Scarsdale NY Single Family Homes  – Scarsdale Schools

The average price for Scarsdale homes for sale – saw an average price increase of about 14% to $1,437,000.  Although prices had not truly increased in such a dramatic way.  It points to health in the market because is shows that higher end homes are actually closing.  The banking crisis kept the larger homes out of the market place in Q1 of 2009.  So this increase reflects a broadening of the viable market and not a true price increase.  The price range of solds was far broader in 2010 than in Q1 of 2009.  Prices ranged from $558,000 to $3,625,000.

Looking at sold listings, the inventory on the market is considerable  over 15 months.  However, if you look at contracts and pendings – the picture is brighter with a little more than five months of inventory.  But that assumes that everything under contract will sell. The truth lies somewhere in between. This is still a buyer’s market – but it is definitely not a fire sale.

Edgemont Single Family Homes – Edgemont Schools – Scarsdale P.O.:

Average housing prices increased in Edgemont as did sales volume which was up 200%.  The average sales price at the end of the first quarter was $1,608,000 – up from $840,000 at the end of Q1 in 2009.  Interestingly, the price of lower end homes was static, but the price increase reflects the fact that higher end homes are now selling again.  For example the highest priced home that sold in Q1 of 2009 was $1.1 million. But in Q1 in 2010 the highest priced closing was $4.2 million.   So prices haven’t risen dramatically – but the price range closed sales has increased dramatically.   There is still considerable inventory on the market – so this is still very much a buyer’s market.  With respect to closed sales in Q1 there is a 15 month inventory.  But there are many contracts and pendings in the pipeline. If you use that as your benchmark – the inventory is a little over six months.

Scarsdale NY Cooperatives:

Cooperatives in Scarsdale – including Garth Road with a Scarsdale P.O. – showed moderate gains in prices – up 3.8% over Q1 in 2009.  The average sales price in Q1 of 201 was $246,000.  Sales volume was static from the previous year and inventory vs. closings indicates that there is a 9.7 month supply of active listings  if you look at closed sales from Q1 2010.  Looking at contracts and pendings that goes down to 6.5 months.

An Important Note About the Criteria for the Statistics:

I handle each type of housing in Scarsdale differently. I also include a special section for single family homes in “Edgemont” which is really in the town of Greenburgh with a Scarsdale post-office and zip code.
For condominiums and cooperatives, I use the Scarsdale post office and zip code as my criteria. Many of these complexes are actually located in Greenburgh and Eastchester.

This reflects the way most buyer’s shop for housing. Coop and condo buyers work by address whereas those looking for single-family homes are often shopping municipality and school districts.

Further Reading:

Scarsdale NY Housing Market Statistics – Fourth Quarter 2009:

Scarsdale NY – Housing and Market Statistics for Third Quarter 2009:

Housing and Market Statistics for Scarsdale NY – Second Quarter 2009:

Scarsdale Coops – Pet-Friendly Scarsdale Country Estates

Scarsdale Manor Cooperative – Garth Road -Scarsdale NY

The Chauteaux Cooperative – Scarsdale NY

© Ruthmarie G. Hicks – http://thewestchesterview.com – All rights reserved.

Unfortunately, unrealistic expectations can set buyers  up for  unnecessary disappointment and frustration.   There are several flavors of unrealistic buyers out there.

The “I want to steal a house” investor:

This buyer is determined to find  a home for pennies on the dollar. They comb through listing after listing and call agent after agent to show them home after home that looks as though it is the bargain of the century.  The trouble is that once they see the home, they realize that this is beyond the simple fixer-upper.  A new coat of paint is not going to do the trick.   These  homes don’t just need TLC – they need to be gutted.

This type of buyer needs to realize that there is no free ride here.  Many of them have been  watching too many late-night TV shows that claim that banks want to get rid of these properties at “any price.”   After the way the banks have behaved over the past year – does anyone seriously think they are going to get the better end of any deal involving a bank?   Banks have shown  themselves to be more than  capable of looking after their own interests.

The “I’ve got champaign taste and a beer budget -but I’m not settling” buyer:

This buyer can appear in any market. Since affordability has improved, it might seem counterintuitive to observe an increase in this type of buyer right now.  Yet, that’s what I’m seeing.   They want far more than they can ever possibly afford and the buyer’s market media hype is giving them tacit permission to push for the impossible.   The sad thing is that this buyer is not looking at the increased affordability of the past year as the gift that it is – instead they are on a quest for even more.

