Realtor's Say it Is A Buyer's Market

[Just Sold]

From the Union Leader today:
Home » News » Business
October 14. 2012 6:21PM
Realtors: It's a buyer's market in Lakes Region

ShareThis

By PAULA TRACY
New Hampshire Union Leader

This three-bedroom Gilford home, listed by Roche Realty Group Inc. for $1,295,000, features one of the largest boat houses on Lake Winnipesaukee and has 170 feet of shore-front. (COURTESY)

LACONIA — With the median price for a house on Lake Winnipesaukee at $1.2 million and going for about $200,000 less than this time last year, it is a buyer's market out there with choices, choices, choices.

Russ Thibeault of Applied Economic Research in Laconia said in 40 years, he has never seen a better time to buy in the region.

Frank Roche of Roche Realty Group of Meredith and Laconia said he has been practicing 36 years, and this is one of the top two times to buy. The last was 1991.

He recalls in 1980 and 1981 when he was quoting interest rates at 17 and 18 percent “and that was adjustable. You couldn't get a fixed rate. ... Today you have 40-year record low interest rates below at about 3.6 percent, and price reductions from 20 to 30 percent ... even more if it is a short sale,” he said.

“Add to that, we have the best inventory of 1,340 listings in the Lakes Region, and that represents an opportunity for savvy buyers. There are a lot of anxious sellers, too,” Roche said.

On Lake Winnipesaukee, there are 245 houses on the market.

Sales off the lake have picked up across the region, with a 16- to 18-month inventory, but the market that has traditionally done the best, lakefront, now has a five-year inventory on the market.

Thibeault said 129 houses have sold on the big lake in the last year, with a median selling price of $900,000. Last year, that figure was $1.1 million.

“Housing is affordable, but it's not moving,” Thibeault said.

“It's cheaper to own than rent, but it's hard to qualify. A person buying a $200,000 home, which is the average price in New Hampshire, has to have $40,000 to plunk down, and few do have that right now,” he said. “If you can qualify, it's great.”

“For sellers, things have stabilized” in terms of price reductions, but Thibeault said he has not seen market trends increasing in price yet.

There are now 60 homes on the big lake on the market for more than $2 million and 13 sales of more than $2 million in the last year, Thibeault said.

The sale price for lakefront ranges from $160,000 to $10 million on Governor's Island.

Thibeault said many buyers, even if they can meet the terms for a mortgage, lack confidence in the economy.

Roche said where he is seeing the market moving toward is baby boomers who are thinking about retirement and are selling homes in the South and moving to places for recreation and cultural opportunities.

“Water access is selling, too,” he said. “You can get a house with water access in the $125,000 price range and buy condos for $80,000.”

Roche agreed with Thibeault that the market overall seems to be getting better.

And Mitt Romney had an impact on Wolfeboro this summer, Roche said, because of the publicity as the sometime-home of the Republican presidential nominee.

“We've had calls as a result,” he said of what he called the “Romney factor.”

ptracy@unionleader.com

[fatlazyless]

In my neighborhood.....68 Cattle Landing Rd, Meredith NH 03253 sold for $712,500 on Dec 16, 2011, after having a for sale sign out front for maybe 18-months.

Directly next door at 70 Cattle Landing Rd, there's been a for sale realty listing sign out front for maybe two years or something......would be interesting to take a look at the asking price history of these two homes, 68 & 70 Cattle Landing Rd, one got sold, and the other is still for sale.....just for drills.....to get a small peek into the local real estate market?


Just up the street at 22 Cattle Landing Rd......no for sale sign out front but still for sale as far as I know......has been up for sale since 2006 when it was built as a speculative for sale house.....as far as I know.....with no buyer? Anyone know what's that latest with this great big, huge, expensive, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious waterfront home......22 Cattle Landing Rd, Meredith NH 03253?

[webmaster]

Roy Sanborn regularly posts interesting information about the local real estate market in our blogs:

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/blog.php?u=12870

[songkrai]

It's a fickle market for lake front RE.

One just sold on Black Cat Island for over $3,000,000. Nice home with built in movie theater. Small lot but beautiful home with great landscapping.

Some state that for the real expensive ones the "Adirondack" style is the "in" presently. For new or nearly new ones anyway.

[ishoot308]

I couldn't agree more with everything stated in the article! It definitely is a buyers market right now in the lakes region.

My wife and I have been watching closely for the past couple years and right now we are seeing some beautiful real estate sell for 30% or more less than just a couple years ago. Many homes that are for sale are second homes and the economy simply does not justify or allow the cost of owning a second home for many. Owners are cutting their losses and moving on, bad for the owners but good for buyers.

If your trying to sell a home...well, lets just say take a loss or be patient until the market rebounds. I do personally feel the market has bottomed out and depending on what happens in the upcoming election will begin to turn around.

Dan

[Winnisquamguy]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Just up the street at 22 Cattle Landing Rd......no for sale sign out front but still for sale as far as I know......has been up for sale since 2006 when it was built as a speculative for sale house.....as far as I know.....with no buyer? Anyone know what's that latest with this great big, huge, expensive, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious waterfront home......22 Cattle Landing Rd, Meredith NH 03253?

From Roy Sanborn's article...........

The highest sale on the lake in September was at 22 Cattle Landing Road in Meredith. The sale of this property was another long ordeal as it was listed prior to construction back in June of 2006 at $2.995 million with construction to be completed in 2007. The price escalated to $4.25 million in June of 2008, then was reduced to $3.2, to $2.895 in 2010, and finally down to $2.695 million this year. Anyway, this exquisite 6,000 square foot Adirondack has all the features one would expect in a Winnipesaukee waterfront estate home including Brazilian Cherry hardwood floors, a great room with cathedral ceilings and floor to ceiling fireplace, lots of glass, six bedrooms including a sumptuous master suite with its own private deck, the requisite gourmet kitchen with all the goodies, a home theater, and an attached, three car, heated garage for the toys. The home sits on a .72 acre peninsula lot with 328' of frontage, amazing landscaping, beautiful patios and walkways, a perched beach, and, of course, a dock. The home also has 50% interest in another 8.5 acre lot to provide additional privacy. So, this home was marketed for 1,450 days with the sale coming in at $2.2 million. The assessed value by the Town of Meredith is at $2.577 million.

