Referenced by a reader on our post about a $594 per square foot short sale comp at 235 Berry, the sale of 255 Berry Street #506 closed escrow six weeks later for $603 per square ($780,000). Purchased in early 2007 for $895,000 ($692 per square), call it a 2007 to 2009 drop of 13 percent for this Berry Street two-bedroom of 1,293 square feet.
∙ An Under $600 Per Square Foot Two-Bedroom Comp At 235 Berry [SocketSite]
So much for those 30% drops from peak…unless it dropped 30% and is now coming back up.
Hillarious that the selling realtor in the short sale thread came on here to immediately dismiss the $594 psft price of the short sale as a complete anomaly, not to be repeated by anything other than a short sale, only to find a non short sale in a comparable building going for a whopping 1.5% more just a few weeks later.
The 2007 buyer of this place luckily had the larger inventory in the newer twin 235 Berry next door that he could use to drive a harder bargain and hold down the sale price of this place. He still lost money, over $100,000, but as SFRE alludes, others in the area did much, much worse. Losing over $100K can’t be fun, but the 235 Berry short sale “anomaly” was purchased for $950K and sold for $734K, a loss of more than $200K!
Hilarious that as I predicted, and we all knew would happen, Socketsite just didn’t mention the sale at 235 Berry, closing on 11/21/09, for $765K (955 sqaure feet). So you now have $801 psft.
Wonder why that one was glossed over? Hmmmm…
Agent 415, what are the details? What did it originally sell for, and when?
I could only find 2 955 squft units in that building. #509 (955 sqft) sold for $1048 psft in 2007. $800 psft would mean a drop of 25%! #409 sold for about $1000 psft in 2007: if that’s it, it’s a 20% drop!
Apparently the reason it was glossed over was that those units are real outliers in that building. May have been done way up or have great views or locations or something. Either way, they lost a TON of money on that sale, even at 800 psft. Nothing for anyone to crow about.
Tipster –
Apparently a 16% drop in value is not good enough for you, because in typical fashion, you want MORE, MORE, MORE!
You have no idea the floor plan or views associated with those units, so just deal with the actual information in front of you and take joy in the 16% drop. When those units sell, you can track it then, as of now you’re speculating.
If you spent 10% as much time actually trying to make money in this business instead of watching from the outside hoping for the horro show, you’d probably do quite well. But like so many people, you’re much better with complaints and rants than actually doing something.
You’re owned on this thread. Owned. Move on.
“Socketsite just didn’t mention the sale at 235 Berry”
Why don’t you mention the unit number?
“If you spent 10% as much time actually trying to make money in this business instead of watching from the outside hoping for the horro show, you’d probably do quite well.”
Nah. Publishing misleading statistics and half truths to people who came to me looking for help, and instead got a big smile and the complete shaft, isn’t my bag. If I was going to con the public, a Bernie Madoff style thing would be a bigger money maker. But alas, I have ethical standards…
Agent 415, I second Scooter’s request.
What are the previous sales details for the recent sale at 235 Berry?
(the one that closed on 11/21/09, for $765K, 955 sq ft, and $801 psft)
I like to compare clean apples to clean apples if possible.
I am all for SS highlighting sales where owners make out big and lose big.
====
as for this property (#506), it highlights that relatively small losses in percentage terms can be a lot of money. it was only a 13% loss, but it was $115k in dollar terms not counting realtor fees!
that’s a lot of cash even for rich San Franciscans
Sorry guys, it was unit #412 at 235 Berry (my bad, should’ve mention it).
As for tipster…. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz….. My clients love me. I don’t quote misleading statistics, prognosticate on future values, try to convince them why their property will surely go up, etc…
They’re smart people who are investing a lot of money. I approach it that way. I can tell them the best value in the current market and guide them through the process. You couldn’t last one day in this business. You want to say it’s because you’re just super honest, but that’s bullsh*t. You’d rather talk endlessly from the sidelines. You must have spent thousands of hours either posting or researching fitting stats for this site, only to jump up and down about some folks who lost money. Great…
Congratulations on…. not much.
So, what did unit 412 sell for prior to its $800psf sale?
We’ve all been thru the apples thing before. Is it really that tough to just provide the basic details? (unit #, prior sale price, current sale price, etc.)?
Never mind, I just looked up #412 at 235 Berry. It sold for $910k back in Feb 2007. No wonder why Agent 415 didn’t want to provide the details! The seller lost $150k, and then had to pay the used house salesperson another $40-50k just to unload it. (Unless it was short sale or fc, in which case he just lost 100% of whatever he put down + credit hit). Thanks for the apple, Agent 415! No surprise, a sucker and his money….
The seller spent $10,000 per month to live in a 955 sqft two bedroom condo? Is it true there isn’t even a gym or pool there?
Hope he had a nice time!
No you don’t. You wish them ill and you prove it every time with your gloating.
The tone of some of these posts definitely has gotten a bit out of control.
