The polar bears are drowning! (next year)

Alaska is experiencing its coldest summer ever (in recent history, I presume). Climate experts have rushed to explain that this says nothing about global warming and boy, watch out for next year, but as one commentator notes in the linked article, how come every cooling phenomenon is attributed to natural causes and every warming spell is blamed on humans? It's embarrassing data like this that caused the almost-subtle switch last year from "global warming" to "climate change". Once the terminology was changed, everything that happens on earth can be blamed on people who live in 26,000 sq.ft. homes and fly private jets to Bali - oh wait, that's not right.

Amazing News

The New York Times hasn't done much reporting on the surge in Iraq's success but suddenly it's catching up with what less mainstream sources - .bloggers in Iraq, primarily - have been noticing for months: things are getting better. Oil production is up from 1 million barrels a month to 18 , and the Shiite militias are weakened, for instance. Why this sudden outpouring of good news? It could be that the Times has finally noticed what's been going on, I suppose, but I suspect that the paper, like all Obama supporters, wants to get Iraq behind him. His (continued) opposition to the surge, so clearly wrong in retrospect, makes him look like the inexperienced naif that he is, notwithstanding his photo-ops with various world leaders last week. But if Iraq's "so yesterday", then let's move on to things that really matter, like raising taxes on the "rich" and ruining our health care, the only things Obama fans really care about anyway.

Opne Houses

A reader asked how often an agent should hold open houses for a property. He specifically asked about broker open houses, but both broker (agent, technically) and public open houses are worth some comment. Broker open houses are essential - there's no substitute for actually going inside a house, gauging the quality of its construction, the exact noise level of the street outside, the "flow" of the house and so forth; you get none of that from merely reading the Internet listing.

But, of the 1000 real estate agents in town, probably only 100 can be bothered to go out and examine the inventory on Tuesdays (North Street and west) and Thursdays (east of North Street). What are the other 900 doing? God knows, but I certainly wouldn't want to use their services if all they can contribute to my knowledge is what's already on Realtor.com. A good broker open house is one that draws 30-40 agents. You'll never get full attendance of the 100 because, not surprisingly, those 100 are our most successful agents and they are often busy conducting their own open houses. So I'd suggest holding 2 open houses in the first 2-4 weeks, just to give everyone who's going to come a chance to see the property. After that, every 6 weeks is probably not a bad idea - we don't like returning to a property but if something's happened; a price drop, or a new buyer for that price range, we can be lured back for a refresher.

Public open houses are, if not a scam, not really going to do much to sell your house. You'll draw nosy neighbors, a fair bunch of lookers and, very rarely, an actual customer. I think only 1% of viewers at a public open house end up buying that particular house, so your odds aren't good. On the other hand, agents like the events because our success rate in selling visitors a house other than yours is much better than 1%. There are buyers, after all, mixed in with the mere lookers - they just may not like your house. I've been known to bring my notebook computer to an open house and, if a couple clearly isn't interested in the house I'm showing, I'll pull up other choices in their price range. And because I've usually seen all those houses and am familiar with them, it gives me a chance to show off my knowledge. Good for me, tough luck for you - sorry.

So you can have a public open house every weekend, if you wish (your agent, who often is busy on weekends showing other customers around town, may be reluctant, but we can usually find a new agent willing to cover, in the hope that she'll find a new customer). Given the low odds of success in this endeavor, I think once a month is a more realistic schedule but, especially in a dead market, when the only hope of unloading a property is to keep slashing its price and the seller won't do that, we all tend to adopt the professional politicians' mantra, "when in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout". A public open house is the moral equivalent of that.

An ebbing tide lowers all boats

New York City's financial firms expect to slash their bonuses by at least $10 billion this year and some experts are predicting cuts 2 or even 3X larger. While politicians love attacking Wall Streeters' excesses, New York City's and New York state's revenue will drop 10% and 20% respectively, based solely on the lowest estimate. If the cuts turn out to be as large as the more pessimistic forecasters say, you can do the appropriate math.

A lot of those people who won't be receiving year-end party checks this year live in Connecticut so our own state's revenue can be expected to be impacted (guess which county's residents Hartford will look to to make up the loss?) and, of course, it was these huge bonuses that kept the Greenwich real estate market so strong. As Joni Mitchell sang,"you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone".

The Mighty keep dropping

14 Baldwin Farms South, 13,500 sq.ft. of new construction, was put up for sale in May, 2007, asking $9,795.000 (that's $725 per sf, if you like that measurement). Not a bad house, but there were no takers, so its price has been gradually dropping. Today the seller whacked it again, down to $7,445,000 ($551 sq.ft). Don't know whether that will do the trick for this house, but, while we're not yet approaching the "affordable housing" threshold, we're getting there.

