Record Breaking Real Estate Sales in West Bellevue
Comments
-
Pawz isn't big on facts.UWhuskytskeet said:
Do you guys specialize in foreign buyers or something? 35+% obviously isn't the norm.pawz said:
The sentence in the article immediately after the last you quoted:UWhuskytskeet said:
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/foreign-buyers-drop-off-as-seattle-housing-market-hits-hottest-tempo-since-2006-bubble/pawz said:UWhuskytskeet said:
The tax was implemented to wane unaffordability. It slowed down the market for a few months then continued right where it left off.pawz said:
From your article:UWhuskytskeet said:
Foreign buyers are a small percentage of the market (4% state-wide), especially compared to Vancouver. Seattle's boom is driven by an influx of well paying jobs and a shit load of people moving in.RedRocket said:Sounds like a Chinese shell company. At least these places are out of my price range but I've had about enough of the Chinese scooping up and not living in property that would otherwise go to upper middle class Seattle metro residents. Seattle needs to tax foreign buyers and unoccupied houses sooner rather than later or it's going to end up like Vancouver.
It's a supply issue, so build more houses/condos/apartments.
The Vancouver tax has said to have "zero impact" on affordibility btw.
While it continues to trend up, it certainly looks like there was a slow-down.
I don't really care about the tax, but since it had only a temporary slowdown in Vancouver and there are fewer foreign buyers in Seattle, I don't think it would be a long term solution.
Not sure what this is based on. A full 35-40% of our deals last year were to international buyers.
"But now, a new annual survey from the National Association of Realtors shows foreign home sales across Washington state dropped to $1.55 billion for the year ending in March, down 24 percent, from $2.05 billion, in the previous year. Washington fell out of the top 10 states attracting foreign homebuyers.
What’s more, Juwai’s latest data show a 10?percent drop in inquiries from China for homes in Seattle, compared to a year ago. Buyers living in mainland China make up about one-third of overseas buyers in Washington, according to the Realtors group.
Overseas buyers may have an outsized impact, but they still make up a small portion of sales. Statewide, they accounted for less than 4 percent of purchase value last year, based on the Realtor group’s survey and overall sales data compiled by the Northwest Multiple Listing Service."
But the ratio is higher in places like Bellevue, local realtors say.
Which has been our experience. -
UWhuskytskeet said:
Do you guys specialize in foreign buyers or something? 35+% obviously isn't the norm.pawz said:
The sentence in the article immediately after the last you quoted:UWhuskytskeet said:
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/foreign-buyers-drop-off-as-seattle-housing-market-hits-hottest-tempo-since-2006-bubble/pawz said:UWhuskytskeet said:
The tax was implemented to wane unaffordability. It slowed down the market for a few months then continued right where it left off.pawz said:
From your article:UWhuskytskeet said:
Foreign buyers are a small percentage of the market (4% state-wide), especially compared to Vancouver. Seattle's boom is driven by an influx of well paying jobs and a shit load of people moving in.RedRocket said:Sounds like a Chinese shell company. At least these places are out of my price range but I've had about enough of the Chinese scooping up and not living in property that would otherwise go to upper middle class Seattle metro residents. Seattle needs to tax foreign buyers and unoccupied houses sooner rather than later or it's going to end up like Vancouver.
It's a supply issue, so build more houses/condos/apartments.
The Vancouver tax has said to have "zero impact" on affordibility btw.
While it continues to trend up, it certainly looks like there was a slow-down.
I don't really care about the tax, but since it had only a temporary slowdown in Vancouver and there are fewer foreign buyers in Seattle, I don't think it would be a long term solution.
Not sure what this is based on. A full 35-40% of our deals last year were to international buyers.
"But now, a new annual survey from the National Association of Realtors shows foreign home sales across Washington state dropped to $1.55 billion for the year ending in March, down 24 percent, from $2.05 billion, in the previous year. Washington fell out of the top 10 states attracting foreign homebuyers.
What’s more, Juwai’s latest data show a 10?percent drop in inquiries from China for homes in Seattle, compared to a year ago. Buyers living in mainland China make up about one-third of overseas buyers in Washington, according to the Realtors group.
Overseas buyers may have an outsized impact, but they still make up a small portion of sales. Statewide, they accounted for less than 4 percent of purchase value last year, based on the Realtor group’s survey and overall sales data compiled by the Northwest Multiple Listing Service."
But the ratio is higher in places like Bellevue, local realtors say.
Which has been our experience.
If we 'specialize' in anything, it's having listings. That is the ratio of people buying those listings in the greater Eastside market. The draw for the international buyer is schools*.
We do have mandarin speaking people in our firm to bridge the language barrier. It's crucial.