This type of buyer has two choices: bite the bullet and buy what they can truly afford or roll the dice and hope that affordability increases still further.   The latter has true risks in this market. Although prices may decline further, affordability  is probably not going to increase because interest rates are almost certainly headed northward.   This may well more than offset any further price decreases.  For affordability to increase the buyer has to look to their own finances not the marketplace in order to afford “more.”

The buyer who will only put in offers 10-20% below asking price no matter what the comps say:

This type of buyer is of the mindset that “if you don’t ask, you don’t get.”  They want to “test” the seller with a lowball in the hopes that the seller is desperate enough or ignorant enough of the comparable solds  to accept.  As I said in my previous blog about sellers:  asking isn’t getting.

Not only does this rarely work, but it can really offend the seller to the point where the buyer could lose the sale.  Low-balling is not a good way to win friends – or negotiate a sale.  Offers should be based on the comparable sales – NOT the asking price.  Many seller’s have already priced their homes realistically.  A realistically priced home is more likely to be having multiple offers – so low-balling is a bad idea.

At the end of the day, buyers need to take a realistic look at the comparable sales.   Those numbers are not lying and placing realistic offers in that “sweet spot”  where they are consistent with recent sales – leads to success in the long haul.

In the end, the sale and purchase of a home should be a win-win for all concerned. It’s not about “beating the market” or “getting the better end of the deal.”  It’s about negotiating a transaction that works for all parties.

© 2010 Ruthmarie G. Hicks – http://thewestchesterview.com. All rights reserved.

There have been a lot of blogs written lately about who is to “blame” for the housing bubble and its disastrous aftermath. Some bloggers blame lenders, some blame agents, brokers, NAR, the Fed, home owners…the list goes on and on.
But one common thread I find very discouraging are blogs which lay blame on  the homeowner who was underwater.  They should have KNOWN better. They were GREEDY. They were IRRESPONSIBLE, they were this, they were that…

In truth, the housing debacle is as much a result of the decimation of the middle class as it is about a housing bubble itself.   Families have found the ground shifting under them faster than they could ever have imagined. Many homeowners have found  themselves into the horns of a dilemma.  This is the story of my generation.  As a forty-something I’ve felt the sands shifting under my feet ever faster.  I have found myself scrambling to earn those ever elusive extra dollars that will allow me to keep my own home – even as I help my clients sell theirs.

The middle class has been under assault for the past 30 years.
Elizabeth Warren outlined it the best in the presentation embedded below.  For those who don’t have 50 minutes to view the video – here is a brief synopsis:

Dr. Warren did a series of studies comparing  the income and expenses of a family of four living in 1970-1971 to a family living in 2005-2006.  The summary of her findings gives us eye-opening insight as to what has happened to the middle class.

Income & Savings:

• Overall income went up for COUPLES.
• Income for males decreased when adjusted for inflation.
• So the bump we got in overall income  came from having a second worker.
• Salaries have actually been flat or have been decreasing over this period.
• In 1970 savings was 11%
• In 2005 savings was under 0%  (debt had increased)
• Revolving Debt up from 1.4% to 15%  of income.

How did this happen?
Was it rampant materialism combined with childish irresponsibility?

Where did the money go?

• Clothing: Families are spending 32% LESS on clothing then they were in 1970.
• Food:  including eating out:  Families are spending 18% less on food than in 1970.
• Appliances: Families are spending 52% less than in 1970
• Car ownership:  Families spent 24% less on each automobile in 2005 then in 1970.
• Electronics – including internet and computers:  up $300 a year from 1970.

So it wasn’t traditional “luxury items” that got people into trouble.  The electronic craze, such as wide -screen TV’s play nominal role at best.

Here’s where prices went UP, UP and away….

• Home: There was a 76% increase in housing costs due to higher prices and taxes.  But the average size of  a home increased by an average of one room.
• Health Insurance: (via employer only)  Up 74% from 1970.
• Cars: Outlay up 52%  to account for the need for two cars once both husband and wife are working. Increased 52% – because most are now 2 car families because both parents employed.
• Childcare – up 100% (since the mother was mostly home in 1970)
• Taxes:  The tax rate is up 25% due to having a second earner and thus higher overall income.

Here is the trouble – the expenses that are down are the flexible expenses.  The expenses that are up are not flexible.  The expenses that are UP are what Elizabeth Warren calls “Fixed, relentless expenses.”

Increased Vulnerability:

• Families need BOTH incomes to make the mortgage.  There is no leeway if someone gets sick and no one to put in the workforce to replace the person that has died, become sick or incapacitated.

