« Weekend Events Open Thread »

November 13, 2009

Big Turnout for 437 Waverly Auction

There was a big turnout and lots of bidding yesterday at the auction for the shell of a house at 437 Waverly Avenue in Clinton Hill. The first round of bidding was done privately on paper, with the highest bid coming in at $415,000. At that point, the public bidding started at $415,000 and quickly worked its way up to a winning bid of $540,000, well above what we thought it would go for (and far above the pricing widget average of $382,448. Surprised?
Waverly Shell Coming Up for Auction [Brownstoner]
437 Waverly Avenue [Brooklyn Properties] GMAP P*Shark

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/12268

Comments

What is this property worth in a finished state at that location???

Finished just OK as rental units??

Finished to a high level as a single family residence?

My guess would be $800-1,000,000? It could be renovated for $250,000 (?) to $350,000?

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 13, 2009 9:12 AM

I personally think that a bid of $540k is too high, but I am not particularly stunned given that the top bid on the Brownstoner widget was over $500k, and that was out of 29 submissions. Not sure how many people constitutes a "big turnout" but if there were more people at the auction, it is not surprising that one of those individuals would have submitted a bid that was even higher than the average expectation. I guess that's what makes a market...

Posted by: bkhabitant at November 13, 2009 9:12 AM

Ha! That top bid on the widget of over 500k was mine. For once I was right!

Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at November 13, 2009 9:19 AM

I've never signed on for the idiots-in-brooklyn-overpay-for-houses-and-the widget-is-correct position. But I'm changing my mind.

Posted by: dittoburg at November 13, 2009 9:19 AM

Three one-bedroom rental units at $1,500 would bring in $54,000 and be a gross yield of 6.75% on an $800,000 investment. A refinance after completion with a lower interest rate than 6.75% would raise the yield to something over 7.0% and that's OK.

(other expenses would be fairly minimal...taxes, utilities, insurance and maybe bring the yield down 50-75 basis points)

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 13, 2009 9:25 AM

"Three one-bedroom rental units at $1,500 would bring in $54,000 and be a gross yield of 6.75% on an $800,000 investment."

DIBS, I'm not one to question your financial genius, but rents are still currently falling in NYC according to the latest data. And property taxes aren't falling. So you're painting a rosy picture, but I think you need to be a bit more hard headed. And are you saying there's no maintenance needed?

Posted by: dittoburg at November 13, 2009 9:34 AM

What kind of fool pays 540k for a single-family shell in a depressed housing market, do some people still have money to throw away.

Posted by: Esa at November 13, 2009 9:35 AM

Too much, but that's what a good auction does. People who meant to stop at 450 find themselves bidding 540.

I doubt they'll get 1500 for these itty bitty floors, but more to 'em

Posted by: Ringo at November 13, 2009 9:38 AM

ditto, although these units will be small, a fully renovated rental unit iin that neighborhood will still command $1,500, perhaps even more.

Taxes $2,500
Common area utilities $2,500
Insurance $3500

Take that off of the $54,000 in income and you've got 5.6% NET yield to a small property management company.

I'm not saying I'd do this at this price but eventually those rents will go up and then you're looking at 7% net yield.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 13, 2009 9:39 AM

Not familiar with the property, but looking at the photo it appears there are two well maintained buildings on either side of the shell. Identical facades...

Posted by: IMBY at November 13, 2009 9:41 AM

Winner's curse strikes again

Posted by: thedudeabides at November 13, 2009 9:43 AM

Ringo, you are certainly correct on that "auction mentality."

"Well, if that guy over there is bidding $520,000 and he looks pretty smart, I'll bid $540,000."

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 13, 2009 9:45 AM

If they'd taken the halloween cobwebs down they could've gotten 10% more.

Posted by: dittoburg at November 13, 2009 9:45 AM

ditto, I think you've hit on something. haunted houses do tend to bring a premium. No one overpaid here.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 13, 2009 9:49 AM

market is well into defrost mode.
this will be a custom single family, i don't see a rental here.
follow the construction loans...

Posted by: antidope at November 13, 2009 9:56 AM

Who buys a property like this to rent out?

