May 11, 2011

Lots of Instant Equity, or Instant Submarining, in Pleasanton

Thanks very much to Burbed reader Shocked East Coaster for today’s find, which, alas, doesn’t have any marble columns.  It does have some other interesting features, like digits.  Lots and lots of digits.

1630 Laguna Hills Ln, Pleasanton, CA  94566
$162,500,000

image

Bedrooms: 6
Bathrooms: 4
Sqft: 4,000
Lot size: 12,444 sq ft / 0.29 acres
Property type: Single Family
Year built: 2003
Parking type: —
Cooling system: —
Heating system: —
Fireplace: —
Days on Zillow: 7
MLS number: 40513130
Listing website: Keller Williams – Pl…

An Absolute Masterpiece with Upgrades Galore! This Exquisite Single-Story Residence Offers: 4 bedrooms plus office and 4 full baths, 3 car garage.Exceptional architectural design and quality craftsmanship is evident throughout this 4000 sq ft Former Model. Must see!

Well, no wonder Burbed’s newest contributor calls him/her/itself Shocked East Coaster.  And at these prices, I’m not surprised!  Here’s what SEC has to say about this listing:

a super affordable $828,477/month

Must be something in the water

By the way, love your site. I am new to the bay area real estate craziness( market) and I truly can’t believe the prices out here.

imageWell, if you use Zillow instead of Redfin, I guess that’s what happens.  The latter site also has 9 photos instead of just 1, and the sky is much much much more dramatic.

They didn’t magic up any marble columns, though, just this sky that matches Princess Eugenie’s hat.

Comments (36) -- Posted by: madhaus @ 5:15 am

36 Responses to “Lots of Instant Equity, or Instant Submarining, in Pleasanton”

  1. nomadic Says:

    How is it this lot is supposed to be 12,632 sf but the 4,000sf house fills up almost the entire thing? That is the tiniest little pool I have ever seen crammed up against the back fence.

  2. ES Says:

    how do you FUCK UP THE LISTING PRICE??? IT’S THE LISTING PRICE! THE FIRST THING PEOPLE LOOK AT!

    Malty Millions was dumb, but this is over the top.

  3. SEA Says:

    Perfect location and priced for a Tracy land baron.

  4. Michael Boltonestater Says:

    > How is it this lot is supposed to be 12,632 sf but the 4,000sf house fills up almost the entire thing?

    Square footage does not include garage.

  5. nomadic Says:

    But Michael, a 3-car garage is generally about 768sf…

  6. Mole Man Says:

    This property is maybe worth a little over a million, but the owner wants well over half a million. As a result, it doesn’t really matter how screwed up the listing is, in fact this may be a subtle strategy for communicating the lack of seriousness on the part of the seller. Just speculating.

  7. sfbubblebuyer Says:

    What’s a few order of magnitudes between seller and buyer friends?

    Clearly the agent and seller have little internet savvy if they let Zillow’s listing sit at such a ridiculous price point. Either that or they just don’t care anymore since it’s pending.

  8. SEA Says:

    Yes, pending–the so-called over-bidding “brought the price right up to where it needs to be.”

  9. sfbubblebuyer Says:

    I think the under-bidding in this case is what drove it closer to what the price ought to be since they had to cut the price several times.

  10. SEA Says:

    I seek to buy as close to zero as possible.

  11. The Gilroy Alex Says:

    162 million just doesn’t buy what it used to, some people will have to share a bathroom, shame.

  12. tuno Says:

    a new Mr. Mortgage post!!! a brief one, but excellent as usual: http://mhanson.com/blog

  13. Real Estater Says:

    Wake up tuno. Hiring is up. Home sales in the Bay Area is at record levels. Foreclosures are down. Recession is old news now.

  14. SEA Says:

    Oh, yea, those homes that we’ve seen with an asking price of 50%, or less, of the last sale price, the recession is old news, so those homes really should be selling for 200% of the former selling price.

