Pacific Beach Housing Bubble Blog

Friday, December 15, 2006

Another reversion!!! Say it ain't so!

2123 Garnet Ave
San Diego, Ca. 92109

This is a conversion that was purchased in 2005 for about $2.7 million. The developer who purchased it has since been doing a renovation (that isn't completed yet) on all the units in the complex and just put them up for sale. They now have granite countertops, stainless steel applicances, w/d in each unit. In short, he did what he could to make the places seem modern. The things that really tell you that it was a conversion are as follows:

1. Only 1 parking space for each 2bdrm
2. Small units (550 and 750 sqft'ish for 1 and 2 bdrm respectively)
3. No pool/spa/weight room

I'm a little surprised that he was able to do the conversion considering having only 1 parking space for a 2bdrm condo. I was under the impression that a restriction was placed which didn't allow this anymore.

Doing the math on this complex, he has 4 units that are 2bdrms which he is trying to sell for an outstanding figure of $450,000 each and he has 4 1bdrms that he's trying to get $325,000 for. This means that if every single unit sells for his asking price, he'll get about $3.1 million (and he's using some of the space for his own office, so it's not a total loss). This may look like he's trying to make a $400,000 profit, but it's not that simple. With all the construction costs, permit costs, commissions, etc.., he'll be lucky to break even on the deal.

I doubt he'll sell for what he wants/needs to sell for. You can get a 1bdrm condo in pb for the 200's and a 2bdrm in the 300's. (closer to the water and not on friggin Garnet Ave) Evidentally, he shares my sentiment as he is now offering the places for rent as well. He's attempting to get $1300 for the 1bdrms and $1650 for the 2bdrms. (the 1bdrm price is too much, the 2bdrm is on the high end)

This is interesting because it gives us a direct buy-rent comparison that we can then plug into a rent vs own calculator to see what we get.

For the 1bdrm:
I used the following figures:
Rent - $1300/mo
Annual rent increase 3% (inflation rate, rounded up)
$325,000, 6% fixed mortgage with all closing costs paid for by the developer (100% financed, but no PMI)
Flat home appreciation (that's closer to the NAR's estimate, not mine. I think it'll go down)
$2712/yr HOA fees
Selling costs 6%
28% tax rate

Using these figures and the developers own prices, it would take 16 years of owning before you would have an advantage to owning.
Note that this is conservative because it expects the following:
1. You do NOT invest the difference between renting and mortgage. You put it in a 0% checking account or in a shoebox.
2. Your property does not depreciate. (I mean it never happens... right?)
3. No maintainence is necessary.
4. HOA fees don't go up.

Sell After Renting Owning Sale Advantage of
Year Cost Cost Gain Owning
1 16,068 24,727 -15,509 -24,168
2 32,618 49,524 -11,272 -28,177
3 49,665 74,393 -6,773 -31,502
4 67,223 99,340 -1,997 -34,115
5 85,307 124,370 3,073 -35,989
6 103,934 149,487 8,457 -37,096
7 123,120 174,697 14,172 -37,405
8 142,882 200,006 20,240 -36,884
9 163,237 225,420 26,682 -35,501
10 184,202 250,945 33,521 -33,222
11 205,796 276,588 40,783 -30,009
12 228,038 302,356 48,492 -25,827
13 250,947 328,258 56,676 -20,635
14 274,543 354,301 65,366 -14,392
15 298,847 380,494 74,591 -7,055
16 323,881 406,846 84,386 1,420



How about the 2bdrm:
I used the following figures:
Rent - $1650/mo
Annual rent increase 3% (inflation rate, rounded up)
$325,000, 6% fixed mortgage with all closing costs paid for by the developer (100% financed, but no PMI)
Flat home appreciation (that's closer to the NAR's estimate, not mine. I think it'll go down)
$3072/yr HOA fees
Selling costs 6%
28% tax rate

Using these figures and the developers own prices, it would take 19 years of owning before you would have an advantage to owning.

Sell After Renting Owning Sale Advantage of
Year Cost Cost Gain Owning
1 20,394 33,555 -21,474 -34,635
2 41,400 67,205 -15,607 -41,412
3 63,036 100,957 -9,378 -47,299
4 85,321 134,816 -2,765 -52,260
5 108,275 168,789 4,255 -56,259
6 131,917 202,884 11,709 -59,258
7 156,268 237,107 19,623 -61,216
8 181,350 271,467 28,024 -62,092
9 207,185 305,972 36,944 -61,843
10 233,794 340,631 46,414 -60,423
11 261,202 375,454 56,468 -57,783
12 289,432 410,450 67,143 -53,875
13 318,509 445,631 78,475 -48,647
14 348,458 481,007 90,507 -42,042
15 379,306 516,591 103,280 -34,005
16 411,079 552,396 116,842 -24,475
17 443,806 588,435 131,240 -13,390
18 477,514 624,723 146,525 -683
19 512,233 661,274 162,754 13,713


Me, I'm not sure I'll live that long.

