Maligning bluefish

Today's WSJ (link above) contains a story of bluefishing off Nantucket and the author quotes several local chefs who never eat, serve or think about these feisty creatures. Not fair. First, they fight much harder and much longer than striped bass, so they're more fun to catch. Second, they're usually easier to catch and when you're casting into a bluefish feeding frenzy on the surface of the sea, you'll experience more excitement in 15 minutes than you will in a week of striper fishing.

It's true, as the author claims, that bluefish do have very sharp teeth that can leave lifetime scars. Ask my boyhood friend Teddy Sumner or have my daughter Kat show you her scar from a snapper (a baby bluefish!) earned years ago. The answer, I have found, is to crush the barbs on your lure's hooks with a pair of pliers so you can achieve an easy release without going near those teeth. You'll lose a few fish but when the blues are biting, you'll never notice the difference and when you boat the creature a flip of the wrist and he's free again. No one needs 15 dead, stiff bluefish stacked like cordwood in the hot sun in the stern of his boat. One does nicely, so let the rest go.

And how do you treat that unlucky one? Easy, if you have any facility with a fillet knife. Place the fish on a board (if you can find a chest-high fish cleaning station at your marina, you're in luck). Cut right behind the head down to the spine, then slide the knife blade along the spine to the tail. One fillet. Set aside, flip fish, repeat. But you're not done! Slap a fillet skin-side down and carefully insert your blade between the skin and the meat. Slide backwards towards the tail again, making sure to keep the blade pressed against the board underneath, while gripping the skin with your left hand (assuming the knife's in your right). Now you have a nice, skinless fillet that's almost ready to cook.

But there's a final trick, taught to me years ago by Riverside resident Buzz Harris. Again picking up your fillet knife, carefully remove all of the reddish flesh you find on what was the skin side, leaving only opaque whitish flesh. The red stuff gives bluefish the strong oily flavoring that only a mackerel lover could enjoy.

Cook it any number of ways. I prefer to grill it over coals with not much of anything except perhaps a bit of lemon. Baking it with tomatoes and onions works, but hides the taste, I think. If you've been diligent about trimming, you shouldn't need to mask the taste.

One other note: you don't need to fish from a boat. They're nice to have because you can scoot around, searching for feeding frenzies (and if you do find one, cut your engine way before you reach it and glide into casting range. Otherwise, you'll put the fish down) but surf casting for these puppies is a blast. Try Tod's (I'm usually unsuccessful there) or the end of Steamboat Road (crowded) but best, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket or really anywhere with a decent surf. If you catch nothing,you'll still have enjoyed a meditative spell on the water's edge, casting rhythmically, admiring the birds and the clouds and perhaps even a deep thought or two. It's my church.

One person shows at Al Franken campaign meet

I sympathise with his plight, if not his politics. Reminds me of some of my book signings.

Race to the bottom - newspapers vs. condos

After purchasing Greenwich Time and the Stamford Advocate recently, Hearst turned its attention to the Connecticut Post, parent publisher of our local Greenwich Citizen, among other weeklies. Hearst paid $155 million - the seller paid $205 million for the same package of papers twenty-eight years ago in 1980 (click link above). Hearst probably still over-paid.

Condos in Central Greenwich

A reader has asked about those condo's on the corner of Milbank and East Elm and about central Greenwich condominium prices in general. It's an odd mixture. The two condos on Milbank are not selling - they either sold privately and I missed it or they've been rented. They were originally priced as though they were part of Lily's Path across the street, which has almost sold out at astonishing ($5,000,000+) prices. But these two are much smaller and, although nicely built, lack a few rooms, have just one car garages and generally never seemed to attract buyers. Similarly, a cluster of condos on Idar Court, which is off of Field Point Road, south of Town Hall, seemed to miss the mark when it came to location and buyers balked at walking down (and up) hill to the Avenue. The builder/developer couln't move them at $4,000,000 and had the good sense and great fortune to unload them on an out-of-town buyer. That -"sucker" may be a bit harsh a term so - "guy" just sold one last week in the low $2's. I think that was a good price, for the new buyer.

