote data integrity. Unfortunately we still get the hijinks of removing and relisting just to reset “Days on Market”, but whaddya gonna do?