[savagegoose]

i cant get over the not having " highest bidder gets the house " rules,. i mean really WTF are auctions for but to sell crap really quickly.
tho whole idea of auctions where there are reserves or vendors / RE agents bidding you up is insane. and ive never comprehended it.

[zaph]

savagegoose, on 10 September 2011 - 07:32 AM, said:

i cant get over the not having " highest bidder gets the house " rules,. i mean really WTF are auctions for but to sell crap really quickly.
tho whole idea of auctions where there are reserves or vendors / RE agents bidding you up is insane. and ive never comprehended it.

the highest bidder maybe way too low for a variety of reasons. by your rules I'd hire a few thugs to block the streets around the auction, bid one dollar and win.


a better system would be no bids bellow the reserve. start the bidding at the reserve!


i suspect vendor bidding was introduced to stop 'dummy' bidding but kind of still allow it. weird hey.


auctions are not designed to sell the crap quickly, they are designed to advertise the selling agent.

[Easy Tiger]

zaph, on 10 September 2011 - 08:04 AM, said:

the highest bidder maybe way too low for a variety of reasons. by your rules I'd hire a few thugs to block the streets around the auction, bid one dollar and win.

You stole that from an episode of Bonanza

[savagegoose]

ok im gonna take a video camer and record next auction i got to

[zaph]

zaph, on 10 September 2011 - 01:59 AM, said:

i was wrong. less than two weeks.

visited the folks today and the for sale sign is till there but next to it a for rent sign with a 'leased' sticker over it. the sale listing is still on the net at still 649k. refind tells me it was advertised for just 6 days at 680pw granny flat included.

who would rent a place that is for sale?

now listed at 599k - what they paid for it.

[ummester]

zaph, on 10 September 2011 - 08:04 AM, said:

a better system would be no bids bellow the reserve. start the bidding at the reserve!

That makes sense - so long as people are prepared to start there:)

By the same token I don't get advertised ranges. 420-460k WTF? I said to a REA once, why would anyone offer above 420 if they wanted the place? The REA assured me that people do. I just don't get it. I'd offer 420k, if I thought it was reasonable, and walk away if they weren't prepared to sell.

[Mr Medved]

ummester, on 20 September 2011 - 06:28 AM, said:

By the same token I don't get advertised ranges. 420-460k WTF? I said to a REA once, why would anyone offer above 420 if they wanted the place? The REA assured me that people do. I just don't get it. I'd offer 420k, if I thought it was reasonable, and walk away if they weren't prepared to sell.

If you're always willing to walk away then you hold all the power.

[zaph]

zaph, on 19 September 2011 - 09:56 PM, said:

now listed at 599k - what they paid for it.

now under contract for the last couple of weeks. looking forward to see what it went for, expect 600k or 2c less. a BIG loss. 'welcome to Brisbane where the local time is, negative equity'

I'm sure we're all familiar with the rea junk mail. one feature is the DL flyer with chest beating of what they got. for the first time i've received a chest beating rental dl. they managed to rent for 410pw or 5.2% on what the new owners purchased for.

the rental roll is the bread and butter of an agency. perhaps they're getting hungry?

[zaph]

zaph, on 23 August 2011 - 08:29 PM, said:

strictly to the letter of the law, no. but there's no shortage of agents that advertise GFs in the area, so the council mustn't be too worried or the law's a bit ambiguous. with it's own entrance the GF would also make a great office for someone working from home.

now listed at 649k. which would be ~ break even (ignoring holding costs, they're not an expense but a tax deduction, everyone knows that!). 600k purchase price + 20k SD + 16k agent selling fees + 14k carpet and paint.

i give it 4 weeks and it'll be up for rent again.

on the house has been updated. sold for 585k, 15k less than what they paid for it two years ago. 65k (+holding costs) loss in two years, 11%. given the state of the brisbane market a good result. just think of the juicy tax deductions! oh hang capital losses can only be offset against gains.

[Peachy]

zaph, on 07 November 2011 - 06:30 PM, said:

on the house has been updated. sold for 585k, 15k less than what they paid for it two years ago. 65k (+holding costs) loss in two years, 11%. given the state of the brisbane market a good result. just think of the juicy tax deductions! oh hang capital losses can only be offset against gains.

Thanks for following this up and posting Zaph. I love real life stories.

[zaph]

Peachy, on 07 November 2011 - 08:21 PM, said:

Thanks for following this up and posting Zaph. I love real life stories.

obviously so do i. but i don't take a few experiences and generalise them too much. however they can be an indication of what might be going on and encourage one to seek out better evidence.

whenever i see a new for sales board in my area i get on re.com.au and check it out, usually using map view as it is easy to find. one popped up recently. upon checking out the re.com.au i discovered three other new listings that do not have boards out the front. are other people noticing marketing without for sale signs out the front?

mods - would you be able to change the title of this thread to zaph's real estate adventures or similar? i want to keep track of my local anecdotes here.