Update
Zillow.com, by the way, estimates this house's value at $7,652,000 (I love their precision) which, until today's price drop, was more accurate than the owner's opinion. On the other hand, and while I was on their site, I looked up a house with which I am quite familiar. They have it pegged at $1,495,000 which, if it weren't on a tidal creek, would probably be about right. But it is on the creek and that waterfront aspect adds, I hope, an additional $500K or so to its value. I don't fault Zillow - how the hell would they know? - but it does demonstrate that local knowledge is always a nice thing to have.

It's not about real estate, but (I think) it's funny
From an Englishman who wasn't impressed by Obama's European tour.

Update
Okay, it's been a slow morning for real estate, so here's a bit more Obama bashing (fans of the Messiah should avert their eyes). First, despite what he claimed in Berlin, there's no drought in Kansas, Dorothy. But never mind a lack of dust bowls,there's plenty else to fib about,as detailed here. I've grown used to Al Gore being given a free pass to spew nonsense, but he's not running for President. Couldn't the press ask a bit more from this ward-heeler from Chicago?

Is Zillow watching?
Within an hour of posting a comment about Zillow.com a nice-sounding fellow named David Gibbons replied on behalf, he says, of Zillow itself. What gives? Does Zillow have some sort of internet crawler that searches for references to itself and flashes the news back to headquarters? Is Mr. Gibbons actually a local resident who just happens to know more about Zillow than me? The latter is easily accomplished. I see that the gentleman has posted a second comment, requesting feedback on how sellers react when Zillow's price estimate is lower than their own. In my experience, it's the other way around - the few times a potential client has tossed a Zillow quote in my face, I usually have to argue for a price even lower. But Mr. Gibbons, I'll be happy to aaddrss the question in detail if you'll tell me how you found this tiny blog! Inquiring minds want to know.

Untold tales
I just went on Zillow.com's website to see what they're up to and noticed a house for sale (by owner) located at 12 Lockwood Road in Riverside and asking, according to Zillow, $6,000,000. Zillow estimates its worth at $2,566,000 and I think even that figure's high. The current owners paid $2,305,000 for it in March of last year and apparently have done nothing to it, so what gives? Is this seller insanity or an error by Zillow? If it's Zillow's fault, the owner ought to check his bait more often. If the seller himself set the price, it only serves as a demonstration of why some objective advice can sometimes be a good thing.

Update
As a commentator notes below, this is a Zillow feature called "make me move", which is, as he or she says, a "pie in the sky" price placed on it by the owner w/o any intention of actually placing it on the market. Good thing, too, because,as I saw in another Zillow listing, it looks like these owners aren't going anywhere soon. I do wonder, though, at Zillow's own calculation of value. The owner of 16 Willow Road's "make me move" price is $3,995,000, which ain't gonna happen; Zillow's own estimate is $3,600,000 and that's not reality either, in my opinion. 2 Willow, a more modern house, sold for $3,100,000, in a better market. If you're selling moving services, don't bother with these guys.

Our man in Washington
There's an interesting discussion going on in the comments section of the previous post concerning Wall Street, Washington and in general, pigs at the trough. In the meantime, the question of Senator Chris Dodd coming up, I thought to confirm my suspicion that his "presidential nomination campaign" served as nothing more than a sop to his ego and a sponge for the campaign contributions he could solicit (or extort) because of his position as Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. As for ego, there's no doubt that every boy and girl serving in the Senate believes, deep down, that he's qualified to be President. But it takes an ego of truly gargantuan dimensions to act on that belief when polls list you at 1% voter recognition. That didn't stop Dodd, of course, particularly when he could indulge his aspirations at the expense of the financial community he regulates. Sure enough, the senator put the touch on his new best friends. Try this or, for a general overview from years past (I believe this latter doesn't include his presidential campaign contributions, which are tabulated separately) this.

Dodd learned from his father, of course, that direct solicitation of bribes leads to trouble, but squeezing folks you can choose to put out of business, well that's just Washington politics. Years ago, William F. Buckley pointed out that our Senator from New London regularly voted against every single defense appropriation except those supporting new nuclear submarines. It's certainly possible, as Buckley posited, that the senator truly believed that the only weapon that could protect our nation from its enemies was the nuclear sub. On the other hand, cynics might be forgiven for suspecting that the man was just a hollow, greedy shill who looked out for his interests and his interests only. I was one of those cynics oh so long ago and I've never changed my opinion.