Returning to Milbank and heading north, there are another couple of brand new units sitting unloved and unwanted at $5.9 million. I have no idea what they'll eventually sell for, but it appears that the developer is going to be disappointed - these have been on the market for over a year.

Other condo projects on the street range from $3.9 million down to the low $2's. I once rented a decrepit old Victorian (now a condominium, alas) on the street with two roommates and for a trio of young men just out of college, it was a terriffic location. We could walk to the Avenue for entertainment, two of our future wives (one each for two of us, not two wives for one) lived down the street, and if I hadn't packed up and headed for law school I might be there still. But much as I like the street, I think the condo developers got ahead of themselves in pricing their projects. I personally wouldn't pay $6,000,000 to live in a Greenwich town house and this seems to be a sentiment shared by a lot of potential buyers. It's mean to advise you to wait for the foreclosure sales but I do think that there's some room, now or in the future, for a bit of price negotiation.

Comments from a Retired Investment Banker

Here's the first of the comments from a reader I mentioned the other day. A broad discussion of the topic of house prices can be found in the comments appended to "Whither the Market", below.

...."As to whither or wither, I hate to repeat myself, but no question the answer is wither!

What you must keep reminding yourself is that this cycle's unravelling is not like any thing remotely experienced in our generation. To expect the market to retain outside gains as the market corrects is unrealistic in the extreme.

Easy financing caused the gains and contracting financing will bring on the declines. It's all about the exploding credit bubble. And even when the credit markets return to stability (in the distant future) the lax lending that caused real estate price levels to elevate are gone forever (at least a generation or two).

The party is just getting started, especially in the NY metro area."

Retired IB'er

The New York Times writes about housing

Just in case you don't read the NY Times, I thought I'd point out two interesting articles that appeared in today's Business section. One article, on climbing mortgage rates (previously discussed in this blog) is linked via the title above. The other, interviews with various economists on how to calculate a home's value in today's market, is here. There's probably not a whole lot that's new to financially sophisticated readers (and aren't all Greenwich property owners financially sophisticated?) but a nice rundown of current wisdom. If you don't want to spend your time I can summarize: no one knows where mortgage rates are going but if they continue to climb it will cost you more as a buyer and sellers will get less for their house - pay the bank, pay the seller, but not both - and economists are all over the place when it comes to valuing houses. There - now you know.

Schools

A reader posted a comment below, asking why no Realtor would give him any information about the relative merits of the various schools in town and instead restrict their comments to "all our schools are good". That's not necessarily how parents feel, but we real estate agents are barred from saying much else without violating a host of civil rights laws and state regulations. We can't mention proximity to churches, whether a particular neighborhood has a lot of kids or none or anything else you as a buyer new to town might find useful. Welcome to the new world.

I believe we can suggest that you contact the Board of Ed and grab the test scores for each school, but I don't know how much help that is. You may be able to visit each school and get a feel for how they're run but in these post Columbine days, who knows? I do know that the principals are all pretty proud of their respective schools and you can almost certainly make an appointment to meet with any of them and get a sense of how the head of each school views his bailiwick. Or join a newcomers club and talk to other parents. Their opinions may not be factual, but at least they aren't prohibited from speaking their mind. Good luck.

SWAT teams

So you're a small town mayor in Maryland and you have the misfortune to have a couple of crooks pick your address at random for a drug delivery - they'll mail a package to your house and then pick it up under the pretense of a delivery gone astray. Arizona cops stumble across the scheme and enlist your local county's sheriffs to raid your house, even though they know that you aren't guilty of anything. Had the sheriffs asked your local cops, they'd have learned that you were a non-druggy and the mayor of the friggin' town, for cripe's sake but when SWAT team equipment is ready at hand, why worry about details that might spoil the fun? They charge in, shoot your two Labrador retrievers to death then handcuff you and your mother in law and make you lie in your pets' blood for two hours while they ransack the place.

Then they let you go. No apologies because, 'we don't need no stinkin' warrants". There are lots of good reasons to oppose our supposed war on drugs and its futility is just one of them. Another is how we have empowered storm troopers and even what was once the beloved Coast Guard to trash houses and boats and terrorize civilians. Not good.