Posted by: architect66 at November 13, 2009 9:59 AM

Wow -- I never expected anyone to spend that much on me! I'm flattered. But I still don't know where to send my info so the deed and such can be sent to me...

Posted by: tybur6 at November 13, 2009 10:11 AM

I agree, it's worth more to someone who wants to design their own custom single family.

BHO will disagree and will say that it can NEVER be worth more than 10X the rent roll despite the fact that most owner occupied homes in Brooklyn haven't sold that cheaply for about 20 years.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 13, 2009 10:12 AM

"What is this property worth in a finished state at that location???"

$500K tops. If as little as $250K to renovate, buyer will still be fucked.

"a fully renovated rental unit iin that neighborhood will still command $1,500, perhaps even more"

That's bullshit. With all the rental inventory coming online (didn't you see the other thread about this), you'd have to be seriously retarded to pay that in rent for 2/3 a standard width brownstone floor-through. This collapsing economy will bring these rentals down to $1,000/mo.

10 x 12 (months/year) x 4 (# floors) x 1,000 ($/month) = $480,000 (an income of $160K/year with 20% down affords this). Oh damn, I was 4% over in my above estimate.

Standard width (20 feet), renovated brownstones here will bottom at $750,000 (an income of $250K/year with 20% down affords this).

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 13, 2009 10:14 AM

$540k is more than I would have spent, considering that buying at auction entails extra costs, this is really a $600k purchase. However consider that the shell next door was bought a bit over a year ago for $745k, and the shell next (granted that one was 20ft wide) for $1,203k a year earlier.
Maybe the buyer overspent a bit, but still a much better deal than his neighbors. Well done, this house will be worth about a million? Not much of a discount for the privilege of doing all the work, and you have to assume the risk prices might get lower yet, one the other hand, you get to have a house exactly the way you want it, and there isn't that much available at this price point.

Posted by: Maly at November 13, 2009 10:14 AM

"BHO will disagree and will say that it can NEVER be worth more than 10X the rent roll despite the fact that most owner occupied homes in Brooklyn haven't sold that cheaply for about 20 years."

More bullshit. As I told you before, and I invite ANYONE on here to challenge me with information to the contrary, decently updated brownstones in this hood were valued as such (10 x annual rent) as recently as ten years ago.

Floor-throughs went for way under $1,500/mo but even if you use this figure, your average 20' x 4 story brownstone on streets like St. James went for $720,000. And that's what they were going for.

Let me ask you this, when was the last time property values tripled within a decade and drove the overall economy? There's no free lunch for that. The piper will get paid.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 13, 2009 10:22 AM

BHO, you live in a fantasy world called the past. The current market continues to prove you wrong. When will you start to face the facts???

Rates are low and have been falling. Wake up and smell the affordability.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 13, 2009 10:26 AM

"one the other hand, you get to have a house exactly the way you want it,"

Only if you can stretch it 5ft wider.

Posted by: dittoburg at November 13, 2009 10:29 AM

I was at the auction, and view the house. it's very small and need full renovation of at least $300K. it's too small for rentals. I was ready to pay $400k but 2 buyers pushing each other higher and higher.

Posted by: bk8 at November 13, 2009 10:29 AM

wow. that house is going to take at least 450K to renovate, if not more. it is a SHELL! congratulations to the successful bidder.

Posted by: witchdoctor at November 13, 2009 10:30 AM

bho you've argued previously that th were 500-750k in ps ten years before this peak.

*** "A year ago, Mr. Thomas said, sales in Brooklyn Heights and the prime areas of Cobble Hill ranged from $1.3 million to $1.7 million. "By the end of 1997, we had marquis listings -- the best properties in the best locations -- listed as high as $5 million. The resulting impact in Park Slope is that houses that were trading in the $750,000 to $900,000 range are now listed from $900,000 to $1.3 million." ***

so much for your basic premise that housing tripled. looks like you've underpriced your starting point by up to 50%.

Posted by: antidope at November 13, 2009 10:32 AM

You know what would be really cool... knock down everything *except* the facade. Then build a "secret garden" in the back. This would be especially awesome if it was part of one of the adjacent properties. Imagine... waling by the "house" and looking through the windows to see a big tree, a pond, a little cabana perhaps. Probably the same costs for renovation, but sooo much more awesome.