• The risk shift: Warren sites Jacob Hacker’s work -  on the risk shift.  Here they analyze the risk of a 20% drop in family income.  Income volatility is up nearly 20%.  This is in good part due to the fact that since both workers are needed to sustain income, the risk of incapacitation or layoff DOUBLES.

• Health Care is totally dysfunctional…Warren sites the tremendous vulnerability families have to health care.

1. Lack of insurance coverage. More and more middle class losing coverage.
2. Decreased health care – releasing patients quicker and sicker.  (I can attest to that with my father. The hospital is forever releasing him TOO SOON – dumping the burden of care on my shoulders. This has wrecked havoc with my business as it sits. But I was a 9-5 worker – it could  – probably would – cause me to LOSE my job.  Sending home sick people saves insurers money – but it foists what should be nursing care on the family who is already working full tilt to meet the bills. Warren calls this “just one more push” over the edge if there is a serious illness. She sites illness as a major and “direct income impact.”
3. Warren sites “faux insurance” – where people think they have good insurance until they get sick.

So, next time we see a family in trouble. Let’s not think ill of them. Let’s stop pointing fingers.  Remember if you point a finger and look in the mirror – you see a finger pointed back at you.

For those who ended up leveraged to the hilt – I can see how it could have happened.  As their income potential kept declining, they kept thinking “I am smart, I work hard, I have a good reputation in my field and I play by the rules – so things will get better – this is only temporary.”  In previous recessions this would have been the case.  But the last recovery was truly jobless.   The rich got richer, but the middle class went nowhere.  They never even recouped the ground they lost in the crash of 2000. So they borrowed on their homes which went up in value thinking “this will pass – its GOT to pass.”  Everyone felt that  eventually things would get back to normal and the jobs and money that went with them would flow freely once again.  But things didn’t get back to normal.  That was the “old normal.” Instead, we have a “new normal” which  is an unacceptable normal where the middle class are being pushed off the cliff and into the abyss.

Lets also remember that the bottom line here is jobs, jobs, JOBS.  We need to swing the doors wide open on well paying career opportunities.  We need to stop out-sourcing, downsizing, and importing cheap foreign labor and keep well-paying jobs HERE in America.

© 2010 Ruthmarie G. Hicks. http://thewestchesterview.com.  All rights reserved.

In the post, the details of the shake-up were described in detail – particularly with respect to Sotheby’s and Better Homes and Gardens Rand.  Many have been affected by the changes that have roiled our market.  I was briefly with Prudential Rand (before it became Better Homes & Gardens Rand) when they acquired Nelson-Vrooman GMAC in the spring of 2008. My initial brokerage at Century 21 Wolff was also acquired by Rand.  So agents have been reshuffled like playing cards in a very large deck.

This fall out from this may signal a changing of the guard away from the large franchise model to smaller independents  – or – it could consolidate the power of the few left standing.  Although I belong to a fairly large franchise, it is my hope that some of the smaller independents start to carve a nice niche for themselves where they can level the playing field and keep a lively competition going.  In general I have been quite hard on the large franchises because some (not all) have sat on the laurals of their name brand. All the while doing little or nothing in the way of customer service.  New agents were often “on their own” which also wrecked havoc with customer service.

But to those in our area that had a favorite brokerage that is now gone – I will offer the following advice.  Agents sell homes – not brokerages. If your brokerage of choice is gone, but you had an agent that you worked successfully with in the past, I suggest you track him or her down.  It is more than likely that the agent is still in business with another brokerage.He or she has not changed just because they are no longer with the same broker.  If they did well by you in the past, they will continue to do so.

© Ruthmarie G. Hicks – http://thewestchesterview.com.  All rights reserved.

Increasingly, listing agents, myself included, are encouraging sellers to stage their homes prior to putting them on the market.  That includes, but is not limited to painting, pointing up and arranging furniture in a way that maximizes the potential of the space and creates a neutral atmosphere.  We ask that seller’s depersonalize the space so that buyers can “mentally move in.”

Although I am not one to spend a homeowners money needlessly,  there are times when I feel staging is essential.  Staging is most beneficial in the following cases:

An Empty Home:

When the sellers have moved out – they tend to leave an empty shell of a house that used to be a home.  That house can tend to lack personality and be all too forgettable  to a prospective buyer. Right now there is an excess of inventory that is completely unfurnished and after a while they can all start to look the same to buyers.  If a house is in danger of becoming that forgettable – it needs staging in order to stand out in the eyes of buyers.