"Investments" gone bad

A house on Riverside Lane sold for $1,639,000 in January 2007. The new owners added some new touches and put it back on the market exactly a year later for $1,895,000. That didn't work out so today it took its 4th price reduction and is now offered for $1,699,000. Even if they get that price, the sellers will lose at least $100,000 after they pay commissions and taxes, plus whatever they spent in renovations. Oops.

There's another house, on North Street, that continues to try to defy the market. It was first listed 8 1/2 years ago for $5,750,000 and didn't sell. It's been on and off the market ever since, unsuccessfully, and reappeared today for $3,995,000. That might have been a good price 8 years ago but there is now such a stigma attached to the place (you try to explain to a client why it hasn't sold in over 8 years) that I don't know what price will move it. It's a nice house, too, so that's a shame.

Finally, returning to Riverside, north of the Post Road, there's a renovated house that came on 1 1/2 years ago asking under $2,000,000 but still $150,000 more than two new houses around the corner. The new houses sold immediately and those of us who saw this one at an open house all suggested, gently, to its broker that he'd be better off dropping his price below theirs. I guess he finally listened, but his new price announced today is way overdue and probably too late.

None of these examples is necessarily evidence of a free-falling market, although I suspect all could have sold for more than their current asking price a while ago. What they do have in common is that they were all overpriced initially and, good market or bad, that kills a sale. They're just getting hammered twice now, instead of once. Oh well.

Bush - how we'll miss him

Good link above to an opinion piece wondering how people will cope when they don't have Bush to kick around after January. Who will be left to blame? The author cites a number of examples of Bush-bashing but she missed an opinion piece in yesterday's Wall Street Journal that blamed the sorry condition of illegal immigrant meat packers on, who else, George Bush. The article is only available via subscription but trust me, its author is absolutely beside himself over Bush's callous treatment of the poor workers and the president's personal intervention (with Dick Chaney, no doubt) to create hell on earth for the until-then happy workers.

Fine,and Bush is certainly the Devil himself, but a quick Google search turned up a book review dated 2001 that blames the problem on a change in immigration law that was enacted in 43 years ago.

"Congress in 1965 inadvertently came to the rescue of the union-busting, wage-lowering strategy of the new meat packers. The 1965 immigration law had a major impact in the direction of the meat-processing industry by creating surplus labor pools with spiraling family chain migration and massive refugee resettlement operations."

Bush hadn't even begun drinking or joined Skull and Bones in 1965, when, according to this second article, Eden was lost, but it's his fault for not fixing it! The three Demmerkrat administration we enjoyed since 1965, Johnson's, Carter's and Clinton's were too preoccupied to take care of these people but Bush, that awful Bush, will rot in Hell for his wilful failure to do so. And now he's leaving. What will we do, what will we do?

Auction rate securities

Some time back, when a non-profit group I'm involved with discovered that they had $1,000,000 of funds frozen into this type of debt instrument, I wrote that it was a typical example of Wall Street treating its customers badly. These securities were described as as good as cash but, when the debt markets collapsed, firms like UBS and Merrill Lynch got their large customers out of them and re-sold them to non-profits and ordinary schmos - people who, say, wanted to hold their down payment for a house in an account yielding a quarter point more than a CD. Of course, when it came time to access those funds and buy the house, the schmo's "financial advisor" was forced to admit that there was a bit of a liquidity problem and the money wouldn't be available for, say, a year or two.

My column on the subject elicited the usual outcry from certain stock brokers advising me to stick to writing about real estate and stay away from subjects I was too dense to understand. I understood their ire - they're the ones who, having no clue what they were doing, sold this junk to their customers and were feeling the heat, but I take a certain satisfaction watching their employers roll over and agree to buy these securities back. And pay fines of $100,000,000 or so. Yesterday it was Merrill's ($12 billion)and Citigroup's ($7 billion)turn. Today we'll see UBS cough up $22 billion. Who else among the large firms is in hot water? All of them.

Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes?

Perhaps foreshadowing my later career as a trial lawyer, this quote from "Duck Soup" (not by Groucho, as I remembered, but by Chico disguised as Groucho - see link above) was one of my favorites when I was a kid. It's still a good one. I have been chastised over the past year or so by some of my fellow Realtors for telling readers, first in my column and later on this blog that sales are way down and will probably continue that sorry decline for the foreseeable future. In fact, although the specific reason for my column being terminated was my daring to report on the financial woes of Realogy, parent company of Coldwell Banker and Soetheby's, I'd generated a deep reservoir of ill will in the real estate community by telling the truth.