[BroadHopper]

Thibeault says it is a buyer's market yet Sanborn a while back says otherwise.


I do know that many condo units end up leased when they don't sell. My development a decade ago did not allow leasing of properties. Now a good share are leased and the association will not take a stand after a couple of foreclosures left the association absorbing the back payments of dues.


The downward spiral of unit prices have slowed down but have not hit bottom.


I am looking to sell but at a big lost. I am also looking at another association, where one unit was sold two years ago for $190K. A similar unit is on the market today for @224K. Is the owner dreaming? Or he has a realtor that sucks him in with a dream?


My family sold the lakefront property in 1998 for $300K, The new owner ‘flipped’ the property around 2005 for $1.3M. The property was foreclosed in 2008 and the bank received $700K. Then the property was sold for $500K in 2010. The current owner tore down the 1892 fishing camp that was once the brakeman’s house for the old Lake Shore Railroad. I was told the new structure price was about $400K. Will the current owner get his investment back? Or will he take a bath? I was told he is in the business of ‘flipping’ properties.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by Winnisquamguy

From Roy Sanborn's article...........

One important item that is not mentioned in Roy Sanborn's article here and probably would be a concern to a prospective buyer is that the actual distance between the house at #22, and a very, very similar house at #24 is they are situated indeed very, very close, to one another, like maybe just 20' distance between the end wall of the garage area on one, and the end wall of the kitchen area on the other, or something like that. If my memory is correct, these two residential waterfront structures at 22, and 24 Cattle Landing are considered to be condominiums by the town.....some more informed input on this would be appreciated.....thankyou & goodknight!

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Thibeault says it is a buyer's market yet Sanborn a while back says otherwise.

I can recall reading via google an article in the Laconia Evening Citizen from the early 1970's where Russ Thibeault said the recent urban renewal demolition-reconstruction of downtown Laconia would soon turn downtown Laconia into a vibrant commercial area so who really knows when the real estate market values will bottom out?

[Rattlesnake Gal]

Is there a way to see how close the selling prices are to the assessed values? Do the tap usually match?

[Grant]

Our place went on the market in April, and papers were traded last week. There was no shortage of people parading through from April through September. A few offers along the way and, ultimately, the buyer got a steal. Lots of waterfront signs up this year. More to come, I'm sure, with the taxes at current rates (which certainly won't come down).

[BroadHopper]

Assessed values for taxes is a pick a number out of the air proposition. As a financial analyst I still find it confusing how they got that number. For instance the assessed value for taxes of three properties that I owned remain at the price I paid for the properties. They are in three seperate towns, all in NH. All bought in the early to mid 2000. When they reevaluate the properties, the numbers don't make sense nor are they close to appraised market value of the properties. We can thank the goons in Concord for this one!

Appraisals for insurance or market values depends on who does the appraisal and what data base that they use. With today's falling prices it is usually on the optimistic side.

[AC2717]

One thing to note here is an insurance value is a rebuild/repair value
not market value

[ishoot308]

"Assessed" values are strictly used for tax purposes. Every town is different in how they assess and then tax on that assessment. The town of Gilford assessed value are way below market value.

[Woodsy]

Property tax in NH is based on the towns collecting taxes at whatever the property's full cash value is. That being said I think a tolerance of +/-5% applies. See the RSA below!


RSA 75:1 How Appraised. Except with respect to open space land appraised pursuant to RSA 79-A:5 (current use) and residence appraised pursuant to RSA 75:11 (in commercial zone), the selectmen shall appraise all taxable property at its full and true value in money as they would appraise the same in payment of a just debt due from a solvent debtor, and shall receive and consider all evidence that may be submitted to them relative to the value of the property, the value of which cannot be determined by personal examination.

There was a HUGE push by the lawmakers in Concord a few years ago when they realized the property tax revenue was not keeping track with what properties were actually selling for. Add in a budget deficit and well, you get the picture!

I think most of the online appraisals you see (Vision Appraisals etc) are pretty accurate within the tolerance above.

Woodsy

[ITD]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

........ I do personally feel the market has bottomed out and depending on what happens in the upcoming election will begin to turn around.

Dan

I agree, if a majority votes right, things will snap back quickly. If not, more gloom and doom....

[wifi]

It may be a buyers market, I have a P&S for a retreat at a great price, but try to get a bank loan, its not easy, no matter how high your credit rating or how much the property is worth put up for collateral.

[Lakesrider]

Wifi, I read through the while post intending to post that exact some thing. We had lots of folks look at our condo down in Nashua while it was for sale. No buyers. The realtors told us none of them could get a loan....Banks are still holed up and very nervous about lending even though they got gazabillions from the Gov't.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Lakesrider

Wifi, I read through the while post intending to post that exact some thing. We had lots of folks look at our condo down in Nashua while it was for sale. No buyers. The realtors told us none of them cold get a lone....Banks are still holed up and very nervous about lending even though they got gazabillions from the Gov't.

Not entirely true. Banks will lend. Heck I had no trouble at all getting a mortgage on the place that I bought this year. However the fundamentals are simple - good debt to income ratio, 20% cash down, and decent assets above and beyond the down payment. Sadly many spend as much as they make, save little if at all and are carrying significant debt. Yes unlike in the recent past, these individuals are now being passed by as to risky and rightly so. Even if a bank gets 'gazabillions' from the Gov't, making a loan that is likely to default doesn't do anyone one any good.

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by Grant

Our place went on the market in April, and papers were traded last week. There was no shortage of people parading through from April through September. A few offers along the way and, ultimately, the buyer got a steal. Lots of waterfront signs up this year. More to come, I'm sure, with the taxes at current rates (which certainly won't come down).

Congratulations on the sale. Hopefully, you are buying another property in the area!!

[wifi]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Not entirely true. Banks will lend. Heck I had no trouble at all getting a mortgage on the place that I bought this year. However the fundamentals are simple - good debt to income ratio, 20% cash down, and decent assets above and beyond the down payment. Sadly many spend as much as they make, save little if at all and are carrying significant debt. Yes unlike in the recent past, these individuals are now being passed by as to risky and rightly so. Even if a bank gets 'gazabillions' from the Gov't, making a loan that is likely to default doesn't do anyone one any good.

