13 Responses to “Affordable house on Wall Street for sale!”

1. SEA Says:
   August 19th, 2010 at 11:13 am

   “Jul 06, 2010 Listed $479,000 — MLSListings #81033322
   Oct 11, 1996 Sold (Public Records) $148,500 – Public Records”

   Ok, so it’s been about 14 years. For a moment please allow me to put this place in the RBA, since RBA homes are generally worth more, appreciate more, and so on and so forth. Also the listing suggests newer this and that. While I understand the listing does not suggest newer light bulbs and new Drano, I’ll assume that any added value is not much. In other words, if this were a Real RBA home, we’d expect that the price would double every 10 years, or sooner.

   In this case it’s much sooner. If a full price sale were executed, then the price will have gone up by a factor of about 3.25.

   Forget the $630 per square foot, this place is priced under $500k, which is not a lot of money.

   And if the lucky buyer is fortunate, this place may actually stay in the RBA, so it’ll be worth $1M, or more, in just 10 more years. Yes, that’s right, $1,260 or more per square foot in just 10 years.

   The only problem is that it is priced so low. If you are going to double your money, why would you want to start out with a place that’s only $500k? The real money is made by buying enough so you are forced into eating ramen and PB&J.

   We’re talking high RBA quality of life.

   The funny thing, if I can suggest it’s funny, is that when someone actually sells in the RBA before death, they are expected to buy a bigger home, much more expensive. Thus if you sell in 10 years for the $1M (or more), then you’ll be looking at homes that have all gone up in value by bigger amounts than the one you sold.

   For example, let’s say you buy this cheap $500k home instead of a more appropriate $1,000k home. In 10 years the $500k home is worth at least $1,000k, but the $1,000k home is now worth $2,000k. Now to move up to what would have only cost an extra $500k 10 years ago, it now cost double that, or more, since it’s 10 years later.

   So after 10 years it costs $1,000k to move up. Why not just spend the $1,000k today, so that you don’t have to spend $500k today plus the added $1,000k to move up in 10 years.

   Buy today for $500k

   Sell in 10 years for $1,000k

   But what was a $1,000k home today is $2,000k in 10 years.

   So you have to take your $500k in profit ($1,00k-$500k) and buy a $2,000k home.

   Now you owe $1,500k on what you could have purchased for $1,000k 10 years earlier.

   This is a Real RBA problem.

2. nomadic Says:
   August 19th, 2010 at 12:14 pm

   I think if RE reads that, his head may explode while trying to comprehend. Wish I could see that.

3. nom estater Says:
   August 19th, 2010 at 12:21 pm

   It’s a GREAT time to buy! Interest rates hit a new historical low. For the second week in a row.

   http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791804575439601190525096.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

4. sonarrat Says:
   August 19th, 2010 at 12:54 pm

   If someone sells their home in the RBA (a concept that has nothing whatsoever to do with this house in the south SJ ghetto), I postulate that it’s because they no longer need the school districts and they will retire somewhere cheaper.

5. SEA Says:
   August 19th, 2010 at 1:37 pm

   sonarrat- First let me thank you for sending in the suggestion to burbed. It’s always nice to see your suggested listings. I hope your housing situation is ok.

   With that out of the way, I move forward.

   Since the asking price is over triple the purchase price 14 years ago, I assume this must be in the RBA, even if it’s surrounded by the south SJ ghetto.

   Also you must remember that once a person actually owns property in the RBA, as long as they are not a transient guest, that person seeks to stay in the RBA forever, including the afterlife (cemetery property). Cheaper is not better. If we took that logic very far, people would be leaving the RBA, and we both know that’s faulty thinking.

   Even if this place is not in the RBA, the basic idea regarding RBA pricing remains.

   nomadic-

   You mentioned Real Estater “trying to comprehend.”

   Does not compute.

6. nomadic Says:
   August 19th, 2010 at 1:49 pm

   SEA, I could try to fly…

7. sonarrat Says:
   August 19th, 2010 at 2:21 pm

   My housing situation is stable. The house is now on the market as a short sale on the MLS, and there has been one showing so far which lasted about 30 seconds. I’d call that “minimally invasive,” to borrow some medicinal speak. At least now we know that foreclosure proceedings are not imminent as they are not in default. If they can’t sell, then they have the means to hang on.

8. Real Estater Says:
   August 19th, 2010 at 9:56 pm

   Good to see that we’re not talking about Palo Alto.

9. SEA Says:
   August 19th, 2010 at 9:59 pm

   We’re not talking about Palo Alto?

10. madhaus Says:
    August 19th, 2010 at 10:12 pm

    How much would this shack be worth if it were in Palo Alto? I’ll spot you the wrong side of Middlefield, close to the extraordinary rendition center.

    Then how much would it be worth if it were next to Steve Jobs’ house and you could ask him for a cup of sugar? Your kids could knock on his door and run away screaming, “Is your antenna running?”

    Now that’s Family Action.

11. Real Estater Says:
    August 21st, 2010 at 12:48 am

    Let’s talk about Sunnyvale 94087. This one is listed at a great price (under a million). Should sell quickly.

12. Petsmart Groomer Says:
    September 30th, 2010 at 9:13 pm

    Reduced to $425K.

13. Alex Says:
    September 30th, 2010 at 9:57 pm

    Nice lot size in another ghetto. This house is either in or near the Seven Trees area.

    This crapshack should be demolished to be worth anything.

Leave a Reply