I don't know what these "keep it quiet" folks think they're up to; if their clients' houses aren't selling, or selling at discounted prices, who is left to be fooled? Regardless,even the Greenwich Time has finally admitted today what the industry has known for at least the past two years:

Update 2:05 PM Here's what I wrote before I was so rudely edited by Blogger.
house sales are falling. At least 30% this year. GT finds a ray of hope in the number of sales (condos) under $500K but that number only increased from last year because prices have fallen below last year's levels. For those who like anecdotal evidence in addition to statistics, there's this: I called my plumber yesterday for a quick repair job. In years past he, and most plumbers in town, were so busy with new construction that non-emergency response time was 2-3 days. yesterday, he had someone at the house in 15 minutes. If the plumbers aren't busy because the builders aren't busy, things are slow.

Read the comments

"Retired IB'r" has some very thoughtful, and wise comments appended to the "whither the market?" post below. Tomorrow I'll move them up-can't do it now with my iphone - but if you're reading this Thursday night, check them out

Don't do this to yourself

Two reported contracts caught my eye this morning because they both illustrate the agony caused by holding out for the 'right" selling price. Now I may be entirely wrong, here, and the sellers may have been perfectly content to stay with their property until someone met their price, but, given the desparity between the original asking price and the last price, it's a fair assumption that the sellers should have moved more quickly to adjust their wishes to reality.

44 Calhoun Drive was first listed on March 24,2006 for $6,200,000 and was last listed at $4,495,000. It went to contract yesterday, 2 1/2 years after first being offered, for no more than its last asking price and probably less.

Same story with 11 Hettiefred Road, in western Greenwich. Nice construction (over) priced at $3,375,000 way back in August 2006 and finally under contract yesterday for, at most, the latest price of $2,349,000.

I've always counseled clients to try their best to hit the market with the right price the first time - a listing is only new once, and grows stale with time - but if you or your agent make a mistake it will be immediately apparent. Do not wait for "the right buyer", the one you think will wander in, fall in love with the place and pay more than it's worth; that buyer isn't coming. Do cut your losses, right away. Slash that sucker, and not in $15,000 increments, which only invites a death of a thousand slices. Move it, move on.

Greenwich Round Up Scoops the town papers

The local blog (hit link above, then scroll down a bit) has been reporting for several days on a story that our local press missed: the strange case of the purported Rockefeller who seems, besides being a kidnapper of his own daughter, to be a German con artist and murderer, wanted for questioning in California since 1988 (or thereabouts) when his landlord's body was found buried in his backyard. Roundup dug up a Greenwich connection to all this and was reporting on it all while the "real press" worried about wiffleball tournaments. The latter may be more family oriented, but give me corpses and con men,any day.

Whither, or wither the market?

Heck if I know. Interest rates are higher than they were although, at 6.5%, I find it hard to be too sympathetic toward buyers - when I graduated and bought my first house, my mortgage was 14% and that "special" rate was granted only because my new law firm represented the bank. But credit remains elusive, and the only two players in the mortgage market, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, don't lend in amounts that will do Greenwich buyers much good. I don't see that changing in the near future. In fact,Freddie Mac just announced dismal financials for the last quarter and sees no turn around in sight. Pakistan is impeaching Musharraf, which won't do much for stability in that region and Israel appears to be readying a nuclear strike against Iran. Add the possibility of a veto-proof Democratic majority in the Senate and House, plus Obama, and things don't look all that swell.

But despite all this, it might still be a reasonable time to buy. No one, particularly me, can predict the future, and it's not entirely irrational, I hope, for you to expect that you'll hold onto your job, that income will keep flowing in and that you'll continue to have a family who you want to house. So should you wait for what you think will be the bottom of the market? Here's a little financial exercise that might give you perspective.