I respectfully disagree with your disagreement I have no debt outside of a mortgage, pay credit cards off each month, about 25% debt (which is only the mortgage) to income ratio, 60% down payment, no defaults or bankruptcies. This is all a current and ongoing event for me, maybe you slipped in under the wire earlier this year, congratulations on your new place

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by wifi

I respectfully disagree with your disagreement I have no debt outside of a mortgage, pay credit cards off each month, about 25% debt (which is only the mortgage) to income ratio, 60% down payment, no defaults or bankruptcies. This is all a current and ongoing event for me, maybe you slipped in under the wire earlier this year, congratulations on your new place

I agree with Maxum, not sure why you are having issues with numbers like that. What bank? Credit score ok? Did the second mortgage put your ratios too high? Is there something funky about the property or is it not appraising out at a value that makes sense? With 60% down it seems like a slam dunk.

We recently went for an approval to buy a 3rd house and got it, even though it put our ratios over 50%. We are in the process of selling the other two, so it would have been a short term situation, but chose against it anyhow. I don't know of anyone that has gone to get a mortgage that has been denied. Granted the banks aren't as lenient as they once were but as long as someone has decent credit, can afford it, and the value is there it should not be an issue.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by wifi

I respectfully disagree with your disagreement I have no debt outside of a mortgage, pay credit cards off each month, about 25% debt (which is only the mortgage) to income ratio, 60% down payment, no defaults or bankruptcies. This is all a current and ongoing event for me, maybe you slipped in under the wire earlier this year, congratulations on your new place

You left one thing out and that is your income.

Are you trying to buy a house that doesn't fall within your income range even though you put 60% down? Does it put your debt to income ratio over 35%?

[jazzman]

We found that island properties didn't meet fanniemae/freddiemac lending guidelines even with nearly 50% down. Not sure if this extended to all seasonal places or if it was a no public road thing. Banks were of course happy to do private portfolio loans at 5+% fixed for 30 years.

We eventually found Franklin Savings Bank had a special agreement with fanniemae that let our loan go through.

Then you find out that everything on the lakefront is considered a flood zone these days...

Then you find out that most insurance companies don't do houses on piers...

Then you find out that the bank appraisal system is pretty random on island properties.

Lots of hurdles... These have to be taking some number of potential buyers off the books.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by jazzman

We found that island properties didn't meet fanniemae/freddiemac lending guidelines even with nearly 50% down. Not sure if this extended to all seasonal places or if it was a no public road thing. Banks were of course happy to do private portfolio loans at 5+% fixed for 30 years.

We eventually found Franklin Savings Bank had a special agreement with fanniemae that let our loan go through.

Then you find out that everything on the lakefront is considered a flood zone these days...

Then you find out that most insurance companies don't do houses on piers...

Then you find out that the bank appraisal system is pretty random on island properties.

Lots of hurdles... These have to be taking some number of potential buyers off the books.

Hit the nail on the head...

If the property doesn't meet fanny/freddy guidelines, it's a property that is only going to move to a cash buyer, or you're stuck having to screw with a construction loan to get the property to those standards and flip to a conventional loan. Can you say headache of epic proportions?

Insurance companies don't particularly care for seasonal properties period, even if they are on a full foundation. Not an impossible hurdle to overcome, just takes lots of explanation.

The appraisals are another killer since there is so much variation in water front never mind island property. It's not like most places are cookie cutter subdivisions, with lots of "like features", no you're stuck comparing apples and oranges which skew the comparable features to "like sold properties" and to much adjustment there raises red flags to the underwriters.

The key thing is to find the right lender that has the ability to deal with a little adversity. They are out there, stick with a local bank and you may find things are much easier than you have experienced thus far.

[wifi]

30% debt to income ratio. Local bank. I haven't gotten the appraisal report back yet, perhaps she got up on the wrong side of the bed that day. I've always thought the value of a house or land is what someone is willing to pay for it otherwise, its really subjective.

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by wifi

30% debt to income ratio. Local bank. I haven't gotten the appraisal report back yet, perhaps she got up on the wrong side of the bed that day. I've always thought the value of a house or land is what someone is willing to pay for it otherwise, its really subjective.

It's not the Banks!!! It is the government. Please read the papers. The government started the housing crises by keeping rates artificially low and mandating that every stiff who could fog a mirror should own a home. Now the government is suing the banks for having made those loans even though the banks provide the lubrication for the economy to do well. Were there bad bankers, appraisers, borrowers, etc.? Yes. However, the banks took 95% of the blame. Put yourself in the banks' shoes. If you make a loan and fail to meet government guidelines you will be sued. Your President will condemn you for trying to screw the little guy, etc. etc. Fear not, this problem can be fixed and all of you, especially those residing in NH, will have the opportunity to do so next month.

[Diver Vince]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

It's not the Banks!!! It is the government. Please read the papers. The government started the housing crises by keeping rates artificially low and mandating that every stiff who could fog a mirror should own a home. Now the government is suing the banks for having made those loans even though the banks provide the lubrication for the economy to do well. Were there bad bankers, appraisers, borrowers, etc.? Yes. However, the banks took 95% of the blame. Put yourself in the banks' shoes. If you make a loan and fail to meet government guidelines you will be sued. Your President will condemn you for trying to screw the little guy, etc. etc. Fear not, this problem can be fixed and all of you, especially those residing in NH, will have the opportunity to do so next month.

Exactly correct! The government started this entire debacle with red line zones which forced the banks to make loans to those with inadequate financial solvency under the guise of "fairness". Now they blame the banks, the insurance companies and everyone but themselves. And to boot, the taxpayers have to foot the bill. Excuse me, but some of these folks in Washington think they are so bloody smart. They can fool some of the people some of the time, but certainly not all.

[tis]

Insurance is tough these days. Either your property is seasonal, or is a rental, is vacant, is too old, too new, has a wood stove, or is too expensive or in the wrong zone or something. If it wasn't for liability, I would self insure and forget them all!

I totally agree with you secondcurve.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by wifi

30% debt to income ratio. Local bank. I haven't gotten the appraisal report back yet, perhaps she got up on the wrong side of the bed that day. I've always thought the value of a house or land is what someone is willing to pay for it otherwise, its really subjective.