Posted by: tybur6 at November 13, 2009 10:35 AM

Bho there were almost no decent updated brownstones for sale in Clinton Hill. Most of the sales were complete rehab jobs then. I know people who bought a complete wreck 8 years ago, and even then spent 650k plus all the work. Your assumptions and your reasoning are both faulty. That there is downward pressure because of the credit constraints and overall ncertainty is a given, but your simplistic formula just doesn't apply in most cases.

Posted by: Maly at November 13, 2009 10:37 AM

It's not a fantasy, DIBS. It's a NIGHTMARE. "We" didn't learn from history and now we're doomed. I'm facing depression-approaching unemployment, zomby banks and a "China Problem".

You know and I know that rates will soon skyrocket (see "China Problem") and the "affordability scale" (let alone the unemployment and lack of confidence effect) will eat comps alive. Wake up period.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 13, 2009 10:39 AM

540 plus 400 for a good-quality reno into a single family house gives you a brand-new house with a historic facade for $940,000. That seems in line or a little better than recent sales. But I don't think there is a large profit margin for a developer. Of course it won't be ready to live in for another ten to twelve months so who knows what will shake out in the meantime.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at November 13, 2009 10:45 AM

BHO, if the market though that rates will soon skyrocket, they would have skyrocketed already.

ybur6, THAT IS ONE OF THE BEST IDEAS I'VE EVER SEEN ON HERE!!!!!!!

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 13, 2009 10:45 AM

Okay, 'dope. I stand corrected about Park Slope and Brooklyn Heights (I found that old '99 pamplet I had from Landmark Realty and had another look). But I'm right on the money about Clinton Hill. And even if I use your numbers for the other hoods, we're still triple where we were.

750 - 900 all the way to 2 - 3 mil. That's triple, +200%, for Park Slope. Same thing for Brooklyn Heights. All fit the formula in the 90's of 10 x annual rent and arguably 3 x income (of qualified buyer pool).

What you got for my argument on this thread, 'dope. Nadda! That's what I thought!

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 13, 2009 10:47 AM

BHO, what you fail to understand is that places like Clinton Hill, Ft. greene, Bed Stuy and others ARE NOT LIKE THEY WERE 10-15-20 years ago in terms of "gentrification", amenities, crime or whatever you want to call it.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 13, 2009 10:50 AM

"Your assumptions and your reasoning are both faulty."

90's numbers to the contrary please, Maly? Shells cost roughly $100K/floor to renovate. So your people effectively bought a renovated brownstone for a mil in 2001 (after boom of tech bubble). That easily deduces to about 750 back in the 90's. Yes, there were plenty of boarded up and dilapidated houses but there were renovated ones as well. Again, if you have a handle on what the market was doing back then, give me numbers to the contrary! I personlly know people who bought shells for 250 to 500 grand during that period.

"your simplistic formula just doesn't apply in most cases"

Complicated analyses are usually wrong and designed to fool unsuspecting buyers. It's the black box mark to model syndrome. Traditional metrics are based on income and rent. That's what we're returing to. Mean reversion. Ouch!

You guys got nooooooothing!

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 13, 2009 10:55 AM

Those places are not like they were in 2007 either, DIBS. We're returning towards crime levels of the 80's/90's (unreported robberies, shootings on Fulton), not that we'll get all the way there but comps will fall. Stop pressing pause on the camcorder. The economic and Brooklyn housing collapse is well underway.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 13, 2009 11:00 AM

Thank you DIBS -- I'm an idea man, if nothing else!

Posted by: tybur6 at November 13, 2009 11:02 AM

BHO, you are a perfect exampl of what is referred to as the "lunatic fringe" with that 11:00 post.

Not worth debating with anymore.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 13, 2009 11:10 AM

tyberg, some people are thinkers, some people are doers. the more you think the less you are likely to do as life really is so fraught with hazards and uncertainty.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at November 13, 2009 11:11 AM

I'd be more interested in knowing with this house will be worth as a finished 1-family. I agree with those who think that's what will most likely be done with it. That's what I would do.

