Cranbury home $1,800,000 (Petty Rd.; reduced)

[Guest]

$2,199,000
4 Bed, 4.1 Bath
3.1 Acres
(Petty Rd.)

* Single Family Property
* Status: Active
* Area: Cranbury
* Year Built: 2000
* Age: 7 year(s) old
* 4 total bedroom(s)
* 5 total bath(s)
* 4 total full bath(s)
* 1 total half bath(s)
* 10 total rooms
* Two story
* Dining room
* Basement
* 4 or more fireplaces
* 3 car garage
...
http://www.realtor.com/realestate/cranbury-nj-08512-1098502190/

[Guest]

The landscaping looks real nice!

[Guest]

I guess when your neighbor is listing a $2.2M house for $3.3M in a down market, it makes sense to ask $2.2 for a home probably worth $1.3-1.4M...

[tracker]

The new price is $1,999,000.

[Guest]

new price: $1,899,000.

[Guest]

new price, $1,875,000.

[Guest]

[Guest]

Anyone have the address on this one? I am curious to see what it reassessed for in the Fall of 2006. Presumably it should be selling for something less than that in line with most other local houses.

[Guest]

[Guest]

So it should sell for not more than about $1,400,000.

Seriously, what are some homeowners thinking? In order to afford a home in the first place, let alone one in this range, they must be reasonably grounded in the real and have some competence. But why do some people remain in utter denial about the state of the market. They dilute themselves into thinking their area is not only immune to the state of the market but somehow bucking the trend in the opposite direction. Or they convince themselves that somehow their home is "special" and others will be willing to pay 20+% over market comps and trends. Or they compute what they have invested into the home and for some boggling reason assume buyers will care what they spent and ignore the market. Or they ignore reason and allow some eager agent to sell them a story in their eternal optimism...

And then there is plain and simple greed. These owners bought in 2001 for $799,000. Now they want well over twice what they paid for it, over $1M in profit. Why? Because they watched others sell in the market peek, did the theoretical math on what their home was “worth” on paper (and in their heads) and now they feel like they are “losing money” if they sell for less. But this is flawed logic. They aren’t losing money because they never had it. It’s no more rational than offering your Google stock at $700 when the current ask is $450. You bought it at $150 and did great, but because at one moment in time it was at $700, somehow you only think of your loss. Stupid.

Whatever the reason, they are all contributing to the overall problem in the market. There is almost 11 months of inventory in the market versus less than 3 two years ago. Homes are staying too long on the market because sellers are wasting everyone's time listing homes that no one will buy because they aren't priced in accordance with the market.

[Guest]

Wow. Really, wow. What hubirs. Their first ask a year after the reassessment was 50 percent higher than it and 300 percent of their purchase price. In a down market.

That isn't just optimistic. That's almost criminally arrogant.

[??]

Yup, there was a transaction in Feb, 2001 for $799,000. I have a feeling that the buyer rebuilt the house. The picture looks like a newly built house.

BTW, it takes two to tango, and maybe (just maybe) there is a buyer somewhere who likes this one.

[Guest]

[Guest]

Very nice photos added.

BTW, how much to heat such a big house in the winter?

[Guest]

new price $1,868,000.

[Guest]

My prediction holds. This home will not sell for more than around $1.4M. They might take it off the market first, but they won't get a higher sale.