So has your local bank actually turned you down for the loan or are they still reviewing the appraisal report and it could possibly be approved?

[BroadHopper]

One could get a bridge mortgage in the case you are buying a home when you have your present home on the market. When you sell the first home they will refinance. Today, it is not so. Either your current home is sold or no loan. This makes it harder for someone to move to a new location. Large corporations will reluctantly purchase a new home in a new location until you old home is sold. Then the corporation will sell you your home.

Bottom line is it takes money to move to a new location, something most of us do not have.

I had a chance to buy an inn a couple of years ago for 900K. Banks told me I need enough liquid assets to cover the commercial loan. The property never sold and today it is foreclosed for 600K. Now the bank has change the rules, too late, and I can afford the property. The property is no longer attractive as it has fell into disrepair. Go figure.

Banks loves to 'shoot themselves in the foot.'

[ishoot308]

Here's a perfect example of why it's a buyers market...

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/76...92810734_zpid/

This house on Varney Point Rd. left was originally put on the market last year for 2.2 million. It finally sold and was closed on last Friday for 1.5 million!! Can you imagine what this house would have sold for in 2007!! It's not just houses in this price range either that are being drastically reduced, there are great deals to be had in all price ranges.

Dan

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

Here's a perfect example of why it's a buyers market...

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/76...92810734_zpid/

This house on Varney Point Rd. left was originally put on the market last year for 2.2 million. It finally sold and was closed on last Friday for 1.5 million!! Can you imagine what this house would have sold for in 2007!! It's not just houses in this price range either that are being drastically reduced, there are great deals to be had in all price ranges.

Dan

The property taxes for this Varney Point waterfront single-family house for the last year shown, 2011, are $28,992/year to the Town of Gilford, or $2416/month.........wow......and I figured that I pay a lot....about $9000/year ......for my 55'wf and quarter acre with a 60-year old, moldy oldie, mongrel cottage in Meredith. That is a huge amount of money in taxes especially if it is to be a second home, and basically unoccupied from Labor day to Memorial Day.

[jazzman]

Could be worse... The tax rates in the "vacation" communities are about 1/2 of what the rest of the state pays. Of course the houses are worth more, but that's real $$$ you get to keep if you ever sell.

My prior lakehouse in Hillsboro NH was about 2.5% of it's value per year in taxes. Here, closer to 1.25%.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by wifi

30% debt to income ratio. Local bank. I haven't gotten the appraisal report back yet, perhaps she got up on the wrong side of the bed that day. I've always thought the value of a house or land is what someone is willing to pay for it otherwise, its really subjective.

What you are willing to pay and the appraised market value are two entirely different numbers.

The appraisal value is based on the actual sale price of "like properties" within a certain distance of the subject property. Price weighting is done to even the score between comparable properties. So if one has more SQFT than another the price difference is calculated as such as a line item on each comp listed as ether +/- X number of dollars. Banks could care less what you want to pay, they want to know what stuff is actually selling for. Trouble with this is if there is to much skew between "like properties" that raises all kinds of red flags and yes can kill a loan as quickly as bad credit.

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by jazzman

Could be worse... The tax rates in the "vacation" communities are about 1/2 of what the rest of the state pays. Of course the houses are worth more, but that's real $$$ you get to keep if you ever sell.

My prior lakehouse in Hillsboro NH was about 2.5% of it's value per year in taxes. Here, closer to 1.25%.

True but the average vacation home owner gets very little in the way of services for his/her tax payments. As a result, tax rates should be low!

[jazzman]

Maybe true, but be happy you own a vacation house in a low tax town... It could be way worse. A 500k vacation house in many towns = 12K tax bill and how many Winnipesaukee houses can be had for 500K? Imagine what a 12k tax bill does for the resale value of your house.

The expensive tax towns are going to become more and more expensive when all the retirees move out and everyone who lives there have kids that need schools.

The NH tax system is clearly broken.

I don't know what the right answer is, but a system where people pick towns a few miles apart to live in because of local real estate taxes is broken.

And what happens when 2nd home real estate taxes aren't deductible on your federal taxes any more???

[Woodsy]

Jazzman....

I have to disagree with you. The NH tax system work just fine. Its supply and demand. Properties on or close to the water or properties with a view are worth more than an average property. They are worth more because people will pay more to purchase them. Blame it on human nature! A prime example is the new $500K - $600K CONDOS for sale on Scenic Road.... because they have an awesome view. Less than a mile away, you can buy a townhouse condo for $130K.... (not exactly an apples to apples comparison, but the HUGE price point difference is because of location) To this day, property on the Meredith, Laconia & Gilford side of the Lake is more valuable than similar properties in Moultonboro, Center Harbor & Tuftonboro. Why? Because for whatever reason, people desire to be on this side of the lake instead of that side.... go figure!

If anyone can afford to buy a desirable property on/near the water or with a spectacular view I am happy for you. I dont think complaining about the taxes or mortgage on your property is a viable argument. If you can afford the house, you can afford the taxes. If you dont like the way the town is spending your tax $$ then move up here and become a resident and vote your opinion. Its that simple!

I do feel a little bad for families who have had these camps/cottages forever, and thier tax bill is making them unaffordable to keep. That being said, None of those families complain when the $20K camp thats been in the family since the 60's (and you were rich in the 60's if you could afford a $20K camp) and gets sold for a $500k profit.

Woodsy

[DickR]

The valuation on which the RE tax is supposed to be based is some (crude) measure of what someone else likely is willing to pay you for your property. The claim that "if you can afford to buy it then you can afford the taxes on it" loses validity as time goes on. The case of the property bought decades ago is a good example. The wealth of people of means who can afford vacation homes keeps bidding up the going prices (over time). The long-time owner essentially is paying a tax on someone else's ability to pay it.

The present system of leaning heavily on the RE tax is a sweet deal for towns on the major lakes, as they see a huge chunk of money coming in from people who don't use much in the way of services and also who have no say in the matter. I don't see this changing soon, but if it did, lakefront towns would be seriously impacted.