Posted by: CarrollGardened at November 13, 2009 11:21 AM

DIBS,

I like your logic, but I'm not convinced by your argument. It seems overly optimistic.

There are costs to the buyer/owner that you seem to minimize.

And there are potentually expensive unknowns in buying at auction.

Even the broker's website says:

"Requirement: Buyer must be prepared to
make immediate emergency repairs to back
wall and roof. Both DOB and LPC are
prepared to expedite permits for repairs."

Bk8, you were at the auction. What was the deal with the needed "immediate emergency repairs?"

Posted by: Pigeon at November 13, 2009 11:23 AM

to piggyback on tybur6's great idea. i always thought it would be great if someone plunked down one of those great prefab 'small homes' that have been so hyped for the past few years on some lot in bk. how cool would it be to leave the shell, have a big garden, and then one of those super-eco, super-designed little houses all the way in the back?

Posted by: perhaps at November 13, 2009 11:26 AM

Pigeon, bxgrl just posted this on the OT...you gotta watch....

http://tinyhacker.com/hacks/pideonimpossible-animated-goodness/

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 13, 2009 11:27 AM

Minard's analysis is correct. BHO, your pronouncements are often ridiculous, and the rest of the time I can't understand what you're saying.

Posted by: mopar at November 13, 2009 11:29 AM

"Some people are thinkers, some people are doers. The more you think the less you are likely to do, as life really is so fraught with hazards and uncertainty."

Posted by: Minard Lafever at November 13, 2009 11:11 AM

I like that!
Where'd you steal that from, Minard?
Lao Tzu?
Nietzsche?
Ayn Rand?

Posted by: Pigeon at November 13, 2009 11:29 AM

Sounds more like Oscar Wilde or Mae West.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 13, 2009 11:31 AM

While I am loathe to dismiss out of hand BHO's analysis of some form of "formulaic" valuation for houses based on rent roll I find his conclusions FAR too simplistic and reductionist. Also, the notion that FG/CLinton Hill/Bed Stuy will revert to the the bad ole days crimewise is similarly heavyhanded. There is no way that these neighborhoods will slide back into the sorts of crime levels seen in the 80's.

Posted by: wasder at November 13, 2009 11:31 AM

wasder, BHO doesn't want to hear rational arguements like that.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 13, 2009 11:33 AM

Dibs:

"I've been called worse by better dames"
-Mae West

Posted by: Minard Lafever at November 13, 2009 11:33 AM

In re the value of this shell, if it can be renovated for under 400G then I think that you would be hard pressed to find a newly renovated rowhouse in this neighborhood going for within 100G of that total price (940). Agree that it has more value to a single family buyer than to a developer or investment buyer.

Posted by: wasder at November 13, 2009 11:38 AM

"Your pants are so tight I can see your religion"
Mae West

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 13, 2009 11:41 AM

"I was pure as the driven snow, but I've drifted."
Mae West

Posted by: Minard Lafever at November 13, 2009 11:44 AM

BHO - man you are not living in my world brother. spouse has job offer for 2x current salary. my firm had our best month in a year and half last month. and my condo was just appraised (for a re-fi) for $100k over what we paid for it 3 years ago. we now pay a fixed mortgage with minimal taxes and cc charges. we are in for the long haul (15-20 years) and feel incredibly happy that we have a fixed overhead (our condo charges could change but will never increase like rents will). let's talk 3 years, 5 years, 10 years from now and see where rents are vs. my mortgage payment. sure, we have money buried in our house, but our mortgage payment is low. right now, today, we could not rent our place in a similar good location for even close on a monthly basis.

this shell was a good deal even figuring in $400K in construction if owners plan on living there. dumb to compare to rent roll!

Posted by: wine lover at November 13, 2009 11:48 AM

I agree with wine lover. rent roll is how one traditionally values commercial property. Where did bho get this idea of applying rent roll valuation to a house? It's where you live with your family, rent rolls don't come into the equation.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at November 13, 2009 11:55 AM

Minard -- I'm really not sure what the "take away" from your comment is supposed to be... just a bit on the cryptic end of the spectrum without any obvious intent.

