April 25, 2008

It Took 250 Days But They Finally Sold Their House

Et voila — the Berkeley “homes sold” data for the three weeks ending April 27, 20 and 13:

 It Took 250 Days But They Finally Sold Their House

 It Took 250 Days But They Finally Sold Their House

 It Took 250 Days But They Finally Sold Their House

The owners of 938 San Benito Road in north Berkeley (below left) waited four months to find the right buyers but when they came along they paid $75,000 over $1,150,000 asking price (I wonder if they asked for all that craftsman furniture to be thrown in).

Two homes in the first table were ones that made the top two spots on my list of Top 5 worst value homes (based on $ per sq ft) when they came onto the market in February — which goes to show that $729/sq ft and $685/sq ft prices aren’t all that offputting for some, although neither home went for its asking price. 293 Fairlawn Drive (below right) sold for $9,000 under its $749,000 ticket price; while the buyer of 1404 Oxford Street shaved $30,000 off the $749,999 listing price.

But the saddest sales story award must go to 1532 Summit Road. This 5/4 1960s home in north Berkeley was reduced from $1 million to $925,000 in November after being on the market more than 100 days. It finally sold last month for $830,000, 17% under its original asking price, and a painful 250 days after going on the MLS.

san benito It Took 250 Days But They Finally Sold Their House fairlawn drive 293 It Took 250 Days But They Finally Sold Their House


  • Philip: My choice area to monitor is Berkeley as it's the patch I focus on on my blog. If you can provide reliable stats that would be grand.
  • Tracy: Sorry if I meant to imply that they are unreliable, just as Toady said incomplete and confusing. I have access to the MLS and look at it constantly so I don't pay attention to any other source. Also I am only looking at my own little world and can parse it how I wish. I wish I could tell you who was good. The fact is there is no way for the lay person to double check stats. Send me an area that you would like weekly stats for and I will consider monitoring for you. I am going to try and publish weekly closes and some stats on my blog.
  • Toady
    I haven't fund the Chron to be unreliable, just sometimes incomplete and a little confusing. Sometimes they mix in commercial sales, so you get a really weird looking entry from time to time.

    I agree that a lot of online sources are unreliable -- Trulia is just plain awful, for instance. I like Bob Blumberg's monthly report, which he compiles from the EBRMLS. In cross-checking with other sources, it looks to me to be pretty comprehensive and accurate. You can find it at http://www.bobblumberg.com/MON...

    The only drawback is that he only does it once a month.
  • Philip: If the data published by the Chronicle is unreliable (I believe their source is Cal Resource) then who can we trust? Do you have a favored source?
  • Tracey: I look at many of these sales stats with a skeptical eye. I do not know where they are getting their information from. Even websites like yahoorealestate show listings that look active but have already sold. I also corrected a number the Alison Ching had in a blog last week regarding total number of homes on the market in Alameda. I published last weeks sales for Berkeley and Alameda on my blog.
    http://www.kaakeproperties.com...
    There is so much data out there it is overwhelming sometimes.
  • Toady: I suspect you flatter the Chronicle by suggesting it has a listings strategy. I have noticed that it often duplicates homes in the lists and I would guess it's just down to poor proofreading rather than a policy as such.

    As you know, but others may not, you can look up all the data, on a week by week basis, at www.sfgate.com/homesales
  • Toady
    There's kind of an interesting pattern here. Almost everything in the 27th list went for under asking, nearly everything on the 20th list went over, and all on the 13th list were under.

    Also curious: all four of those sales on the list for the 13th had been previously reported in past editions of the Chron. So effectively, there were zero sales for that week. I wonder if the Chron has some kind of policy against listing zero sales for a specific area.

    I'll be really interested to see the April sales data as a whole.
blog comments powered by Disqus
close