[patman]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

It's not the Banks!!! It is the government. Please read the papers. The government started the housing crises by keeping rates artificially low and mandating that every stiff who could fog a mirror should own a home.

Originally Posted by Diver Vince

Exactly correct! The government started this entire debacle with red line zones which forced the banks to make loans to those with inadequate financial solvency under the guise of "fairness".

Nobody "forced" the banks to do anything. The combination of things being allowed (not mandated) and the banks' own greed was the problem. The wall-street geniuses that came up with bonds based on sub-prime mortgages that masked the true risk of those instruments created the demand. The banks saw $$ in closing costs and fees, and selling those mortgages to the bond managers, and supplied that demand. Immediate profit, no long-term risk. What's not to like? After all, the banks had no downside to protect, they had that FDIC safety net!

Sorry...wall street and bank greed is behind this one, not a nonexistent government mandate.

If you can stomach the truth, listen to this:

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radi...-pool-of-money

Oh, and when you're itching to point fingers on this one...remember what administration was in office at the time. Hint: not the current one.

[tis]

That's wrong. Barney Frank and friends forced Fannie and Freddie to give out loans to almost anybody that could wait. They said everybody deserved to buy a home.

[patman]

Originally Posted by tis

That's wrong. Barney Frank and friends forced Fannie and Freddie to give out loans to almost anybody that could wait. They said everybody deserved to buy a home.

Forced or allowed? Big difference. Citation?

[SIKSUKR]

Absolutely forced. Read the bill.

[patman]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Absolutely forced. Read the bill.

Again, citation?

If you're talking about the Community Reinvestment Act, it mandates that they offer loans to all qualified individuals without discrimination...not that they ignore safeguards against making unsound loans. The risky loan idea was all from the banks, fueled by the bond market appetite. If it works, they win. If it didn't, FDIC bails them out. There was no mandate, just no downside, and greed kicked in.

From Wikipedia...(I know, it's not the bill itself, but it's a good summarization) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 seeks to address discrimination in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-income neighborhoods.[7] The Act mandates that all banking institutions that receive Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit (in a manner consistent with safe and sound operation as per Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)) in all communities in which they are chartered to do business.[3] The law does not list specific criteria for evaluating the performance of financial institutions. Rather, it directs that the evaluation process should accommodate the situation and context of each individual institution. Federal regulations dictate agency conduct in evaluating a bank's compliance in five performance areas, comprising twelve assessment factors. This examination culminates in a rating and a written report that becomes part of the supervisory record for that bank.

The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution. An institution's CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. The law does not mandate any other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA.

Furthermore...from the bill:

Sec. 802.
(a) The Congress finds that—
(1) regulated financial institutions are required by law to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs of the communities in which they are chartered to do business;
(2) the convenience and needs of communities include the need for credit services as well as deposit services; and
(3) regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered.
(b) It is the purpose of this title to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.

Sorry, I don't see anything that requires them to make bad loans, and in fact it says 'consistent with the safe and sound operation', which means to NOT make bad loans.

[Billy Bob]

Originally Posted by patman

Forced or allowed? Big difference. Citation?

Actualy George Bush had a large say in increasing the percentage of homeowners to levels that were not sustanable . Lots of room to find fault .

Lax lending and low downpayments led to buyers with no skin in the game and when values went down they headed for the hills

[Mink Islander]

Talking about the local real estate market is interesting.

Bloviating over who is to blame for the mortgage crisis -- not so much.

[patman]

Originally Posted by Mink Islander

Talking about the local real estate market is interesting.

Bloviating over who is to blame for the mortgage crisis -- not so much.

Agreed...my apologies for taking the bait, this is not the appropriate venue for these sorts of discussions.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by DickR

The valuation on which the RE tax is supposed to be based is some (crude) measure of what someone else likely is willing to pay you for your property. The claim that "if you can afford to buy it then you can afford the taxes on it" loses validity as time goes on. The case of the property bought decades ago is a good example. The wealth of people of means who can afford vacation homes keeps bidding up the going prices (over time). The long-time owner essentially is paying a tax on someone else's ability to pay it.

The present system of leaning heavily on the RE tax is a sweet deal for towns on the major lakes, as they see a huge chunk of money coming in from people who don't use much in the way of services and also who have no say in the matter. I don't see this changing soon, but if it did, lakefront towns would be seriously impacted.

DickR

When you own something that someone else covets, be it a piece of property, an old musclecar a rare toy or whatever, the value of that item will proportionally increase relative to the desire of the person who covets it most.

On one hand I do agree with you that the long time property owner is paying taxes based on what others are willing to pay for that property or a similar property. Not to be heartless but so what? That same long term property owner is going to be laughing all the way to the bank when he gets a huge $$$ amount when he sells the property. The same way the original owner of a 1965 Shelby Cobra is going to laugh when his $6000 sports car fetches 1.1 Million at auction.

Real Estate can fluctuate in value... I feel bad for the people who bought when the market was artificially high... alot of them are now upside down in thier mortgages or have watched thier home devalue dramatically. Hence all the foreclosures and short sales. On the upside, for other people its def a time for some real bargains. It is what it is. When some people lose, others win. It all depends on your perspective.

I blame the banks for the most part... the Feds def had some complicity. The Feds pushed banks into writing mortgages for lower income people. The banks said SURE! But instead of writing easy stable long term fixed rate mortgages, they wrote variable rate mortgages, knowing full well that once the gates were open and flood of people started buying house, the housing prices would go up, as would the risk of inflation and that would force the Fed to raise the Prime Rate to slow it all down.... the BANKS knew this when it all started. They knew it was a bubble that would eventually pop!

The banks could have very easily rewritten the shakey notes to avoid the meltdown... they chose not to. They didnt want to hurt thier bottom line. EVERYBODY involved in the process made alot of $$$.. and the taxpayers got stuck with the bill!


Woodsy

[CateP]

Having just gone through selling and buying this past year I would definitely agree that it is a buyers market. I could not get a loan for a new house until I sold the old house. I sold my old house for almost $100k less than original list and $20k less than town assessment. (boo hoo) BUT then I bought a beautiful house in Wolfeboro for $40k under town assessment and $150k less than buyers paid.