Pigeon -- that is an EXCELLENT continuation of my idea. It could even be the "guest house" of this sort of place. The living quarters are the house to the left and right with a courtyard and guest house in the middle -- three facades, one property. Ahhh... if I only had a few million!

Posted by: tybur6 at November 13, 2009 12:06 PM

And, of course, by "pigeon" I meant "perhaps"

Posted by: tybur6 at November 13, 2009 12:07 PM

I said towards the 80's/90's, wasder, not necessarily ll the way there. Common sense. Recession/depression, rising crime.

Mopar, if you paid near peak comp in Stuy, I understand your denial.

"right now, today, we could not rent our place in a similar good location for even close on a monthly basis"

Damn, not again! Add hypothetical loss (half off) divided by hypothetical months of ownership. You're likely paying more (upkeep and fees more than cancel out tax benefits). Conversely, if RE goes up +200% from here in real terms, you can subtract. The former is dangerously realistic while the latter is pure fantasy.

"dumb to compare to rent roll!"

Dumb not to if you don't want to lose. The long haul is just as hypothetical as my 'half off'. If you couldn't get your sale price and wanted to rent it out instead, you'd be faced with this fundamental. Why do you think so many developments are going rental now and having a hard time filling vacancies? They relied only on the Ponzi resale price that is now breaking down. You have no idea about historic RE fundamentals.

Granted, not everybody wants to win. Some just want a home regardless of price. But then you get all these complaints in the forums about trouble renting out properties and broken leases. And rising maint/cc's, taxes, energy, defaluts, lis pendens and foreclosures. Much desperation trying to keep up with Mr/Mrs Jones. For most of us, buying a home needs to be an informed financial decision, not an emotional one.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 13, 2009 12:08 PM

Pure garbage, Minard. Most people would not afford brownstones if not for the rental income. The few single fams you see, sometimes come in the form of a rental listing because the primary residence long haul scenario didn't quite play out for such owners. If you overpaid, using leverage, by the 10 x rent fundamental, you'd be all in the red.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 13, 2009 12:17 PM

Pure garbage, Minard. Most people would not afford brownstones if not for the rental income.

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 13, 2009 12:17 PM

Which makes them affordable.

QED

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 13, 2009 12:24 PM

There is not a historical 1:1 correlation between state of the economy and crime. Interesting article about the metrics of this in last weeks' new yorker. But i guess you can always hope for the worst, right BHO?

Posted by: squaredrive at November 13, 2009 12:32 PM

"Which makes them affordable."

Affordable to enter the market and get your asshole handed to you months or years later when you're forced to sell after interest rates and unemployment spikes? Yeah.

Not worth debating anymore, huh?

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 13, 2009 12:40 PM

It is one thing to rent out a portion of a house to help pay for its upkeep and it is another to calcualte its value based merely on the hypothetical rental income of the entire building. If you are looking for a house to live in, there are many other factors to weigh than rent roll. Whereas if you are looking for an income-producing property, rent roll is the primary concern. You are mixing up your priorities vis a vis your desire for rental income and your family's desires for what they want in a home.
The family comes first, the rental income a distant second.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at November 13, 2009 12:47 PM

"...i guess you can always hope for the worst, right BHO?"

I know, squaredrive. It's fucked up how I equate value with higher crime. But value is my focus. Higher crime is just a realistic aside. No matter where crime goes, cheap EZ credit and the economy that resulted are a thing of the past and it will reflect in lower and lower comps as time passes. L-shaped crash. No recovery for years. Get used to a lower standard of living.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 13, 2009 12:48 PM

Get used to a lower standard of living.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 13, 2009 12:48 PM

Pull yourself up and get off of the public trough, BHO :)

"Affordable to enter the market and get your asshole handed to you months or years later when you're forced to sell after interest rates and unemployment spikes? Yeah."

Ever hear of a fixed rate mortgage??????

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 13, 2009 12:58 PM

Future pool of buyers, DIBS. Fixed 10ish % rate.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 13, 2009 1:06 PM

The mark on the front of the building indicates that the building is CONDEMNED. I'm not sure if it allows them to keep the frame.