Consider the situation we’re currently in. Tons of people have lost their jobs. Many who haven’t are suffering from worry that it might happen to them. Who knows what the situation was for the sellers who lost money? Whatever the reason for the sale, it probably wasn’t pleasant.
I just don’t understand the expressions of glee over someone else’s loss.
Are the folks who day in, day out pore over sales data looking for a pat on the back? Well, here you are: “You were right. The market fell. In fact it tanked. Congratulations.”
The thing is, anyone who was paying any attention would have seen this coming from miles away.
I come to this site to read about interesting real estate that is for sale. I love seeing different architectural styles. I love finding out what’s going in other neighborhoods. I love reading about new developments.
The comments section used to provide a lot of interesting information. Now it’s all about the bickering and trashing of properties, locations, etc.
To the editor: you often reference the poll you did a while back to find out the demographic info on your readers. I’d love to see the demographic info on the people who regularly post comments to this site. I’m guessing they would not be representative of the whole readership.
You know, I don’t see the attitude of tipster and others as “wishing ill” on home buyers, nor as schadenfreude. Instead I see them taking satisfaction in being right in calling a housing bubble and acting according to their call. The calculation of realized losses on every down property is a bit tedious, but may help new readers to more quickly understand the costs involved in buying into a declining market. If there’s gloating it is about winning an argument, not about the property buyer.
Tipster,
Keep up the good comments. You know they’ve got nothing when the ignore the facts and focus on your motives.
The facts are that the “positive” comp Agent415 used as evidence to show the editor’s bias and cherry-picking turned out to show about the same exact level of decline over the last 2 or 3 years as the comp that is the subject of this post (actually more, ~16%). So it was Agent415 that got “owned” and you were quite correct.
And indeed, paying $10,000 a month to live in a condo is a huge financial mistake.
Other Lurker: It does not serve future buyers to only serve up happy stories that do not reflect reality. The reality here is that $150,000 loss over 2 or 3 years is a huge amount. If a family were to “invest” a great deal of their own money they could be significantly impacted. Tipster pointing out that uncomfortable fact (especially uncomfortable to current owners and their agents) does future buyers more of a service than those in denial and throwing dust in the air.
But there is indeed too much focus on personalities in the comment section–but remember, who was the first one that questioned others motives? Agent415, Anonn, and now you (in a passive-aggressive way by focusing on people like Tipster but not Tipster) are the ones that are questioning Tipster’s motives and not his facts.
And we get your point. You wish the commentators were more like you and you are asking the editor for some data to back up your prejudice. I wish more people agreed with me too!
Delight in the losses of others? Not I. But, I do delight in the drop in prices. For as long as I’ve lived in SF (going on 8 years now), it did not make economic sense to purchase in SF. I hope that some day it does. As such, I gladly welcome lower prices.
“it did not make economic sense to purchase in SF. I hope that some day it does.”
Yeah, same here. As long as it doesn’t make sense just because rents go so high. But that’s certainly not the way things are moving now. Oh well, as long as there is a large supply of landlords that wish to buy at a premium and rent at a discount, that’s not too bad either.
So, Tipster doesn’t gloat and he makes a lot of correct calls. Ohhhkaaaaay.
I’ve never quite understood why people shouldn’t be happy about lower real estate prices. It’s better for everyone except for recent buyers who are looking for a windfall upon selling and for the banksters who made fat fees through mortgage loans and their derivatives. Sellers who have held property for a long time will still make profits, albeit non-bubble profits, and new buyers and move-up buyers will find more reasonable prices. It’s a win for the responsible people.
agree with Anon E Mouse. lower prices are better for the current renters (65% of population) and 80% of 35% of current homeowners who didn’t buy in the last 7 years. Therefore, lower prices are best for 93% of people living here.
of 7% remaining, i estimate half of them puchased via an exotic loan and couldn’t afford in the 1st place. it is important that they take some fall to avoid future moral hazard to them and the surrounding halo of people.
therefore, lower prices are best for 96.5% of SF population.
the end
Hey Spencer,
great analysis. Please do it again but a bit slower so fluj and company are able to follow (maybe even explain in French) 🙂
approuvez Anon E la Souris. les prix plus bas sont mieux pour les locataires actuels (65 % de population) et de 80 % de 35 % de propriétaires actuels qui n’ont pas acheté dans les 7 ans derniers. Donc, les prix plus bas sont les meilleurs pour 93 % des gens vivant ici.
de la conservation de 7 %, j’estime la moitié d’entre eux puchased via un prêt exotique et ne pouvais pas me permettre dans le 1e endroit. il est important qu’ils prennent une chute pour leur éviter le hasard moral futur et l’auréole environnante des gens.
donc, les prix plus bas sont les meilleurs pour 96.5 % de population SF.
la fin
The *realtors* are not better off with lower prices, which explains their newfound “compassion” for people whom they cheerleaded, goaded and encouraged to pay unsustainable prices. First they encouraged people to buy at these ridiculous prices, took their commissions, and now feign compassion as they take their commissions on the way down.