It's all relative. Had I sold my house back in that crazy time around 2004-2007, I would have gotten a LOT more money for it and it probably would have sold within weeks. AND I probably would have paid a LOT more money for my next house and maybe even gotten involved in a bidding war, only to loose any equity I thought I had.

In retrospect I am glad the market took a nose dive and I bought and sold when I did. It all feels so much more sane AND I feel like I got the real value of my new house, not some inflated price driven by greed. (which by the way was the real culprit for the housing crisis by many parties)

[BroadHopper]

Before the 1980's education crisis, Tax evaluation was left to the towns. In Gilford the selectmen realized that seasonal owners do not use the schools and winter services. Seasonal owners were giving a break. Same with the farmers, they were giving a break because they normally do make enough money to pay residential tax.

Today the state has to approve all tax evaluation. Regardless of how the land is used, with the exception of wetlands, all evaluation is based on what the land and building can be reasonably sold for. That is why the blind Orford farmer sue the state for unreasonable RE tax. This case started the 'view' tax mess. Of course the state won.

The family lake estate RE tax increased 6 fold during to 80's. The family had the property since 1892 and had to be sold because of the RE tax. The family farm saw a four fold increase during that time period. The family is barely able to prevent the land from going to developers.

Many of the waterfront owners on Teraace Hill Road before the 80's were firemen, policemen, blue collar workers that have worked hard for their piece of paradise. Today the small cottages are torned down for MacMansion owned by fat cats and white collar workers.

I hope you realized where some of us are coming from.

[secondcurve]

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / September 28, 2008
Email|Print|Single Page||ShareThis Text size – +
'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."

That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "

In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jacoby@globe.com.

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company

[secondcurve]

Politicians, Banks, Borrowers, etc. Let's hope things get back to normal in the next few years.

[tis]

In Wolfeboro they like to call us who live on the lake, the "Cash Cows". How does that make you feel?

[DRH]

I think the following video tells the real story about Fannie and Freddie's (and the housing market's) collapse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQWk1Wp3L4

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by CateP

BUT then I bought a beautiful house in Wolfeboro for $40k under town assessment and $150k less than buyers paid.

Plus I'm sure you got a good deal on the loan interest rate.

Congratulations and enjoy your new home in the best little town in NH.

[fatlazyless]

....so...what's the latest at 22 Cattle Landing...or what...is it back on the market again? In the past day or two a new Susan Bradley-Caldwell Banker, for sale sign went up at the roadside over there? So, in September 2012, last month, (see post #6), it was the highest priced sale on the lake, and now it has a new sign out front.....anyone know what happened.......did the sale not go through or something...did the buyer come down with a case of buyers regret or something and kill the purchase?

[lawn psycho]

I just put a lot in NH under contract and yes, it is a buyers market

Unfortunately I'll feel the pain when the house in ME sells but the rates are amazing right now.

For those that are gullible to think the CRA has anything to do with the housing implosion, you need to understand credit default swaps and mortgage bundling. The CRA has been around since 1977.....

If you don't understand what this video is about you have no business discussing the bank liquidity crisis which was basis for the Fall 2008 economic implosion:
http://m.youtube.com/results?q=timbe...?v=whlzFWwVv98

[songkrai]

By Barry Ritholtz,
The Washington Post

"One group has been especially vocal about shaping a new narrative of the credit crisis and economic collapse: those whose bad judgment and failed philosophy helped cause the crisis.

They all suffer cognitive dissonance — the intellectual crisis that occurs when a failed belief system or philosophy is confronted with proof of its implausibility.

And what about those facts? To be clear, no single issue was the cause. Our economy is a complex and intricate system. What caused the crisis? Look:
●Fed Chair Alan Greenspan dropped rates to 1 percent — levels not seen for half a century — and kept them there for an unprecedentedly long period. This caused a spiral in anything priced in dollars (i.e., oil, gold) or credit (i.e., housing) or liquidity driven (i.e., stocks).

●Low rates meant asset managers could no longer get decent yields from municipal bonds or Treasurys. Instead, they turned to high-yield mortgage-backed securities. Nearly all of them failed to do adequate due diligence before buying them, did not understand these instruments or the risk involved. They violated one of the most important rules of investing: Know what you own.

●Fund managers made this error because they relied on the credit ratings agencies — Moody’s, S&P and Fitch. They had placed an AAA rating on these junk securities, claiming they were as safe as U.S. Treasurys.

• Derivatives had become a uniquely unregulated financial instrument. They are exempt from all oversight, counter-party disclosure, exchange listing requirements, state insurance supervision and, most important, reserve requirements. This allowed AIG to write $3 trillion in derivatives while reserving precisely zero dollars against future claims.

• The Securities and Exchange Commission changed the leverage rules for just five Wall Street banks in 2004. The “Bear Stearns exemption” replaced the 1977 net capitalization rule’s 12-to-1 leverage limit. In its place, it allowed unlimited leverage for Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns. These banks ramped leverage to 20-, 30-, even 40-to-1. Extreme leverage leaves very little room for error.

•Wall Street’s compensation system was skewed toward short-term performance. It gives traders lots of upside and none of the downside. This creates incentives to take excessive risks.

• The demand for higher-yielding paper led Wall Street to begin bundling mortgages. The highest yielding were subprime mortgages. This market was dominated by non-bank originators exempt from most regulations. The Fed could have supervised them, but Greenspan did not.

• These mortgage originators’ lend-to-sell-to-securitizers model had them holding mortgages for a very short period. This allowed them to get creative with underwriting standards, abdicating traditional lending metrics such as income, credit rating, debt-service history and loan-to-value.

• “Innovative” mortgage products were developed to reach more subprime borrowers. These include 2/28 adjustable-rate mortgages, interest-only loans, piggy-bank mortgages (simultaneous underlying mortgage and home-equity lines) and the notorious negative amortization loans (borrower’s indebtedness goes up each month). These mortgages defaulted in vastly disproportionate numbers to traditional 30-year fixed mortgages.

●To keep up with these newfangled originators, traditional banks developed automated underwriting systems. The software was gamed by employees paid on loan volume, not quality.

●Glass-Steagall legislation, which kept Wall Street and Main Street banks walled off from each other, was repealed in 1998. This allowed FDIC-insured banks, whose deposits were guaranteed by the government, to engage in highly risky business. It also allowed the banks to bulk up, becoming bigger, more complex and unwieldy.

