It Pretty Much Sucks to be a Seller Right Now
This weekend’s real estate cover story in the Times examines the plight of folks who have to sell their homes now because of things like job relocations. Case in point: “Mr. Rogers, his wife, Gillian, and their two small children had been comfortably ensconced in a four-bedroom, 2,000-square-foot condo in Clinton Hill, Brooklyn. The couple…
This weekend’s real estate cover story in the Times examines the plight of folks who have to sell their homes now because of things like job relocations. Case in point: “Mr. Rogers, his wife, Gillian, and their two small children had been comfortably ensconced in a four-bedroom, 2,000-square-foot condo in Clinton Hill, Brooklyn. The couple bought it for $599,000 in cash in January 2006, after selling the Hell’s Kitchen apartment they had outgrown for $920,000 at the height of the market, and pocketing a profit that was three times what they had paid. They hoped to make a similar killing by buying into another gentrifying neighborhood. ‘I used what I called the Starbucks index,’ Mr. Rogers said. ‘There were no Starbucks around in Hell’s Kitchen when I bought there, and when I sold there were four. There were no Starbucks here either when I bought.'” Fast forward to now, when Rogers has been relocated overseas, and we find the family unable to rent the condo or sell it for what they paid a few years ago (which would mean a loss of around $60,000 in transaction costs). Other hard-luck stories include a couple who have to sell or face housing their baby in a closet. The unifying theme: It’s tough out there for sellers.
Gotta Move, Gotta Sell [NY Times]
Pic by AnnabelB.
The Rogerses should never have agreed to talk to this reporter. The reporter makes it clear they are complete asses, for reasons detailed above, esp. their decision to live in an even bigger apartment in Geneva than their (2000sf) place in Brooklyn, and to furnish it with credit card debt! If they want to sell in Brooklyn, it’s going to be at a loss. Buyers are not looking for 2006 prices, they are looking for 04 prices. Why not take what you can get in rent since you have virtually no carrying costs? But no, they’re going to sell it and — what? live off the proceeds? Then what?
I know, mopar. It’s the adrenaline from watching the crash.
***Bid half off peak comps***
BHO, you’re nuts.
“Rent out the Clinton Hill apt for market rate. It costs them nothing.”
No way! They can’t even find the tenants they want. It’s right next to LG. It’s gonna become an LG “annex” one day. Dump NOW! They still have equity (NOT! Maxed out cards, maxed out HELOC). So, minimize I-beam embedment.
***Bid half off peak comps***
All they have to do to move that apt is throw in a week with the wife. She’s hot!!!
A couple hundred K can go in a hurry. From the few paragraphs the Rogerses thought “real estate only goes up” and have been spending much more than they should/could. They’re probably still on the plus side but it looks like the Mrs. might actually have to look for a job that pays LOL
If they’ve been hiding assets in a UBS account, they’re toast.
About the cat: Has anyone taken it to the dentist? It might have a cavity.
The Swiss couple is being very, very, very foolish.
As I posted over the weekend in the Forum, they should
1. Rent out the Clinton Hill apt for market rate. It costs them nothing.
2. Live as the Swiss do and downsize to a smaller apt that is within their means. I lived there for a summer and dual-income professional couples with two children live in two bedroom apts. Either the parents take the living room or the kids share a room. It’s all very clean, neat, and upper middle class with nice Roche-Bobois furniture and all that. You would never know the living room is also a bedroom.