10 Comments:

  • Also notice that for the first 7-8 years, the loss from owning grows because the interest on the loan amount isn't being sufficiently offset by rent.

    These calculations are with a 30/year fixed mortgage. I use a rate of 6% because assuming you have absolutely perfect credit and get an 80/20 loan to avoid PMI, your primary loan will be at a tasy 5.6% ish rate while your secondary will be about 6.5% or so. If your credit is tarnished in any way, or if you have to do a stated income loan, you will have to pay a higher rate, and it will take even LONGER to see a benefit in ownership.

    Note that I don't mean to assume the developer WILL pay closing costs. I just used that for the calculations. If you have to pay closing, the number gets a little bit worse.

    By Blogger Sven, at 1:30 PM  

  • Great find. Thanks for sharing. :) The poor guy who paid 2.7M for this is probably going to take a million dollar bath all told.

    By Anonymous pv, at 2:25 PM  

  • Yea this location is absolute garbage. You can get newer and cheaper condos off of Garnet and closer to the beach...so why would anyone buy or even rent these? Parking in that area is a bitch as well.

    Keep up the good work Sven!

    By Anonymous Craig, at 2:26 PM  

  • That calculator shows an interesting phenomenon: the assumption you put in for appreciation can make even the most bonehead buy seem reasonable. You said you put in a flat appreciation, but it still looks like the calculator has a hefty Year-over-year increase.

    By Anonymous irvinerenter, at 2:36 PM  

  • I just shot-up the Q3:2006 reports for Orange County, Inland Empire and Ventura

    Also on the blog you can access a plug-in-play rent vs. own calculator that takes 'everything' into account.

    thebubblebuster.com

    By Blogger AnalysisGuy, at 12:35 AM  

  • Yeah, I think I need to write my own calculator. I'll throw one together and get it posted for you guys. Let me know if there's any special factors you want included into the calculations.

    By Blogger Sven, at 3:13 AM  

  • Somehow the calculator should account for inflation.

    Part of what makes the Yahoo calculator misleading is the impact of inflation. Rents rise with wages and inflation, so when you put in a rental increase factor, you are putting in an inflation adjustment on the cost side. House appreciation has also tended to rise with inflation, so when this number is put in, it inflates the resale value numbers on the revenue side. So when you look at the "resale gain" number it is inflated relative to its future buying power.

    What it really needs is a discounted cashflow analysis. When you properly discount the out-of-pocket costs up-front and factor in the "gain" several years in the future, you will see inflation has a dramatic impact on the breakeven crossover point. I would use the inflation factor as the discount rate because you could invest the rental vs. ownership savings in T-Bills and at least match inflation (generally).

    By Anonymous irvinerenter, at 9:49 AM  

  • After a bit of further reflection I believe there is an easy way to factor in the discounting. In your post you mentioned that there was no allowance for investment of the rental savings: Add one. Keep a cummulative total of savings and apply an investment growth factor or simply use an inflation factor. This will push the breakeven crossover point several years down the road, particularly when there is a big disparity up-front. This would show how bad an investment residential real estate usually is, and it would help dispel the myth of "throwing away your money on rent."

    When you really look at the rent vs. own calculator on Yahoo, the "gain" occurs because the accumulated paid principle on your home is a forced savings account. Its like saying your tax return is a "gain" when in reality it is a government controlled forced savings account. If you have the discipline to save and invest the rental savings, and I suspect there are many that are doing that right now, the rent vs. own calculation looks a lot different.

    By Anonymous irvinerenter, at 11:13 AM  

  • 2 questions:
    Where can I get a condo nearer the beack i PB for 200-300k?
    You should factor in tax savings with the loan calculator or are you?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:21 PM  

  • The calculator automatically adds in the tax savings. (that's why you have to enter in your tax bracket in one of the options)

    The way it works is when it reports interest paid, it automatically takes off whatever your tax rate is from the interest payments. On the renting side, it also accounts for this by investing that much less money in those years. Obviously, The principal portion payment is not tax deductible.

    As for getting a place near the water for 200-300. You have a lot of options.

    4015 Crown Point Dr #105 (crown point villas) is right on the bay and they are asking for 299k.

    1855 Diamond St #228 (the plaza) is going for the same price.

    3933 Jewell was just converted and has a couple of units for sale in the 200's.

    I wouldn't buy just yet though. San Diego just had a record setting drop in housing prices last month. Wait till the downward momentum cools off.

    By Blogger Sven, at 12:24 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home