Posted by: Minmin at November 13, 2009 1:11 PM

Not condemned, Minmin...it's put there by the fire department saying that it is not structurally sound inside in case there is a fire and they need to go in. Someone posted the exact definitions of the boxes with or without slashes or Xs inside them on the original thread.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 13, 2009 1:14 PM

When will rates hit 10%, BHO??? And please describe the scenario that gets us there.

Relying on the current Fed stimulus is not a valid answer because the market knows more than you and if the market thought that would do it we'd be there by now.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 13, 2009 1:15 PM

I thought it meant that theres no one living in there - for NYFD purposes

Posted by: dittoburg at November 13, 2009 1:16 PM

Minard,

Over time, RE slowly oscillates between overvalued and undervalued. The best buy is supposed to be cheaper than renting. If you want value, you have to look at rents. You can overpay all you want. The market has not bottomed yet. When it does, buying will be cheaper than renting (not just a carrying cost comparison but considering downpayment and resale as well - appreciation from purchase).

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 13, 2009 1:18 PM

"No recovery for years. Get used to a lower standard of living."

Dude have a milkshake for lunch or something and cheer up!

Just curious, what reaction are you looking for with such certain doomsday predictions? Do you feel like it's a public service or are you just entertaining yourself?

Posted by: squaredrive at November 13, 2009 1:26 PM

BHO, It's not so simple.
There are huge advantages to owning as opposed to renting. Of course that's just me. I was brought up believeing that real estate and securities are purchased for the long haul. You sound more like a speculator who wants to make sure his money grows instantly so he can sell and then buy again. That sort of thing is very tricky and as an individual investor the cards are stacked against you. I have made a great deal of money on Brooklyn real estate and I have never thought like you.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at November 13, 2009 1:31 PM

Mortgage rates, DIBS. 10% is not far fetched at all.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 13, 2009 1:31 PM

Here's the link describing the spray painted boxes...

http://www.ushero.org/ushero/docs/es/nfpa/1670/nfpa1670_files/image004.jpg

You're welcome.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 13, 2009 1:32 PM

DIBS -- that "someone" was me!! Goddammit! I shared what the box with the X meant... I might be a bitchy twat, but I am a source of good information and great ideas!

Posted by: tybur6 at November 13, 2009 1:39 PM

Mortgage rates, DIBS. 10% is not far fetched at all.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 13, 2009 1:31 PM

ANd yet you didn't describe the scenario that gets us there as I asked.

More BULLSHIT.

I could easily say "3% is not that far fetched" and not back it up. In fact the probability, based on statistics, is that it is more likely to get to 3% than 10%. But I prefer not to sound as idiotic as you are right now.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 13, 2009 1:41 PM

Give someone one compliment a day and they're always looking for more.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 13, 2009 1:48 PM

Public service, squaredrive. (and my agenda...Ssshhhhhh!)

"I have made a great deal of money on Brooklyn real estate and I have never thought like you."

When/What did you buy/sell? What's your timeline?

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 13, 2009 1:49 PM

"ANd yet you didn't describe the scenario that gets us there as I asked."

Inflation. Repricing of risk. How the hell will they go to 3%?

***Bid half of peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 13, 2009 1:53 PM

The secret is to buy and weather the down cycles. It's what separates the kids from the grownups. At one point I was half a million under water. Fortunately I did not have to sell or declare bankrupcy, I held on. I didn't rely on my home for income. Once out of that dark cycle, it became all roses and lollipops.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at November 13, 2009 1:59 PM

"Inflation, repricing of risk."

Too much FOX News. What you know about pricing of risk wouldn't get you the price of a cup of coffee.

For ne thing, VIX is 23, down from 80.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 13, 2009 2:04 PM

I like to receive THREE compliments per day.

Posted by: tybur6 at November 13, 2009 2:07 PM

Once, twice three times a lady.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 13, 2009 2:20 PM

"For ne thing, VIX is 23, down from 80."

Tied to government/central bank manipulated equities. Little to do with what we're talking about and the sale of 435 Waverly.

Keep pumping while others are dumping.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 13, 2009 2:24 PM

DIBS,

I couldn't watch the pigeon video because it wouldn't play on my work computer.
:(

Posted by: Pigeon at November 13, 2009 2:25 PM

Minard,

Buy when? Randomly?