●Many states had anti-predatory lending laws on their books (along with lower defaults and foreclosure rates). In 2004, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency federally preempted state laws regulating mortgage credit and national banks. Following this change, national lenders sold increasingly risky loan products in those states. Shortly after, their default and foreclosure rates skyrocketed.

Bloomberg was partially correct: Congress did radically deregulate the financial sector, doing away with many of the protections that had worked for decades. Congress allowed Wall Street to self-regulate, and the Fed the turned a blind eye to bank abuses.

The previous Big Lie — the discredited belief that free markets require no adult supervision — is the reason people have created a new false narrative."


LINK

[ITD]

Originally Posted by songkrai

By Barry Ritholtz,
The Washington Post

"One group has been especially vocal about shaping a new narrative of the credit crisis and economic collapse: those whose bad judgment and failed philosophy helped cause the crisis.

They all suffer cognitive dissonance — the intellectual crisis that occurs when a failed belief system or philosophy is confronted with proof of its implausibility.

And what about those facts? To be clear, no single issue was the cause. Our economy is a complex and intricate system. What caused the crisis? Look:
●Fed Chair Alan Greenspan dropped rates to 1 percent — levels not seen for half a century — and kept them there for an unprecedentedly long period. This caused a spiral in anything priced in dollars (i.e., oil, gold) or credit (i.e., housing) or liquidity driven (i.e., stocks).

●Low rates meant asset managers could no longer get decent yields from municipal bonds or Treasurys. Instead, they turned to high-yield mortgage-backed securities. Nearly all of them failed to do adequate due diligence before buying them, did not understand these instruments or the risk involved. They violated one of the most important rules of investing: Know what you own.

●Fund managers made this error because they relied on the credit ratings agencies — Moody’s, S&P and Fitch. They had placed an AAA rating on these junk securities, claiming they were as safe as U.S. Treasurys.

• Derivatives had become a uniquely unregulated financial instrument. They are exempt from all oversight, counter-party disclosure, exchange listing requirements, state insurance supervision and, most important, reserve requirements. This allowed AIG to write $3 trillion in derivatives while reserving precisely zero dollars against future claims.

• The Securities and Exchange Commission changed the leverage rules for just five Wall Street banks in 2004. The “Bear Stearns exemption” replaced the 1977 net capitalization rule’s 12-to-1 leverage limit. In its place, it allowed unlimited leverage for Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns. These banks ramped leverage to 20-, 30-, even 40-to-1. Extreme leverage leaves very little room for error.

•Wall Street’s compensation system was skewed toward short-term performance. It gives traders lots of upside and none of the downside. This creates incentives to take excessive risks.

• The demand for higher-yielding paper led Wall Street to begin bundling mortgages. The highest yielding were subprime mortgages. This market was dominated by non-bank originators exempt from most regulations. The Fed could have supervised them, but Greenspan did not.

• These mortgage originators’ lend-to-sell-to-securitizers model had them holding mortgages for a very short period. This allowed them to get creative with underwriting standards, abdicating traditional lending metrics such as income, credit rating, debt-service history and loan-to-value.

• “Innovative” mortgage products were developed to reach more subprime borrowers. These include 2/28 adjustable-rate mortgages, interest-only loans, piggy-bank mortgages (simultaneous underlying mortgage and home-equity lines) and the notorious negative amortization loans (borrower’s indebtedness goes up each month). These mortgages defaulted in vastly disproportionate numbers to traditional 30-year fixed mortgages.

●To keep up with these newfangled originators, traditional banks developed automated underwriting systems. The software was gamed by employees paid on loan volume, not quality.

●Glass-Steagall legislation, which kept Wall Street and Main Street banks walled off from each other, was repealed in 1998. This allowed FDIC-insured banks, whose deposits were guaranteed by the government, to engage in highly risky business. It also allowed the banks to bulk up, becoming bigger, more complex and unwieldy.

●Many states had anti-predatory lending laws on their books (along with lower defaults and foreclosure rates). In 2004, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency federally preempted state laws regulating mortgage credit and national banks. Following this change, national lenders sold increasingly risky loan products in those states. Shortly after, their default and foreclosure rates skyrocketed.

Bloomberg was partially correct: Congress did radically deregulate the financial sector, doing away with many of the protections that had worked for decades. Congress allowed Wall Street to self-regulate, and the Fed the turned a blind eye to bank abuses.

The previous Big Lie — the discredited belief that free markets require no adult supervision — is the reason people have created a new false narrative."


LINK

None of this could have happened without Fannie and Freddie underwriting sub prime loans and certain members of congress threatening banks for refusing to write loans to low/no income applicants.

[Mink Islander]

There are plenty of other sites to go if you want to debate political topics of the day. This started as an interesting LAKE ORIENTED post about lake home prices and market dynamics. Sadly, though predictably, several of you have decided to flip this into blame game diatribes about the mortgage crisis. In doing so you effectively killed an interesting non-partisan topic of discussion. Proud of yourselves?

Thanks for supporting our community and following the pool rules.

[lawn psycho]

ITD had excellent post and glad to see some of us can be objective.

Few things to add that people should understand:

The vast majority of subprime loans were written by banks not subject the the CRA.

The fact that nobody has listed credit default swaps in this discussion.

Sadly, the US has short-term memory and will do the exact same thing again.

I plan to be mortgage free in 5-6 years and stepping away from future train wrecks. And I'm not that old

[ITD]

Thanks Lawn Psycho, unfortunately Washington politics have had a huge impact on the lake's economy and this thread has meandered since its first day.

To me the big question is whether buying a second home with a mortgage is a prudent thing to do. I'm sure there are situations where it makes sense, but what are those situations and how do you determine when you are getting in over your head. Just because a bank qualifies you doesn't mean you should take the loan.

[fatlazyless]

So anyone know what happened at 22 Cattle Landing ...... like why is there a new realty listing sign out front now when therehadnever been a sign out front since it was constructed in 2006 and up thru Oct 2012?