    That’s right! Now even the non-RBA has a double-double: simply buy these 50% off of the last sale price places today and sell tomorrow for 150% profit. I’m sure there’s no risk, hassle, or anything like that. In fact non-RBA housing might seem better than RBA housing, but you must realize that RBA housing will likely go up even faster. The current short sales sellers are just dumb, and you don’t have to worry about that happening to you. Unlike those buyers who lost 50%+, you’re a smart buyer. As always: Now is the right time to buy (except you really should have purchased 30 years ago).

    CRAZY!

  15. SEA Says:

    Here’s a prime example of a not of money lost, but I’m happy it’s not my money:

    627 La Salle Ave 94124.

    Sold: July 2005 $400k
    Listed: October 2010 $100k (75% lower than last sale–Christmas in October, maybe?)
    Listing price reduced: January 2011 to $75k

    It did go pending in October 2010, so who knows what’s up with the January price reduction, but who was it that paid $400k for this place, and when will it be worth $400k again, even if the local/national economy suddenly looked very good? I sure don’t see a neighborhood suddenly going from $100k sales to $400k sales (to get back to 2005 pricing), and then, for those who purchased in 2005, it would need to go significantly higher to realize a reasonable return on investment. Here it is some six years later, and let’s use the “double every 10 years” standard, that suggests that this place would need to sell for $800k in just four years. Yes, that’s right, from under $100k to ~$800k in four years. The freakin’ RBA cannot compete with that.

    Alternatively, let’s say the price does not go from $100k to $800k in four years, but rather the selling price doubles in four years. This means that similar homes in the area would be worth ~$200k, so those who purchased at $400k would be down 50% after 10 years. And I think I’m being a bit generous to suggest the prices will double in that area in just four years–first prices need to stop going down, and then double.

    All this while people kvetch about an extra buck for a gallon of gas. You know the routine: So many complain that gas is ‘unaffordable,’ yet they dream about buying million dollar homes. Million dollar homes cannot be the problem–let’s go to war over a few bucks each week in gas expense.

    And before you tell me how special this place is on the lower end, there is at least one other in that area: 132 Dolphin Ct.

    Purchased June 2005 for $410k.
    Sold February 2011 for $108k.

    Is that close enough to say 75% off? When will the selling price get back over $400k?

    I know:

    Every home is sacred.
    Every home is great.
    If a home is wasted,
    God gets quite irate.

    Every home is wanted.
    Every home is good.
    Every home is needed
    in your neighborhood.

    God loves those who treat
    their homes with more care.

  16. fuzzywzhe Says:

    Who cares about if the “recession” is supposedly old news?

    The state is bankrupt.

    California’s balance sheet is worse than Greece’s was. I can buy a home here, but fuck that! I’m not going to drop down 1/2 million dollars for a she box in Silicon Valley when I can just retire anywhere else. The weather is nice, but it’s not that nice and it’s far too risky to purchase in this state at all.

  17. Real Estater Says:

    fuzzywzhe,

    What does the state going bankrupt have to do with you buying a home here? Care to elaborate what exactly is the link? To buy a 1/2 million dollar house, you only need like $130K max. Most people here can make that in a year.

  18. Real Estater Says:

    SEA says,
    >>those homes that we’ve seen with an asking price of 50%, or less, of the last sale price

    Not sure which drug you’re taking today, but if you check the Palo Alto Weekly, there is a section in there where they show how much a home is sold for, and how much it was sold for in a previous sale. I’ve been watching that for quite some time, and almost all of the homes sell for higher, often a lot higher than the previous sale. In fact this is the single most concrete evidence that home ownership pays off.

  19. Real Estater Says:

    Good news:

    >>NEW YORK (AP) — Mortgage rates have hit lows for the year and could soon near the decades-low levels of last year.

  20. Petsmart groomer Says:

    > The lower [conforming loan] limits, which could drop to as little as $650,000 in states like New York, California and New Jersey, are stoking worries that housing prices for the most expensive areas may collapse as Uncle Sam retreats from the market.

    limit @ $729,750 (assuming 20% down), house is $912K.
    limit @ $625,500, house is $782K.

  21. tuno Says:

    RE whistling past the graveyard, once again.

