Just a guess re: financing. So I suppose guessing is, in fact, the inaccurate route to be taking. Case in point.

If the guess was that a contract fell through due to financing, that guess is wrong because this listing has not been under contract.

FFS.

Also, stagflation was not responsible for the multitude of shades of yellow, brown, orange and green that festooned homes in the 1970s.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not every redo is a cheap flip. That is what good inspectors are for. If you have a half arse inspector, of course they will not detect what you would need them to. Pay the money for an outstanding inspector, and you will get the results you need.

I suspect financing, OP. It's a great area. Though the looky loo losers are a trip - ITA with the PP agent who said there are too many uneducated guesses here.

If you can't afford it, just shut it and find another hobby. Trying to rip on new builds is old and tiresome.

Financing? You realize banks are desperate for business b/c so many cash buyers, and they are bringing back loose standard.

http://www.pressherald.com/business/U_S__lenders_loosening_mortgage_standards_.html?pagenum=full

And this would probably be a jumbo loan which banks are bending over backward to get.

Just a guess re: financing. So I suppose guessing is, in fact, the inaccurate route to be taking. Case in point.

Everyone I know is buying in cash these days.

Anonymous wrote:wow, the "before" is really dated! the late 70's/early 80's were such a bleak time for residential architecture.

yeah, stagflation made it all bad. no one had money but everything was expensive.

only permits pulled on this place was for the tub and porch. i wonder if the electrician was licensed for all the recess lights and new fans and new bathroom/kitchen? notice one of the bulbs are out in the bathroom, hope they used the appropriate moisture resistant wiring and fixtures (bulbs burning out quickly is a sign they didn't; assuming they replaced them when they installed in in october or later, that bulb burned out in less than a year...)

wow, the "before" is really dated! the late 70's/early 80's were such a bleak time for residential architecture.

Anonymous wrote:Man, the before was ugly. Would have loved to compare before/after interior shots, but alas!

http://franklymls.com/AR8160690

Wow, and I thought the AFTER was ugly! That's hideous!

Man, the before was ugly. Would have loved to compare before/after interior shots, but alas!

http://franklymls.com/AR8160690

I think that 800k SFH market in Arlington is families with young children, and Lorcum is too busy with little kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Not every redo is a cheap flip. That is what good inspectors are for. If you have a half arse inspector, of course they will not detect what you would need them to. Pay the money for an outstanding inspector, and you will get the results you need.

I suspect financing, OP. It's a great area. Though the looky loo losers are a trip - ITA with the PP agent who said there are too many uneducated guesses here.

If you can't afford it, just shut it and find another hobby. Trying to rip on new builds is old and tiresome.

Financing? You realize banks are desperate for business b/c so many cash buyers, and they are bringing back loose standard.

http://www.pressherald.com/business/U_S__lenders_loosening_mortgage_standards_.html?pagenum=full

And this would probably be a jumbo loan which banks are bending over backward to get.

[quote=Anonymous]

Not every redo is a cheap flip. That is what good inspectors are for. If you have a half arse inspector, of course they will not detect what you would need them to. Pay the money for an outstanding inspector, and you will get the results you need.

I suspect financing, OP. It's a great area. Though the looky loo losers are a trip - ITA with the PP agent who said there are too many uneducated guesses here.

If you can't afford it, just shut it and find another hobby. Trying to rip on new builds is old and tiresome.



[/quote]

Haha, yes every reno is a cheap flip when done on this timeline. If they were going to do a proper full scale renovation it would be better and more profitable to tear down and rebuild. This is not a Victorian mansion here. They put some new finishes and paint and asked ridiculous pricing.

Clearly novice investors too, since they totally misgauged the price for the market.
And dollars to donuts, you won't find any recent permits pulled for all this work.

Not every redo is a cheap flip. That is what good inspectors are for. If you have a half arse inspector, of course they will not detect what you would need them to. Pay the money for an outstanding inspector, and you will get the results you need.

I suspect financing, OP. It's a great area. Though the looky loo losers are a trip - ITA with the PP agent who said there are too many uneducated guesses here.

If you can't afford it, just shut it and find another hobby. Trying to rip on new builds is old and tiresome.

I still think you're confusing this with when sellers take a property off the market for 90 days, then re-list with the same agent/broker. That is trying to trick DOM and you're correct that it doesn't always work anymore.

You don't switch agents/brokers to accomplish this. You switch agents/brokers because you want a new agent/broker. My guess is because the first one told them they could sell it for $999K (the first asking price) and they are understandably frustrated.

Anonymous wrote:

Ie, trying to reduce DOM for their cheap flip.

Agent again. It does not reduce DOM at all and no agent would tell their sellers to think it would. Current listing shows DOM of 117 days, which includes those from the current listing and the previous listing combined. It appears the sellers just wanted to use another broker to list the property. Can you accept that or do you still think the sellers are trying to get something over on you?

I said trying. But it will show up as new listing on many sites, even if they have correct DOM.

At least we agree it's a cheap flip.

Ie, trying to reduce DOM for their cheap flip.

Agent again. It does not reduce DOM at all and no agent would tell their sellers to think it would. Current listing shows DOM of 117 days, which includes those from the current listing and the previous listing combined. It appears the sellers just wanted to use another broker to list the property. Can you accept that or do you still think the sellers are trying to get something over on you?

Anonymous wrote:Agent here. Not licensed in VA and no loyalty or disloyalty toward this particular house, but I can't stand when people take what they find on the MLS end user sites and misinterpret it.

It has not been under contract. It was listed in January with one broker, that listing was withdrawn on April 24 and it was re-listed with a different broker on May 10. The current owners bought it last October and renovated it.

Ie, trying to reduce DOM for their cheap flip.

Agent here. Not licensed in VA and no loyalty or disloyalty toward this particular house, but I can't stand when people take what they find on the MLS end user sites and misinterpret it.

It has not been under contract. It was listed in January with one broker, that listing was withdrawn on April 24 and it was re-listed with a different broker on May 10. The current owners bought it last October and renovated it.