Suppose that last year you found a house that you liked for $500,000 (feel free to add zeros to these sums until you've reached Greenwich pricing). Interest rates were 5.5%, and assuming an 80/20 loan to value ratio, your monthly payment, principal and interest, would have been $3,406.73. This year, that house has dropped 10% to $450,000 but interest rates have climbed to 6.5%, yielding a P&I payment of $3,237.57. You've stayed in a house that you didn't want to own (or rent) and saved $169 a month. If that sum is enough to make or break you, you probably have no business buying this house to begin with.

So buy now or not? Prices may continue to drop, and my personal suspicion is that they will, but I don't anticipate a free-fall. And remember, while the price of the house you want to buy may be dropping, so is the price of the current house you want to sell. Interest rates and property values may go up or down - you won't get a sure-proof guarantee from me or any real economist but it's often the case that the two move in opposite directions. Over the long run, Greenwich real estate has always held its value and I don't see that changing. I might not rush out to buy a condominium in Las Vegas or Naples, Florida right now, but if I were looking to raise a family here and planned on staying put for 5-15 years, I'd buy here again.

2nd Quarter sales statistics

Nothing encouraging here. 154 single family homes sold in Greenwich in the second quarter of 2008 (134 of which were multi-list, the balance for sale by owner, I believe). This compares to 230 in the same quarter last year, 225 in 2006, 266 in 2005 and 296 in 2004. Average and median prices were $2.874 and $2.012 this year compared to $2.780 and $2.067 in 2007. If you really want to get depressed, my former employer, Greenwich Post, says just 84 single family homes sold in the second quarter. They credit Bob Fossum with those statistics and he's always right, so it's a puzzle but not great news for sellers in either case.

Speaking of The Post, I just learned that they downsized their real estate reporter, Jane Dove. I got fired for ticking off a couple of advertisers but Jane's demise was caused by budget cuts at the paper. Both firings raise the question, however, of how little content can you leave in a newspaper before your readers leave you?

Update: My friends at Shore & Country Real Estate have more data comparing the first half of 2008 to 2007. Same sort of stuff, but note their caution at the bottom of the page that many of the transactions reported as sold in 2008 were contracted for in a better market, 2007.

OwlGore buys a houseboat

One hundred feet long,powered by solar and bio-fuel (although, inconveniently, it's presently running on good old diesel and electricity and they don't sell bio-fuel on the lake where this behemoth is docked), and dig that jet ski! Pictures at the link above, but you don't really need further proof that this fat fraud has one agenda for himself and his friends and another for us, do you?


Maybe he'll use the thing to give rides to polar bears.

Waterfront redux

A commentator below asks why certain Old Greenwich waterfront properties are lingering, if these properties are so hot. I answered him in the comment section but here it is again:

It's true that there are five waterfront houses currently for sale in Old Greenwich, but I blame price for their availability more than anything else. Old Greenwich saw some very quick sales of better waterfront - better priced or better location or better condition - in the past two years. 19 Meadow Place, for instance, basically land, came on in April this year for $7.950 and sold immediately for $8.500. 35 Cove Road asked $8.2 and got $8.2 in 22 days. 200 Shore Road, new construction with an incredible view, asked $8,000,000 and went to contract almost immediately for what I'd guess was asking or close-to-asking price.

Etc. The houses that are lingering are doing so, I think, because the sellers paid too much attention to the prices other waterfront fetched and not enough attention to the particular drawbacks of their own land. Nothing that can't be remedied by a price cut. 164 Sore Road, for instance, came on at $8.4 but the sellers quickly realized they were too high, cut the price $500,000 and had it sold for $7.4 within 28 days of first listing it. That's a smart buyer - why prolong the agony? Besides, they pocketed a very nice sum.

And if you're looking for impressive sales of waterfront and are willing to look a bit past Old Greenwich into Riverside, Lowther Point sold this spring for $22,000,000. That one did take a few years to find its buyer, but the original price was er, "aggressive" and put many buyers off.

So I still like the stuff.

Zillow - Misperception of home value

Zillow reports (see link above) that the majority of Americans think that their house increased in value last year while the reality is, few did. This is very much like the reaction we agents get when, giving a price opinion, we show the seller a list of comparable house sale prices and are met with, "but my house is special". So is your wife, and so are your kids, but they're all a drag on the market. Get real (and yes, I'm just kidding about your wife and kids - I'm sure they're just adorable).