(*I know schools is captain obvious stuff, but the international buyer pays more attention to it than a local buyer. A local buyer in that category is likely already sending their kid to private school.) -
2001400ex said:
Pawz isn't big on facts.UWhuskytskeet said:
Do you guys specialize in foreign buyers or something? 35+% obviously isn't the norm.pawz said:
The sentence in the article immediately after the last you quoted:UWhuskytskeet said:
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/foreign-buyers-drop-off-as-seattle-housing-market-hits-hottest-tempo-since-2006-bubble/pawz said:UWhuskytskeet said:
The tax was implemented to wane unaffordability. It slowed down the market for a few months then continued right where it left off.pawz said:
From your article:UWhuskytskeet said:
Foreign buyers are a small percentage of the market (4% state-wide), especially compared to Vancouver. Seattle's boom is driven by an influx of well paying jobs and a shit load of people moving in.RedRocket said:Sounds like a Chinese shell company. At least these places are out of my price range but I've had about enough of the Chinese scooping up and not living in property that would otherwise go to upper middle class Seattle metro residents. Seattle needs to tax foreign buyers and unoccupied houses sooner rather than later or it's going to end up like Vancouver.
It's a supply issue, so build more houses/condos/apartments.
The Vancouver tax has said to have "zero impact" on affordibility btw.
While it continues to trend up, it certainly looks like there was a slow-down.
I don't really care about the tax, but since it had only a temporary slowdown in Vancouver and there are fewer foreign buyers in Seattle, I don't think it would be a long term solution.
Not sure what this is based on. A full 35-40% of our deals last year were to international buyers.
"But now, a new annual survey from the National Association of Realtors shows foreign home sales across Washington state dropped to $1.55 billion for the year ending in March, down 24 percent, from $2.05 billion, in the previous year. Washington fell out of the top 10 states attracting foreign homebuyers.
What’s more, Juwai’s latest data show a 10?percent drop in inquiries from China for homes in Seattle, compared to a year ago. Buyers living in mainland China make up about one-third of overseas buyers in Washington, according to the Realtors group.
Overseas buyers may have an outsized impact, but they still make up a small portion of sales. Statewide, they accounted for less than 4 percent of purchase value last year, based on the Realtor group’s survey and overall sales data compiled by the Northwest Multiple Listing Service."
But the ratio is higher in places like Bellevue, local realtors say.
Which has been our experience.
Run along. The adults are talking.
-
But how did the discount broker cost their buyer SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS ??
Sale #1 - $14,252,500
8,200' house
1.25 acre
162' west-facing waterfront
Sale #2 - $21,000,000
11,500' house
2.6 acre
265' west-facing waterfront
Sale #3 - $23,375,000
8900' house (brand new)
1.84 acre
80' south-facing waterfront
300' feet of view
(I know that sounds hokey, but you would have had to see it and the lot didn't have a normal shape. A big challenge w/ a lot of waterfront lots in our area is the lots are long and narrow, creating a tunnel-vision view.)
Sale #4 - $9,000,000
3,330' house (likely a tear down)
0.76 acre
89' south-facing waterfront
(off-market transaction)
Subject Property - $26,750,000
5,330' house (tear down)
2.59 acre
150' south-facing waterfront
Long, skinny 'tunnel-vision' lot.
Houses #1, #2 and #3 were absolutely pristine. #4 is a tear-down where a neighbor added the lot to his existing estate.
#2 and #3 are the best comps. One could argue #2 was sold-under value and is an $8-$10M house. #3 is a $7-$8M house, leaving $13.5M for the dirt.
End of the day, given the Subject has to be torn down (likely putting $10-$15 in the rebuild over 3-5 years), I have a REALLY hard time valuing the Subject over $20M.
Now, would the Seller have sold for less than $26.75M? I really don't know.
-
TL, DR. Jesus Pawz! You just went mathematical Tequila on us.
-
Yeah ... well .... Sorry, not sorry.TurdBuffer said:TL, DR. Jesus Pawz! You just went mathematical Tequila on us.
When you're gonna drop 8-figures on a piece of dirt, you should really do the maffs. -
Probably worth the money to watch Seattle burn to the ground from across the lake.pawz said:
Yeah ... well .... Sorry, not sorry.TurdBuffer said:TL, DR. Jesus Pawz! You just went mathematical Tequila on us.
When you're gonna drop 8-figures on a piece of dirt, you should really do the maffs. -
TurdBuffer said:
Probably worth the money to watch Seattle burn to the ground from across the lake.pawz said:
Yeah ... well .... Sorry, not sorry.TurdBuffer said:TL, DR. Jesus Pawz! You just went mathematical Tequila on us.
When you're gonna drop 8-figures on a piece of dirt, you should really do the maffs.
A lot of people coming across the lake after Seattle passed the income-tax ....