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Mink Islander

There are plenty of other sites to go if you want to debate political topics of the day. This started as an interesting LAKE ORIENTED post about lake home prices and market dynamics. Sadly, though predictably, several of you have decided to flip this into blame game diatribes about the mortgage crisis. In doing so you effectively killed an interesting non-partisan topic of discussion. Proud of yourselves?

Thanks for supporting our community and following the pool rules.

I just bought a lot in NH and the price I paid was directly related to the banking crisis. It would be nice to ignore but they are intertwined.

As to the reasons, there are those who understand the issues and those who "think" they understand the banking system

[Belmont Resident]

Originally Posted by Billy Bob

Actualy George Bush had a large say in increasing the percentage of homeowners to levels that were not sustanable . Lots of room to find fault .

Lax lending and low downpayments led to buyers with no skin in the game and when values went down they headed for the hills

Just because the bank did this or the government did that the bottom line is the person applying for and buying the property got themselves into the situation.
You can lead a horse to water but you can not force it to drink.
People got themselves into the predicament by over extending themselves and buying property that they could just barely afford to begin with.
The banks did allowed them to fail, but in the end they made the decision to purchase the property.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

So anyone know what happened at 22 Cattle Landing ...... like why is there a new realty listing sign out front now when therehadnever been a sign out front since it was constructed in 2006 and up thru Oct 2012?

Arms Length Transaction in September. Then something happened to put it up for sale again.


Below is what it said in september abount the sale:



The highest sale on the lake in September was at 22 Cattle Landing Road in Meredith. The sale of this property was another long ordeal as it was listed prior to construction back in June of 2006 at $2.995 million with construction to be completed in 2007. The price escalated to $4.25 million in June of 2008, then was reduced to $3.2, to $2.895 in 2010, and finally down to $2.695 million this year. Anyway, this exquisite 6,000 square foot Adirondack has all the features one would expect in a Winnipesaukee waterfront estate home including Brazilian Cherry hardwood floors, a great room with cathedral ceilings and floor to ceiling fireplace, lots of glass, six bedrooms including a sumptuous master suite with its own private deck, the requisite gourmet kitchen with all the goodies, a home theater, and an attached, three car, heated garage for the toys. The home sits on a .72 acre peninsula lot with 328′ of frontage, amazing landscaping, beautiful patios and walkways, a perched beach, and, of course, a dock. The home also has 50% interest in another 8.5 acre lot to provide additional privacy. So, this home was marketed for 1,450 days with the sale coming in at $2.2 million. The assessed value by the Town of Meredith is at $2.577 million

[Belmont Resident]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Arms Length Transaction in September. Then something happened to put it up for sale again.


Below is what it said in september abount the sale:



The highest sale on the lake in September was at 22 Cattle Landing Road in Meredith. The sale of this property was another long ordeal as it was listed prior to construction back in June of 2006 at $2.995 million with construction to be completed in 2007. The price escalated to $4.25 million in June of 2008, then was reduced to $3.2, to $2.895 in 2010, and finally down to $2.695 million this year. Anyway, this exquisite 6,000 square foot Adirondack has all the features one would expect in a Winnipesaukee waterfront estate home including Brazilian Cherry hardwood floors, a great room with cathedral ceilings and floor to ceiling fireplace, lots of glass, six bedrooms including a sumptuous master suite with its own private deck, the requisite gourmet kitchen with all the goodies, a home theater, and an attached, three car, heated garage for the toys. The home sits on a .72 acre peninsula lot with 328′ of frontage, amazing landscaping, beautiful patios and walkways, a perched beach, and, of course, a dock. The home also has 50% interest in another 8.5 acre lot to provide additional privacy. So, this home was marketed for 1,450 days with the sale coming in at $2.2 million. The assessed value by the Town of Meredith is at $2.577 million

Now that is one beautiful house.
It blows away any of those houses on Governors Island for curb appeal.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Rusty

. Anyway, this exquisite 6,000 square foot Adirondack has all the features one would expect in a Winnipesaukee waterfront estate home .......

I can't understand why realtors claim the house is so desirable. The only thing I find desirable is the location. I'd be happy with an old fishing cottage. Less maintenance, more time to enjoy the lake!

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

I can't understand why realtors claim the house is so desirable. The only thing I find desirable is the location. I'd be happy with an old fishing cottage. Less maintenance, more time to enjoy the lake!

If you can afford that house it is doubtful you will be doing any maintenance. Your help will be taking care of that stuff.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by Belmont Resident

Now that is one beautiful house.
It blows away any of those houses on Governors Island for curb appeal.

As already mentioned by me in an earlier post, post #8, I believe this house is considered to be a condominium by the town, plus it is situated very, very close to a similar condominium house next door, at #24.

I have no clue what happened to make the September 2012 sale fall through and would be a little interested to find out?

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

As already mentioned by me in an earlier post, post #8, I believe this house is considered to be a condominium by the town, plus it is situated very, very close to a similar condominium house next door, at #24.

I have no clue what happened to make the September 2012 sale fall through and would be a little interested to find out?

You're right FLL. 22 and 24 Cattle landing buildings are condo's. They share common land as shown by the below image:

[SIKSUKR]

I'll piggyback on this thread by saying this morning I just locked in to refinance at 2.75% fixed 15 year no points.I just refied a year and a half ago but these rates are crazy.

[fatlazyless]

And, the biggest sale on the lake in September 2012, 22 Cattle Landing Rd in Meredith NH 03253 which almost sold for 2.2 mil, had its sale fall through, and is now listed for 1,995,000.

Assessed for 2,577,000

[gf2020]

The sale didn't "fall through". It sold on 09/13/2012 for $2,226,000. It is now for sale again at $1,995,000.

[BroadHopper]

I don't think there are that many folks that wants to shell out big bucks for a place that they don't have complete control over what they can do to their property.

[patman]

Originally Posted by gf2020

The sale didn't "fall through". It sold on 09/13/2012 for $2,226,000. It is now for sale again at $1,995,000.

That's crazy! Backing out of the purchase would have been cheaper.

[Just Sold]

The property at 22 Cattle Landing was sold on 9/13/12 (Book 2797, Page 0855) to an LLC with an address in Manchester along with another one at 46 Vessey Shore (Book 2797, Page 0855). Both were owned by the same people. The LLC address is that of an attorney.