What's your score? How many properties, when bought/sold, etc? I guess you bought in the late 80's, held, looked back from now and kept a nominal score without adjusting for grand total costs and inflation. You still may be ahead but you lucked out and rode the tidal credit wave of the 00's. Try repeating it now near peak comps. You will lose. This is a once-in-a-lifetime boom/bust.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 13, 2009 2:30 PM

buy randomly? Well, buy when you need to, buy when you feel you have found something special. Yes. I guess that is my advise. I have not made millions and millions don't get me wrong. But I have made as much on real estate as at my job. I'm keeping both.
On another note, I want to say how much more pleasant it is around here without the zip code poster. So nice not to be called names or told you have a missing chromosome by some dullard who can't find another way to express his thoughts.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at November 13, 2009 2:44 PM

I'll buy at the bottom (wife permitting), when Case-Shiller YOY gets back into the green. Enjoying beautiful, spacious rental in the mean time, between time.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 13, 2009 2:52 PM

Thanks Dibs and Tyburg--I always thought that the box with the X was condemned, usually because buildings usually came down once that mark was on them.

Posted by: Minmin at November 13, 2009 2:58 PM

bho- that'd be february at the rate we're going now. but c/s won't report it til may. better start the search now if you want to set the bottom. ;)

Posted by: antidope at November 13, 2009 3:27 PM

"bho- that'd be february at the rate we're going now."

Sorry, 'dope. It aint quite that linear. We're in false-glimmer-of-hope mode right now because YOY temporarily turned up, as it did last year, but will eventually turn back down to reality, as it did last year. Perhaps C-S is incorrectly calculating out the seasonal effects. You can extrapolate on this noisy curve all you want but we're years away from the bottom. Economy's on life support. Soon the Feds/Obama Admin will have no choice but to pull the plug.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 13, 2009 3:57 PM

BHO, I bought at 40 percent off peak in Bed Stuy, thank you very much, and FWIW the total monthly costs are actually cheaper than renting. Maybe you should think about a purchase?

Posted by: mopar at November 13, 2009 4:37 PM

five straight monthly c/s upticks. thawing market. tax credit extension. i think we'll make it your own metric by feb, maybe even jan. then all you'll have is your misplaced 10x, 3x straw men.

you'll be kicking yourself having missed the second mother of all rebounds. having already missed the mother of all equity rebounds.

nothing wrong with renting either cuz this is gonna be a dead cat bounce. there's safety in a litter box.

Posted by: antidope at November 13, 2009 4:51 PM

I think the central point here is that you aren't going to find ANYTHING else in any condition for that price in this area. There are a fair number of people who want a place that needs a gut reno, or want a shell to reimagine. There are a lot of new building techniques out there, and renovating this as a modern box might be less expenseive than most of us think.

But I'd say the seller should thank Brownstone for drumming up interest.

Posted by: Bolder at November 13, 2009 4:56 PM

I'm not surprised at this price at all. Spend another $450K doing it up the way you'd like to and you have a great single family with a center stair in a good landmarked location for around $1MM (which is a bit less than a well done renovated version of this house would likely sell for, even in today's market). If I was liquid enough, I would have taken this on, and rented out our current house once this was finished. I wonder if they have the FAR to do a small two story extension? Facing East/West would not result in much of a light issue for the neighbors' back yards...

Posted by: 1842 at November 13, 2009 10:13 PM

IMO, the size of this place is a plus as well. It is hard to find a one family size rowhouse. Usually, you end up buying something larger and even if you do not need the rental income, the place is so large that it is silly not to rent at least the garden floor (even for a family of 5). Here, you don't have to pay the premium for all the extra space, and can make it a one family with four bedrooms easily, and for around $1MM when done. Good deal imo. A small frame house around this size on St. James (#154) just sold for $1.1 or so (someone posted that on this site - it was featured on this site a few months ago and most said it would never break $1MM for such a small place.

Posted by: 1842 at November 13, 2009 11:58 PM

« Weekend Events Open Thread »

November 13, 2009

Big Turnout for 437 Waverly Auction

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions