The headline question last month with respect to 1081 Church Street which sold in late March for $1,400,000 and then quickly returned to the market for $1,450,000: “Will A Winner’s Curse (And Subsequent Relocation) Be Your Reward?”
From a plugged-in reader today: “1081 church sold for $1.325mm. Who was the closest? and who was the blowhard?”
We’ve got the answer to our question (yes), but we’ll let you make the call on those last two.
∙ Will A Winner’s Curse (And Subsequent Relocation) Be Your Reward? [SocketSite]
This comment looks a bit wide of the mark, given the $1.325m sales price –
“1.2M?
This is a 900K home. Maybe not today, but just wait and see.”
Posted by: San FronziScheme at June 11, 2008 12:20 PM
On a seperate subject, but worthy of note, Ken Heebner, the fund manager behind the amazing CGM Focus Fund [with a five year average annual return of 20.1%] who correctly predicted the peak of the housing market [and benefitted accordingly] said on CNBC today that “we’ve seen the worst of the negative impact of declining home prices”. Particularly interesting from a guy that’s got it right several times in the past and may not get enough credit for doing so.
By the way, based on the CGM Focus Fund semiannual report for 6/30/08, the fund shorted both Countrywide and IndyMac. Not bad!
The board of the SFAR has redrawn the maps so as to cause this house to be in district 10 (so as not to interfere with the stats in the rest of SF).
8.6% drop in 3 months? Now we’re talking. I’d be happy with an 8.6% drop per year, so I’m not complaining here.
I couldn’t tell from the prior discussion who was closest, but fluj argued it was NOT a slowly declining market, so I’d say he won. He’s right: it’s not a slowly declining market, it’s apparently a RAPIDLY declining market!!
So it cost the owner $72K per MONTH to live here.
God bless America that people are so rich they can spend $72K per month to park their car on the street.
I’m sorry, but was there a discussion about what the closing price would be on this property? I thought entire “discussion” was about garage addition pricing… so I don’t know if anyone was close, but there were plenty of blowhards to go around.
I still think $1.325 million is too much.
i guess this is all about seeing what you want to see.
i own in Noe and am happy this sold for what looks like well over $1k per square foot, even with no garage.
This is one single solitary anecdote. Big deal. The previous owner paid too much (that happens) and then had to sell quickly. As the previous poster said, it still sold for over $1K per square foot. The sky is not falling.
i guessed 1.3M. but still think some sucker got stuck with an overprices home that will be worth 250,000 less in 2 years.
What do you guys think it will sell for next month?
I noted on the previous thread that Tipster predicted a 3.5% price decline per quarter when discussing this place. Turns out this was too conservative as this one saw a 5.5% decline in three months — and in Noe, which is supposedly holding up better than most neighborhoods. Can’t get more apples-to-apples than this data point (but I concede it is just one data point).
SF Schtuff posted the June SFR sales stats — Here are the numbers:
District June ’07; June ’08
District 1
Number of sales 19; 21
Median Price 1,082,684; $1,188,524
Average DOM 27; 35
District 2
Number of sales 52; 37
Median Selling Price $883,516; $850,311
Average DOM 32; 36
District 3
Number of sales 19; 15
Median Selling Price $974,211; $752,293
Average DOM 50; 38
District 4
Number of sales 21; 31
Median Selling Price $1,223,714; $1,129,845
Average DOM 21; 55
District 5
Number of sales 37; 27
Median Selling Price $1,537,905; $1,562,148
Average DOM 30; 48
District 6
Number of sales 5; 5
Median Selling Price $1,977,000; $1,753,800
Average DOM 45; 74
District 7
Number of sales 13; 10
Median Selling Price $4,148,462; $6,387,500
Average DOM 46; 38
District 8
Number of sales 1; 1
Median Selling Price $3,100,000; $5,500,000
Average DOM 15; 87
District 9
Number of sales 27; 18
Median Selling Price $1,036,880; $806,660
Average DOM 32; 43
District 10
Number of sales 36; 46
Median Selling Price $693,514; $570,252
Average DOM 41; 52
((anecdote + anecdote + anecdote + anecdote + anecdote) x 10 ) = trend
(trend + anecdote + trend + anecdote + trend)x time = bubble burst
i think time is the only factor we are missing. time requires patience.
I’m surprised. I thought this one would drop a little lower than $1.325M. “Only” a $75k loss (plus commission) for someone who had to bail after 3 months isn’t bad.
The seller should be counting his blessings.
OK. You win Spencer. I just can’t wait to pick up this house in a few years for 500K.
This was not over $1000/sf. The finished lower level adds 500-600 sf that was not in the “official” square footage. Selling price was around $800/sf.
District 10? This house is in Noe Valley. What are you smoking?
Wow Trip, District 8 is on fire! 😉
“i own in Noe and am happy this sold for what looks like well over $1k per square foot, even with no garage.”
BS. As I posted earlier, there was a lower floor addition that was not included in the official sq ft. It didn’t sell for anywhere near $1000psft.
Correction on my 8.5% decline, it is indeed a 5.5% decline.
ok, not trying to pile on, or make this sale look worse … but is there any way to determine if that were any incentives included as part of the deal?
But I do think taking this sale as a sign of a broader trend could be a mistake. Obviously, the buyers knew the seller was over a barrel and worked it for every dollar they could get. I think someone less motivated would have like held out longer and been able to get a better price.
But a comp is a comp and this one isn’t good.
“i guessed 1.3M. but still think some sucker got stuck with an overprices home that will be worth 250,000 less in 2 years.”
Uh, Spencer, where exactly did you guess $1.3m, because I didn’t see it anywhere on the thread? Guessing after the fact doesn’t count. However, one guess you did put in print is the following one about 260 King, #957 –
“just spoke with an agent and am seriously thinking of making an offer of $515K …”
Posted by: Spencer at May 2, 2008 10:50 AM
Of course this was just virtual chest thumping and no offer was actually made. And this recently sold for $645,000, so Spencer was only off by a little over 20%.
https://socketsite.com/archives/2008/05/bank_owned_with_big_windows_at_the_beacon_260_king_957.html
Nonetheless, he continues to make multi-year predictions, despite being dramatically out of touch with present day realities. It’s anybody’s guess how far off the multi-year dart throwing could be.
I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried.
No garage. Tiny 25 X 70 downslope lot. Two bedroom. Noisy train. Busy street.
No garage. Tiny 25 X 70 downslope lot. Two bedroom. Noisy train. Busy street.”
But all of that was exactly the same three months earlier when it fetched a higher price. The market price is just lower now.
is the 500-600 additional square feet legal and warranted? I didnt see it in the listing which is why I said “what looks like well over $1k per square foot, even with no garage”
Please dont get abrasive as I am trying to be polite as well.
“But all of that was exactly the same three months earlier when it fetched a higher price. The market price is just lower now”
You can look at it that way if you like. I still think this is a $1.2M house. The first sale was way ahead of the curve. This one only slightly less so. Even if this house is actually 1550-1600 feet or so, that still puts it at ~850 a foot. Do a search with lot size and 0 garage space as metrics if you don’t believe me. Over the past two and a half years 9since (1.1.6) the 30 SFR houses sans garages sold in Noe have averaged 772 a foot.
This is no sign of anything except another buyer making a very expensive buy– albeit for a little cheaper than the last guy! that said, if they plan to stay for a long time then they’ll probably do great. It’s a very attractive home.
With those classic good looks and fine living this could be a good buy, but probably only in the very long term. At these prices someone probably bought it to live in and has their focus on something other than their car.
fluj!
how long have you lived here dude? and you’re calling the J-church a train??? geezz.. it’s a streetcar, ok?
we’re not talking ’bout the L in Chicago.
why don’t you all just agree with me and agree that Noe Valley is a GREAT ‘hood..and it’s gonna keep commanding higher prices. Bottom line: it’s one of the most liveable and safe neighborhoods in all of SF.
that is worth $$$$$.
Noe Valley is nice, but quite dull. I don’t think it will keep commanding higher prices but will, as we see here with this place, follow along with the broader price declines.
OMG! do tell us.
how dull really is Noe V?
Actually, Noearch the J-Church is light rail and less noisy than a train but more noisy than a streetcar. It does run right below this house’s shallow backyard too.
One fact I’ve never understood is whether or not a garage (and adjacent unfinished basement “storage”) is part of the square footage calculation. Can anyone comment ?
In most other RE markets the square footage quoted is for living space and excludes garages and unfinished basement and attic space. It also often excludes decks, stairwells, and the 6″ air gap between interior walls.
SF seems to be a lot more liberal with square footage calculations – using the bulk exterior dimensions to calculate (inclusive of inter-wall gaps, stairwells, laundry spaces, etc.) But are garages figured in ?
“the J-Church is light rail and less noisy than a train but more noisy than a streetcar. It does run right below this house’s shallow backyard too.”
I can’t comment on the noise issue, but with Muni’s track record in the past year, I’d be more concerned that the train didn’t wind up IN the backyard.
Noe Valley is as least as dull as Staten Island.
The J Church runs in front of, and not behind, this house.
http://www.mapjack.com/?MsxmWjB3bFNA
The square footage is livable area only. Garage space only counts if it gets converted into living space.
This is one data point, and taken with the June stats posted above I still don’t see any real evidence of price declines within SF. The original sale here was clearly above neighbourhood average per sq ft.
As for the point about incentives possibly making things even worse, how do you know incentive weren’t part of the original sale at $1.4 but not part of the resale – making things look better?
Just seems that people are only willing to look at things from one angle..oh well.
