According to the NWMLS, at least four pre-sale buyers have listed their 1521 units on the market. This is a unique situation since they do not yet own the property they are selling – it’s not quite a resale nor an assignment. Instead, they are marketing the units seeking simultaneous closings. That is, the original pre-sale buyer will close with the developer first (provided they can successfully close) then immediately close the second transaction with the new buyer.
These are all two-bedroom units, ranging in size between 1,700 to 2,000 and are listed between $1,250,000 and $2,100,000. Closing dates are slated for December and February.
October 25th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I would be curious to know how much profit these quasi-flippers are trying to get, and I am surprised the developer is allowing it.
October 26th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I wonder if more units are going to hit the market. I also think it’s ridiculous if these sellers believe they’ll be able to make a small profit given what’s going on in this economy. Even if you’re well off, and looking to buy something, a smart buyer would probably wait it out.
Although the unit on the 8th floor at $560/ft sounds like a good deal. Seriously though, good luck to all the specs trying to unload at >$1,000/ft. I know if I had that kind of money I wouldn’t be a buyer.
February 12th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
They are being resold as the buyers realize they have signed up to overpriced (2007 money) contracts, and are trying to get out without losing their deposit. The market has significantly corrected and the prices are unrealistic (for 2009 money). The lose of deposit would make more sense than completing the contract and holding a $1m-$2m ‘toxic asset’.
February 12th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Ken – excellent point. I know a few pre-sale buyers (not 1521) who have forfeited tens of thousands in EM deposits (upwards of $70,000) rather than take possession of a bad investment. In those cases, though, they were purchasing the units as speculative investments (rental or flip) and it made sense to take the loss. I don’t think it’s necessarily a toxic asset assuming its a long-term principal residence purchase.
February 12th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
I’m sure the condos are quite nice, but the ‘toxic asset’ refers the mark-to-market price of the asset versus the original contract price, whereby it becomes illiquid.