Wall Street hearts Fannie Mae
Good article here in Bloomberg News concerning the pending bailout of Fannie Mae. It starts out with the rather typical cautionary tale of a borrower seduced by a sub-prime lender and her eventual rescue by her friendly government bank, but then proceeds to discuss, or at least touch upon, the various scandals, fraudulent accounting and other difficulties that have plagued this entity. Why does Jamie Diamon, head of JP Morgan Chase, love Fannie Mae? Why did Warren Buffet dump all his holdings of its stock three years ago? You really should explore some of the Wall Street Journal editorials that condemned Fannie Mae over the past decade for a full understanding but essentially, Jamie Diamon and his ilk could make a lot of money peddling crap and unloading it on Fannie Mae and Mr. Buffet has different standards. Of course, when you add in the cash contributions Fannie Mae made to Chris Dodd and his cronies over the years, it's hardly surprising that this fraud was permitted to operate for so long. And will continue to do so, apparently - just ask The Journal.

Mea Culpa
There's a nice post in the comments section from Pam, who gently reminds me that I used to defend the strength of the Greenwich market. It's true, I did: I did point out what I thought were over-priced houses, and cautioned that, obviously, prices couldn't keep increasing 20% per year, every year, but I was fond of saying that, so long as NYC continued to attract the best, brightest and most ambitious young people from around the world, they'd continue to meet, fall in love, have babies and look toward the suburbs to raise those babies. Because Greenwich is one of the best of those suburbs, I was pretty confident that we'd continue to get our share of new blood, and buyers. But "No one expects the Spanish Inquisition" and I didn't expect the collapse of the credit market and the subsequent downturn on Wall Street. Greenwich never had many sub-prime mortgages or large spec developments to begin with so when the sub-prime lenders and real estate speculators started to topple I thought the disaster would be limited to places like California and Florida. Wrong.

But, long term, I still like our position. There will always be money to be made lending to millionaires, and we're still not adding any new land, so I expect to see a recovery not too long in the future (unless Wall Street and its bankers disappear and the financial world shifts to Dubai, a not entirely impossible scenario). If you own a house that you want to sell, hang on and hope. If you're thinking of buying, I'd look silly suggesting that prices won't continue falling, but as interest and construction costs keep rising, you might want to grab a good deal now - if you don't have to resell in the next few years, I think you'll do just fine.

Pricing
There were 26 price reductions reported yesterday, compared with 2 contracts. Not an encouraging ratio. One reduction that caught my eye was for 4 Old Round Hill, a big, almost new mansion just off of Round Hill itself. This place was originally priced in May '06 at $14,500,000 and slowly dropped to $12.5M a year later. Still unsold, the seller increased its price to $13.995M the next day; not a tactic I'd ordinarily recommend. It's been dropping ever since and yesterday took another hit, coming down another million to $10.9. So two years after first being offered for sale, it's still unsold and is now $3.5M less. The first price was obviously (in retrospect) too aggressive, even for the 2006 market. In today's market, the new price may still be too high. Somewhere in the past two years, I suspect, a realistic price would have moved this house but now, who knows? It's a very nice house with a great location and yard, but is anyone buying?

HoJo's
Thanks to two intrepid readers, Pam, who remembered what letter the place would start with, and Jess, who actually tracked down the article, we learn the following:

"From the Greenwich Post:

Jun 5, 2008
Going up in Blue Smoke
Howard Johnson to house new restaurant; plans for hotel
By Sonia Fernandez, Staff Reporter

The Howard Johnson will be renovated as the Delmar opens a new hotel at that location and Blue Smoke takes the place of Tandoori restaurant
Blue Smoke will be sweeping through Greenwich as Union Square Hospitality Group prepares to open its first restaurant outside New York City.

Named after its predecessor on 27th Street and Park Avenue, Blue Smoke Chophouse will move into the space that was occupied by the Howard Johnson in Riverside, along with a new hotel operated by the same group that operates the Delamar Greenwich Harbor hotel....

The Union Square Hospitality Group has enhanced the ambiance of the restaurant by focusing on wood-fired cooking. Not only will the meats be wood-smoked, but the grills and ovens will also be wood-fired....

Plans to renovate the Howard Johnson and the attached Tandoori restaurant were submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 19, but have been dropped as both the hotel and restaurant are being gutted to make room for the new plans.

While the new hotel has yet to start the planning and zoning process, Mr. Swinghamer said he hopes the restaurant will be ready by next summer . . . .

[end of article]

I love both Cajun and barbeque, so I'll probably give this a try - if the estimated completion date is accurate, I'll have a year to save up for the experience.

Funny thing - when I Googled HoJo's Riverside to see if there were any stories about its future I found lots of information on the old place with no hint that you won't be staying there again - surprise! and a map locating the motel just over the Stamford border. I suppose that, since it's closed anyway, a little misdirection won't harm anyone but how many other Google maps are this far off? Makes me want to rethink tossing out my old paper maps.

Price reductions

The condos on South Water Street have just had their prices cut by several hundred thousand dollars each. Not too surprising, but it's too bad for the developers. I think they stood a better chance of success before the town zoning folks made them slash the number of units and amenities. You'd think we didn't want Byram developed, or something.