[cobran20]

zaph, on 10 November 2011 - 07:05 AM, said:

mods - would you be able to change the title of this thread to zaph's real estate adventures or similar? i want to keep track of my local anecdotes here.

Perhaps you can get some lucrative sponsorship like that guy who films himself around the world, doing that dopey dance and being sponsored by Visa!

[zaph]

cobran20, on 10 November 2011 - 07:28 AM, said:

Perhaps you can get some lucrative sponsorship like that guy who films himself around the world, doing that dopey dance and being sponsored by Visa!

maybe i should give fox symes a call.

[zaph]

another anecdote

place near my parents. sold 11/2008 $535,000. sold 10/2011 $547,688. nothing done to the place in that time. that's 2.4% appreciation in three years.

[Peachy]

zaph, on 19 December 2011 - 07:18 PM, said:

another anecdote

place near my parents. sold 11/2008 $535,000. sold 10/2011 $547,688. nothing done to the place in that time. that's 2.4% appreciation in three years.

$547,688 deflated by 2.5% per year for CPI means that their proceeds are worth $516,098 in 2008 dollars.

Less interest on 80% of the purchase price at 6% for 3 years ($77,040) gives an overall holding cost of $95,942.

Can't lose with property? Yikes!

[and yeah, I cheated a bit by calculating the interest in nominal terms without adjusting for CPI]

[zaph]

Peachy, on 19 December 2011 - 08:28 PM, said:

$547,688 deflated by 2.5% per year for CPI means that their proceeds are worth $516,098 in 2008 dollars.

Less interest on 80% of the purchase price at 6% for 3 years ($77,040) gives an overall holding cost of $95,942.

Can't lose with property? Yikes!

[and yeah, I cheated a bit by calculating the interest in nominal terms without adjusting for CPI]

to be fair you'd need to account for rent and other holding costs. say around 75k rent and 10k in rates with around 12k op cost of the deposit. so around 42k holding plus agents fees and duty = 73k total holding cost assuming no maintenance. back of the envelope calcs, but still ouch!

[zaph]

Quote

opens:<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; "><br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; ">1. 495k neg. <br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; "><br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; ">last sold 11/9 445k. I actually looked at this in 11/9; then asking 469k. failed auction 5/10 marketed for a couple of weeks at 520k after auction. rented for a year at 400pw. tenants evicted, now marketing again.<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; "><br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; ">overseas buyers bought it (common in this Chinese buyer area) hated in when they saw it. never lived in it. tried to sell for too much. rented it for a year with a 4.6% gross yield. trying to sell again. only person at the open. great chat with the agent. <br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; ">


number 1 - after we both worked out (which was obvious) that i couldn't flip the place, manufacture equity or the place be cash flow positive the agent let down her guard. agreed they would be lucky to get 445k for it now and that it should be listed around 450k. encouraged me to offer 400k. talked down the owner. hadn't made a sale for 3 weeks. stated that a $1000 fine was not even a weeks mortgage repayments for her. she was going to intensively market the property for 3 weeks with three opens a week and then change the listing to by appointment and eventually drop the owner if they didn't come down in price.

a place i looked at in June from this thread http://www.simplesus...or/page__st__20

still on the market with yet another agent, now at 475k

[Sean]

Peachy, on 19 December 2011 - 08:28 PM, said:

$547,688 deflated by 2.5% per year for CPI means that their proceeds are worth $516,098 in 2008 dollars.

Less interest on 80% of the purchase price at 6% for 3 years ($77,040) gives an overall holding cost of $95,942.

Can't lose with property? Yikes!

[and yeah, I cheated a bit by calculating the interest in nominal terms without adjusting for CPI]

+ transfer costs on both entrance and exit -- stamp duty around 3% (?), real estate agents fees (2.5%) and associated advertising costs, legals, mortgage duty, etc. That cost about 6% more I would guess -- around another $32K. Over only 3 years ownership that's another 2% loss per year.

You can only win with property if you time the beginning of a bubble! Or buy in a gentrifying suburb before anyone else realises. Or be a mega-developer.

[zaph]

house listed a few streets away for 460k. a house, not as good but 4 bed instead of 3 has been on the market for months at 430k.

drove past at the open time today (first open), dropped in and no one else at the open.

[zaph]

zaph, on 21 January 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

house listed a few streets away for 460k. a house, not as good but 4 bed instead of 3 has been on the market for months at 430k.

drove past at the open time today (first open), dropped in and no one else at the open.

This week dropped to 419k+. (the 460k one)