The “analysis” that takes place around here is about as strong as the “analysis” on yahoo stock message boards. Nobody buys and sells a home in 3 months time and gleans any useful data from the transactions. People lost money in the middle of boom time doing similar transactions, just on the basis of closing costs alone. The second buyer has all the cards in this type of transaction, knowing exactly what the house just sold for AND fully understanding how desperate someone must be to piss away all their closing cost dollars and moving expenses to sell three months later. Give it a rest, all of you with your calculators who are sitting around determining percentage drops… You are slightly delusional to think that this means anything… You remind me of the cheerleaders on CNBC.
yo MOD
“SF seems to be a lot more liberal with square footage calculations”
the defining line is usually “heated interior space”
Dave: “The second buyer has all the cards in this type of transaction”
This is only true if there is very little demand, otherwise other potential second buyers will have to outbid one another and hike up the price. That is what would have happened a year ago, but there is clearly falling demand here. It is not “delusional to think this means anything.” This is a solid apples to apples comparison and, while just a single transaction, is far more relevant than the median monthly sales figures, with no controls at all for the mix, usually trotted out as somehow indicating market direction.
Of course, the closer to the original sale the resale takes place makes it less likely the original price will be recouped. It could easily have been the case for example the original 1.4m paid was the highest bid by 80k or so – i’ve heard anecdotal evidence that this happens alot, especially in Noe.
So this is evidence prices have fallen in Noe 5.4% in 3 months hmmm. Thank heavens it wasn’t resold a month after original purchase at that price – no doubt people would have taken that as evidence prices were falling at 5.4% per month….There’s lies, damned lies…
“the defining line is usually ‘heated interior space'”
Actually, the defining line is usually “FINISHED, heated interior space”
Adding a space heater to an unfinished basement or attic doesn’t increase the square footage.
maybe you could just put orange cones in the parking spot out front when you move in the morning…?
Well no wonder! 1081 is an apocalyptic power number because 2^1081 contains the consecutive digits 666–
Then again SS Peter and Paul is at 666 Filbert…
OK no more coffee for me this AM.
Everybody likes to say that about SS P+P, and it’s sorta true. But the real Filbert st. frontage address for the Church is 660, right? The offices and such are at 666.
And yeah I was wrong about the Church st. line. I think it swerves down on 22nd or Hill, right? Not this block.
SS P&P say they’re at 666 Filbert and their Salesian school is at 660.
But are you ready for this one boys and girls? There’s a 666 Church St., too! Dunh Dunh Dunnnnnn!
Hi, market. The problem here is that you’re trying to apply supply/demand economics to something that’s not a commodity. This is not a share of stock in a company on a publicly traded exchange nor is it a bushel of corn. It’s a house. And a very unique house at that. So while one person may value it 5% higher than the next person, you can’t deduce anything about prices given this set of transactions. The set of potential buyers may have completely changed too as the original bidder(s) may have found properties and are no longer in the market. Asymmetric information is key in these types of transactions and, in this one, the second buyer holds all the cards. Now, if demand is so high that fifty buyers are clawing at the doors to get in (ala 2002, perhaps) then you could see the price jump by 5% or 10% but I wouldn’t put any weight into that kind of sale data either. My point is that apples/apples is meaningless here. The seller is desperate and the buyer knows this. That is purchasing power. The freaking thing still sold in a matter of days…
From Recent ORH buyer :
This comment looks a bit wide of the mark, given the $1.325m sales price –
“1.2M?
This is a 900K home. Maybe not today, but just wait and see.”
Posted by: San FronziScheme at June 11, 2008 12:20 PM
I’m a very patient guy. I caught the last cycle over an 8-year period, not the typical 2-years the ADHD guys of the last 5 years did, and Yes I bought low and sold high. I feel this market is overpriced.
Dave, you only need two would-be buyers to avoid the situation where the buyer holds all the cards, not 50. Go to any auction and you’ll see this in action. This was publicly listed on the MLS and all interested buyers knew they could bid on the place. Apparently only one was willing to go even as high as $1.325 million. Bottom line is the market fixed the price three months ago 5.5% higher. The market price therefore declined by that much in three months. Nothing you can say changes that. After all, pretty much every SF house is unique as are the circumstances of every seller and buyer, so by your logic one cannot ever use past sales to say anything about the market for any house. That’s just wrong.
more math for church street:
http://1617churchstreet.com/
minus
http://sfarmls.rapmls.com/scripts/mgrqispi.dll?APPNAME=Sanfrancisco&PRGNAME=MLSPropertyDetail&ARGUMENTS=-N430042840,-N224358,-N,-A,-N14421980
=
a sign of get “i’m no longer in the market … please”?
995K and 927 a foot for a little Church street house that needs some fixes and downstairs expansion? I bet somebody will step up to that plate. The other pricepoint was way off. Insert realtor generalization below.