-
The reasons to leave are innumerable and multiplying like rabbits.pawz said:TurdBuffer said:
Probably worth the money to watch Seattle burn to the ground from across the lake.pawz said:
Yeah ... well .... Sorry, not sorry.TurdBuffer said:TL, DR. Jesus Pawz! You just went mathematical Tequila on us.
When you're gonna drop 8-figures on a piece of dirt, you should really do the maffs.
A lot of people coming across the lake after Seattle passed the income-tax .... -
That was struck down in court almost immediately.pawz said:TurdBuffer said:
Probably worth the money to watch Seattle burn to the ground from across the lake.pawz said:
Yeah ... well .... Sorry, not sorry.TurdBuffer said:TL, DR. Jesus Pawz! You just went mathematical Tequila on us.
When you're gonna drop 8-figures on a piece of dirt, you should really do the maffs.
A lot of people coming across the lake after Seattle passed the income-tax ....
How often are 2.6 acre waterfront lots listed in Medina though? I agree it seems like they overpaid, but there are only a handful of lots that size.pawz said:But how did the discount broker cost their buyer SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS ??
Sale #1 - $14,252,500
8,200' house
1.25 acre
162' west-facing waterfront
Sale #2 - $21,000,000
11,500' house
2.6 acre
265' west-facing waterfront
Sale #3 - $23,375,000
8900' house (brand new)
1.84 acre
80' south-facing waterfront
300' feet of view
(I know that sounds hokey, but you would have had to see it and the lot didn't have a normal shape. A big challenge w/ a lot of waterfront lots in our area is the lots are long and narrow, creating a tunnel-vision view.)
Sale #4 - $9,000,000
3,330' house (likely a tear down)
0.76 acre
89' south-facing waterfront
(off-market transaction)
Subject Property - $26,750,000
5,330' house (tear down)
2.59 acre
150' south-facing waterfront
Long, skinny 'tunnel-vision' lot.
Houses #1, #2 and #3 were absolutely pristine. #4 is a tear-down where a neighbor added the lot to his existing estate.
#2 and #3 are the best comps. One could argue #2 was sold-under value and is an $8-$10M house. #3 is a $7-$8M house, leaving $13.5M for the dirt.
End of the day, given the Subject has to be torn down (likely putting $10-$15 in the rebuild over 3-5 years), I have a REALLY hard time valuing the Subject over $20M.
Now, would the Seller have sold for less than $26.75M? I really don't know. -
UWhuskytskeet said:
That was struck down in court almost immediately.pawz said:TurdBuffer said:
Probably worth the money to watch Seattle burn to the ground from across the lake.pawz said:
Yeah ... well .... Sorry, not sorry.TurdBuffer said:TL, DR. Jesus Pawz! You just went mathematical Tequila on us.
When you're gonna drop 8-figures on a piece of dirt, you should really do the maffs.
A lot of people coming across the lake after Seattle passed the income-tax ....
How often are 2.6 acre waterfront lots listed in Medina though? I agree it seems like they overpaid, but there are only a handful of lots that size.pawz said:But how did the discount broker cost their buyer SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS ??
Sale #1 - $14,252,500
8,200' house
1.25 acre
162' west-facing waterfront
Sale #2 - $21,000,000
11,500' house
2.6 acre
265' west-facing waterfront
Sale #3 - $23,375,000
8900' house (brand new)
1.84 acre
80' south-facing waterfront
300' feet of view
(I know that sounds hokey, but you would have had to see it and the lot didn't have a normal shape. A big challenge w/ a lot of waterfront lots in our area is the lots are long and narrow, creating a tunnel-vision view.)
Sale #4 - $9,000,000
3,330' house (likely a tear down)
0.76 acre
89' south-facing waterfront
(off-market transaction)
Subject Property - $26,750,000
5,330' house (tear down)
2.59 acre
150' south-facing waterfront
Long, skinny 'tunnel-vision' lot.
Houses #1, #2 and #3 were absolutely pristine. #4 is a tear-down where a neighbor added the lot to his existing estate.
#2 and #3 are the best comps. One could argue #2 was sold-under value and is an $8-$10M house. #3 is a $7-$8M house, leaving $13.5M for the dirt.
End of the day, given the Subject has to be torn down (likely putting $10-$15 in the rebuild over 3-5 years), I have a REALLY hard time valuing the Subject over $20M.
Now, would the Seller have sold for less than $26.75M? I really don't know.
1) That doesn't mean people weren't looking immediately. And they still are because they don't trust Seattle politicians.
2) It is correct there are only a handful of lots that size, however that scarcity is built into the 8-figure ask ... -
Might. If she ruv me rong time.PurpleThrobber said:
WTF cares about the prices?!? The outrage should be over all the fucking Asians about to descend on the roadways. -
TurdBuffer said:
Might. If she ruv me rong time.PurpleThrobber said:
WTF cares about the prices?!? The outrage should be over all the fucking Asians about to descend on the roadways.