A Very Dated Space:

A space that looks like it was in the height of style during the  1970s complete with orange shag carpets and disco lighting definitely could use a facelift.   Not that there is anything wrong with the 70s – but many buyers weren’t even born yet and its hard for them to imagine their things in homes decorated in a way that their parents would appreciate.

An Awkward Space:

Spaces that are tight or have an awkward configuration really benefit from proper staging.  Often buyers just can not possibly imagine how on earth to decorate a space.  Often they feel that their furnishings won’t fit.  In cases like this, it is vital that this objection be neutralized or the home will just “sit.”

For those who feel it is a waste of money, it should be noted that no one would stage if it didn’t actually work.  Staging can pay for itself.  If buyer’s find the space desirable and can imagine themselves in the home, they are more likely to make an offer and for top dollar.

© 2010 Ruthmarie G. Hicks – http://thewestchesterview.com. All rights reserved.

The contrast between old-school hyper-local agents and the newer nomad agnet was driven home to me while I was working with two listing agents who still work exclusively in small niche markets.  I was at a closing with one of them and she implied that since I had the entire city of White Plains to cover, why didn’t I simply refer out the client who finally bought in Scarsdale?

Can a real estate agent be too local?

I knew that the attitude about staying hyper-local is alive and well though it appears to be a staple of old-school real estate.  Still, I was more than a tad surprised.  Scarsdale is not the moon.  It is the town directly adjacent to the west side of White Plains and about a whopping six miles from my front door to the center of the village.  If we followed this line of thinking to its most extreme would mean that a buyer potentially moving from New York City to Westchester NY would have to have as many as five or six agents to explore all the possibilities open to them that were within about 30 minute commute.    For the consumer this seems most unwieldy if not highly impractical.  Could you imagine the mountain of agents all crawling over each other for the buyer’s attention?  What a mess. Not to mention a monster of coordination.

From the agent’s perspective, there could also be a danger to being too local. What if something happens to that small segment of the market you represent?  If your geography/price range are razor thin – you are setting yourself up for trouble.  This was clearly seen this year when agents who specialized in small high-end markets got creamed because jumbo loan issues bit them in the backside.   Another listing agent I encountered was used to selling about 10 major properties a year – but this year had only managed a single sale.

The nomad real estate agent:

On the other hand, we have the opposite trend.  I’m seeing this from the listing side.  There are a cohort of listing agents that are increasing their range to encompass as many as five counties.  These agents list in such a wide ranging area that I refer to them as “Nomads.” (Please don’t yell at me if you are from a rural region.  I am speaking from a local perspective in a densely populated area.)  Densely populated areas tend to have more gyrations in market conditions per square mile than more rural locations.  The number of towns, cities and villages with their local governments and school systems  within Westchester County alone is daunting enough.  Market  nuances that can seriously impact home values would be a black box to an agent that is overextended geographically.   I have to question whether this is in the best interests of the seller.   Let me put it this way:   If going to each listing once a week would entail a gasoline bill that looks like the national debt – I submit that you are probably trying to cover too much ground  and that this could seriously impact the result to the client.

Why do I say this?  Well, I’m a numbers type of person, and I started looking at the raw numbers of agents who cover large territories and found a disturbing trend.  I will give the caveat that this was not totally scientific. I looked at a handful of agents randomly.  Still, the results from my informal survey were pretty compellling.  When comparing solds to expireds and cancelleds, the ratio of closed sales to listings was consistently under 50% .  35-45% success appeared to be the norm for the Nomads  whereas anything from a 55-90% success rate was the norm for those who stuck closer to home.   To be fair, I  chose not to include expired or cancelled listings that the agent re-listed.  Nor did I include sales listings that wound up as rentals.   The further the range, the lower the actual ability to close the sale.

Now, as a business model, being a Nomad might make sense.  It’s probably exhausting to service so many listings that fail, but  many businesses are based on throwing as much up against a wall as they can to see what sticks.  It can be profitable to work that way.

But what about the seller?   For the seller, listings that just won’t sell are like beating your head against a wall – it feels so good when it finally stops.

Personally, I take a line right down the middle of this controversy.  I have too many buyer clients who want one-stop shopping to limit myself to one town or community.   Therefore, with respect to buyers, I cover pretty much the bottom half of the county. With  listings, I have traditionally stayed closer to home.  However, I am gradually extending my listing range to also encompass the lower part of the county.  When listing opportunities arise in areas where I have not taken listings previously, I generally choose to work with a co-listing agent who is experienced with respect to the neighborhood in question.   In that way, I have started to expand my territory while retaining top service for my clients.

© 2010 Ruthmarie G. Hicks, http://thewestchesterview.com All rights reserved.