Fun with numbers
The Greenwich MLS has just issued its latest quarterly sales book and it's been interesting to seen how my organization continues to screw up sales data, for unkown motives. 723 Lake Avenue, for instance, was actually first listed at $7,250,000 in February,2005 and finally sold for $5,775,000 in June, 2008. The sales book shows an original price of $6,995,000 (one of the intermediate prices as it climbed down, actually) and only 210 days on the market. I'm not too good at math, but February '05 to June '08 would seem to be more than 210 days.

The sales book gets 26 Mayfair Lane's days on market right (I think - I didn't actually count: 547, but shows the "original price" as $6,750,000, thus making the selling price of $6,250,000 look reasonable. "Nothing to see here - move along, move along." In fact, the original price was $8,350,000 and $6,250,000 represents a heck of a bite from that dreamed-for sum.

So who's gaming the system here? Maybe no one - whenever I inquire at the Board, they blame everything on some third-party computer program that they can't control, but our data are being corrupted and that, in turn, makes it impossible to trust what's being spewed out as truth. In the long run, this can only hurt the entire Greenwich real estate market.

Needless Tragedy
Greenwich Time reports that the head of Shoreline pools has been arrested on second degree manslaughter charges in connection with the drowning death of a four-year-old boy last summer. According to the prosecutor, our state building code mandates three separate safety devices/systems - the newly installed pool had only one of them. Admittedly, the code had recently changed and the pool company may have been unaware of its new obligations, but what troubles me is that our town's building inspector issued Shoreline a certificate of occupancy, an official imprimatur signifying full compliance with all applicable regulations. Our building department has no difficulty sniffing out non-lethal violations of FAR requirements, and is delighted to order builders to chop up attics into non-usable space, lower or remove retaining walls deemed too high, etc. What's so difficult about inspecting something as dangerous as a pool and ensuring that it complies with code?

Statistics
We have 626 single family homes currently for sale in Greenwich, an 18% increase over this time last year. From May 1,2008 through today, July 21, 37 houses sold, compared to 68 last year (comparable numbers for YTD are 174 vs 208.
Contracts aren't any better: 115 this year (May -July 21) vs 148 last year and 160 in 2006. That's a 28% drop over two years, if my calculator and atrophied math skills haven't failed me.

The market is going down
I've complained before about the difficulty of comparing selling prices for the same property because so many houses are renovated between purchase and resale. Here's one that wasn't: 26 Lake Drive South, in Riverside. The current owners paid $2.125M for it in January 2005, did nothing to it (the previous owners had done the necessary renovations like new kitchen and baths)and put it on the market this year for $2.250. That was a reasonable response to the softening market - after commissions and taxes, they'd have been luck to break even - but it sold yesterday for just $1.850. So apples to apples, three and a half years later, it was worth $275,000 less.

And here's another sad tale, perhaps, depending on how you feel about wildly-unrealistic original asking prices: 402 Sound Beach Avenue was listed February, 2006 for $3.399 M and went to contract yesterday for something less than its latest price of $2.395M. In answer to my reader who keeps urging me to show over-priced listings, this is a nice example of why I won't bother; it took 2 1/2 years for the seller to come to his senses. Of course, by pricing it so high to begin with, the seller missed what was left of the bull market and sold on the downside, all to his loss - I doubt this house was $1,000,000 too high in 2006, but it sure was by the time he sold it.

On a cheerier note, Joann Erb's listing, direct waterfront at 200 Shore Road (close to the beach), was listed June 26 this year for $8,000,000 and has already gone to contract, demonstrating again that a beautiful newish (5 years?) house with spectacular waterfront will trump price, a busy road and a narrow lot, every time.

Well, almost every time. 23 Eggleston Lane isn't a new house but does have waterfront on the Cove and a dock. It originally asked $8.5M and dropped again yesterday to a new price of $6.975. You'd think that a $1.5M chop would speed things along but we'll have to wait and see.

26 Mayfair Lane originally asked $8.375M. 547 days later, it sold for $6.250M. I won't presume to read the minds of sellers, but these seemed quite elderly and I wonder if they really wanted to get a high price or just got some bad advice. Either way, it's tough to keep your house in showroom condition for almost two years so, unless you like that sort of stuff, I'd price it realistically and move on.

The glaciers are melting! The glaciers are melting!

Bruce Museum has mounted an exhibit depicting the melting of glaciers all to scare little kids and prove the wickedness of our ways. Fine and dandy, but I do wish they'd thought to include in the exhibit a reference to wooden structures dating from the 12th Century emerging from the melting glaciers in Switzerland, or even some indication that not all scientists agree that the current warming spell is unprecedented in human history . Because, if the earth has undergone this sort of thing in recent history but before the small scattering of humans had the numbers to significantly affect the climate, then perhaps we should pause a bit and reconsider shutting down 80% of the western world's economy. Just a thought.