    Hey, don’t get me wrong. I’m reasonably optimistic re plenty of things. However, real estate prices in CA are going to keep dropping for at least 5 years. Including in the RBA. Actually, I suppose that means I’m optimistic re real estate prices.

  22. SEA Says:

    RE- You are so predictable that I already wrote the reply, before your message. The only problem is that it’s awaiting moderation.

    Go back and read #15 once it’s cleared.

  23. SEA Says:

    “Mortgage rates have hit lows for the year and could soon near the decades-low levels of last year.”

    Do you really think the industry can buy its way out with cheap money?

  24. madhaus Says:

    #21, I hate to waste that submission on comments! How about I use it as Monday’s guest post instead? (Tuesday if burbed already took Monday)

    I will say this. #17 doesn’t care about listings outside Palo Alto, and also more than 80% of the listings within, as they fail his ever-changing location criteria: busy street, train tracks, power towers, neighbor with appliances on porch, etc.

    So no matter what you find to refute that prices are going up, he’s ready to disqualify it, no matter where it is, when it was purchased, or how little it sells for today. And he’ll call you an amateur while insisting he isn’t a Realtard. Loll.

  25. SEA Says:

    #23 Sounds good: Monday, Tuesday, whenever.

  26. Real Estater Says:

    >>I will say this. #17 doesn’t care about listings outside Palo Alto,

    To be blunt, that’s absolutely bulls*. The newspaper publishes sales results for all the peninsula cities, not just Palo Alto. Go check your facts before writing something.

    >>So no matter what you find to refute that prices are going up, he’s ready to disqualify it,

    More bulls*. It is you who will refute the sales figures being printed in black and white, and the already widely known fact that Bay Area real estate has caught Spring fever. I’m always careful to qualify my statements whenever appropriate, such as regarding busy streets, train tracks, etc. It’s common sense, but need to be spelled out for person like you who has a tendency to misrepresent facts.

  27. SEA Says:

    Just remember this: “The newspaper publishes sales results for all the peninsula cities, not just Palo Alto.”

    Fortunately I stayed within that bound.

  28. madhaus Says:

    #24, it’s scheduled for Monday. Thanks very much!

  29. BogusEstater Says:

    and the already widely known fact that Bay Area real estate has caught Spring fever.
    —–

    We heard this story before, since 2008 when “Feb home sales is was up”.

    Try something new.

  30. Not Really An Estater Says:

    And don’t forget 2010 Spring bounce that was “kicked off in full steam”.

  31. 2009 Sping Bouncer Says:

    What about me? I am the 2009 Spring Bouncer who got promoted from a nightclub bouncer position. After promotion the first thing I did is to make all the investors to rush for buying investment properties and make them overbidding with each other.

  32. madhaus Says:

    Bay Area real estate has caught Spring Fever? No wonder it’s in critical condition. We need a few foreclosures here, stat!

  33. madhaus Says:

    I have now released the comment that is now #15, since it ran yesterday’s Guest Post (I Left My Equity in San Francisco). That means all the other comment numbers are now, alas, one number off.

    I didn’t want to send a perfectly acceptable comment to Spam or Trash for fear this contributor’s comments would go there automagically. Hopefully this is a pretty-much done thread so it shouldn’t mess too many of you up reading along at home.

  34. madhaus Says:

    The house featured in this article sold for $1,400,000 on June 17th. “Bunus:” listing removed from Zillow, but Zestimate is… $138,125,000.

    That’s all we need to know about how legit Zestimates are.

  35. nomadic Says:

    I guess that goes to show that a listing price does affect the Zestimate.

  36. SEA Says:

    Selling price range: “$102.2M – $149.2M”

    Not only that, but the annual rent estimate is only $50k. Let’s see… Shell out $138M to sell in 10 years for $275M, or rent for $0.5M (10 years, undiscounted).

    You know I want to make an easy $138M…


Leave a Reply

Please be nice. No name calling, no personal attacks, no racist stuff, no baiting, etc. Let's be nice to each other in the true Bay Area spirit! (Comments may be edited/removed without notice.)