It’s so “nice” to know that we have people like agent 415 to whom we can turn for help when we buy homes. He’ll be happy to “inform” you that prices at this development have zoomed up in the last few weeks, to $800 psft, conveniently “forgetting” to tell you which unit it is, for fear that you’ll realize that $800 represents a substantial decline. How many non-internet savvy people is he telling his $800 psft real-estate-is-hot-hot-hot story to right now?
The whole industry is filled with the underbelly of society. I realize that not all agents are dishonest, but what agent 415 did, providing a half-truth in order to mislead people, should be reason enough to be very very careful around this bunch. Con artists always seem so nice. SO sincere. The industry is filled with them. This little stunt should be a lesson to trust nothing your realtor tells you. I’m sure agent 415 looks as honest as the day is long. But you just saw what he/she did and it wasn’t pretty.
The feigned outrage by his fellow realtors, all of whom pumped the bubble up as hard as they could, and would go back to one in a heartbeat, should also tell people a lot about how well this industry polices itself, which is to say, pretty much not at all. Why did *I* (and other renters) have to out his stats as misleading. How many realtors sell in south beach and could have spoken up just from the information they already knew. Instead, they remained silent. Was there an honest one in the bunch? I’ll bet they all look really nice. Remember this as you even consider taking their “advice”, and where their interests really lie.
Sure realtors could benefit by lower prices. You can do the math. In fact, that very point has been dismissed by bears and bulls alike dozens of times on here. You’ve seen it many times. Why? Ostensibly even people like you would then be buying. (Or so you would have us believe.) When people like even you are buying, guess what? Lots of sales are happening everywhere. And volume trumps price.
Really, Tipster. Have you ever taken a single thing anyone else has ever said into account? Your voice on here is one of utter detachment. So boring.
And the newfound compassion barb? Sorry to have called you out for being an utter hater. But you are. Maybe if you lost the exclamation mark bangers, question marks, and incessant “Gee whillickers. They only paid 10K a month! Sure hope they had fuN!!!” — you’d be able to make anyone think you don’t gloat. But you do gloat.
Now it’s “newfound compassion” — really, for the type of person every realtor would have worked closely with. Underbelly of society. blah blah blah. One of your worst efforts, there, pal. Utter nonsense from top to bottom.
“The *realtors* are not better off with lower prices”
This is one of the few times I would have to agree with anonn. Realtors will see more volume than they are now, so they will still make money.
Realtors should be for getting rid of Prop 13, btw. Prop 13 results in much lower volume than there would be otherwise.
Proof positive that Tipster just says what he says while glancing at his navel. All you need to do is look at the volume shift in 2009 versus 2008 for some of the outer parts of the Bay Area. We’ve been over this one 50+ times on here.
“Realtors will see more volume than they are now, so they will still make money.”
I don’t totally agree with this. Realtors will start moving volume when prices stop falling and stabilize. People do not want to buy homes in a falling market. They are OK buying them in a stable market. And they rush madly into buying them in a steeply rising market, like 2004 and 2005. Volume is not going to pick up substantially in SF until we get to where the CW thinks we’ve now bottomed. That’s a long way off.
Not if you consider stagnation versus price echelons. As something goes lower, a target zone is hit and one demographic steps in. Lower still, then another, and so on. That’s a volume increase in anybody’s book versus the standoff of the first part of 2009. For SF anyway. And I hope some of you at least are taking notes that most of these 13 to 16% percent reductions are condos, or occasionally for SFRs large overbids with four years and under hold lengths.
“large overbids with four years and under hold lengths.”
You mean like this one, purchased for an “overbid” of $29K *under* asking from the sales office?
https://socketsite.com/archives/2009/11/an_under_600_per_square_foot_two_bedroom_comp_at_235_be.html
“most of these 13 to 16% percent reductions are condos, or occasionally for SFRs large overbids with four years and under hold lengths.”
Duh. Because those who bought 4 years ago or less bought at the peak of the bubble. Of course that’s where the biggest price declines from last sale are seen. Those who bought in 2003 and held for just two years did great.
The 30-40% declines from peak seem to be concentrated — so far — in condos in D9 and SFRs in D9 and D10. Other areas are following behind by about a year. The biggest recent declines seem to be in anything priced over about $1.2 million.
Ha. duh. SFRs in D9 down 30 to 40 percent? That’s false. Linking D9 SFRs and D10 SFRs? False. Behind about a year? False. D10 and D3 are two years in, at least. Biggest recent declines being between 1M and 1.5M for condos, by and large? I’ll agree there. And yes, I added condos.
What do you guys think about 235 Berry #418 listed at $699k? Only a 9% drop from purchase. What is your bet on where this closes?
PS: Its weird that it was originally listed at $599k, but then changed to $699k (maybe a typo).
First and foremost we protect your rights. We represent you in either the Foreclosure defense, Loan Restructuring, Bankruptcy or Short Sale. We negotiate with your lender and attempt to get you into a mortgage payment you can comfortably afford without having to refinance. We represent you to make sure you’re getting the terms that meet your needs.
http://www.u2can-consolidacionenmiami.com