Listed for $1,799,000 in March of 2004, the remodeled single-family home at 49 Hill closed escrow a month later with a recorded contract price of $2,000,000.
Since repainted and redecorated, the 3,000 square foot “Grand Victorian” returned to the market two days ago asking $2,595,000. As the facade looked before:
∙ Listing: 49 Hill (4/3.5) 3,000 sqft – $2,595,000 [49hill.com] [MLS]
really nice house in a hot neighborhood. I’ve been surprised before, but $2.6 is a hefty price.
The newly painted house is cross-eyed.
2.1-2.2 mil, imho, unless the buyer is in love or the seller is extra desperate.
“The newly painted house is cross-eyed.”
The second floor looks sleepy and the ground floor looks angry.
Way overpriced. A buyer would be crazy to bid anything more than 2 million in a declining market. I’ll be impressed if they get anything close to asking.
LOL regarding the cross-eyed and angry eyes! Best belly laugh I’ve had in a week.
$400-$450/sq ft tops…
Say hello to major price cuts in the future…
Is the agent’s name really “Tremain Wellbeloved” ????
wow, that paint job transforms this house!
I am impressed!
the photography shows also off the house well, a must IMO.
it actually has a great Kitchen triangle as well (I’m aghast).
seems like a very nice house.
I’m not sure how nice/not nice that microneighborhood is but it is pretty convient to a lot of things.
Is the agent’s name really “Tremain Wellbeloved” ????
He goes by “Trim.”
$865/ft seems steep for that location, but I hope they get it.
This place looks very well finished. I think it will sell at $2.4M within 90 days. Avg. $/sq. ft. in District 5 in 2009 $678 and in 2010 $681. Median price in 2009 $1.21M and in 2010 $1.3M on volume increase of 22%. This house is in better than avg. area in D5 and certainly top 10% on layout and finishes IMO. $800/sq. ft. seems doable for 4 BR, 3.5B, 3 car parking for the right family.
Okay, neighborhood parsing time. Is this technically in the Castro according to SFAR? Do people here think of it as Castro?
sfrenegade, I’m not sure if you were joking but the joke is that SFAR doesn’t acknowledge the existence of any neighborhood called the Castro.
No, according to the SFAR there is no “The Castro,” only Eureka Valley. But I get your point. It’s definitely not the Castro. I think they made a mistake, and they should have labelled this either an extension of “Mission Dolores,” or possibly they could have (and this would have been better) created a new one called “Valencia Corridor.”
As both Shza and realtormhon/hmong/mon/mom/man/mang/X pointed out, of course SFAR doesn’t acknowledge the existence of the Castro, but I was trying to be tongue-in-cheek.
To be honest, I always think of this part between Guerrero and Valencha as “Mission,” but I know SFAR considers it D5, as Skirunman pointed out.
I agree it’s Mission (albeit “Country Club Mission”). Liberty Hill if you want to get super micro.
I will make a wild guesstimate on what I think it’s worth with today’s crazy hipsters: 1.85M with a +/-50K margin of error. Nobody should pay much more than $600-$650/sf for that section of Hill street.
Heck I wouldn’t live there even in the sub-1M but that’s only me.
The Guerrero freeway is too close and you’ve right in the “Frogger” segment. The Mission starts a small block away and you’re within the “shopping cart line/looks like someone left his apple juice bottle” area. Heck, you cross Valencia and you’ve got homies handling their corners in plain daylight on Lexington and San Carlos.
No thanks. Not hip enough to overpay to be 1 block away from that crowd and hose down their digested beer.
Speaking of Hipsters, here’s one that goes out to all you Mission Hipsters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP2W0LqQwEE
Enjoy.
Well, 48 Linda went for 2,149,000 ($717 per square foot) a couple months ago. Not a direct comparison, but in the same league.
“The Mission starts a small block away and you’re within the ‘shopping cart line/looks like someone left his apple juice bottle’ area.”
lol, you made LOL at that one.
I was thinking the exact same thing. It surprises the h*ll out of me that anyone with this kind of dough would be “hip” enough to want to live in this hood and put up with all of the safety risks and problems that come with living here (especially if you have kids). I don’t know who the target audience for this house is – the 24 year-olds riding fixies and rocking ironic t-shirts can’t afford it.
Mission Hipsters, the world is laughing at you…….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9f8QPtwBBs
(not really the BBC , but you get the idea)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9f8QPtwBBs
The world? Hardly.That guy is a hipster himself for sure. Maybe a Nopa hipster.
Speaking of Hill Street, does anyone know the recent history of 332 Hill Street which (finally) went into foreclosure last week? It’s another blight to the block soon to be remedied I hope.
OMG – so that isn’t apple juice? I live in Eureka Valley and see those bottles around a lot 😉
Re: alpenhorn’s question, it’s interesting that 332 Hill was purchased for $972K in 2003, but has a tax value of almost $1.6M for 2009, and then has a $395,416 May 2010 sale (at foreclosure? This is according to Trulia, but nowhere else). I assume the increase in value is from going from 1261 sqft to 2377 sqft in the remodel (lifting up a floor according to the permits).
http://spotlight.trulia.com/homes/California/San_Francisco/sold/1874650-332-Hill-St-San-Francisco-CA
800+/sq ft. seems high to me, but this is a very nice street and an excellent building. Hill is just one block long here and it T’s into Guerrero so it doesn’t get much traffic and there are lots of other Victorians on the block.
The location is excellent. Close to BART, reasonable freeway access, and lots of shops and restaurants within walking distances. Sure, once you get east of Mission things start to deteriorate but this general neighborhood is quite nice and family friendly. If you don’t believe me, walk around Valencia St. during the day — lots of strollers. It is not quite 24th St. in terms of baby traffic, but there are clearly lots of families around.
I bet it goes for around $2.3MM
According to the agent at the open house yesterday, 49 Hill is in contract. Anyone know what the selling price was?
I asked around and the hearsay is there were 3 interested parties, but only one offer. The price is “not quite asking but the sellers are pretty happy”. My estimate is still $2.4M.
On another note, I heard 1364 Union #C went in to contract after being on market about 2 weeks, asking $1,050/sq. ft, so I believe in contract at $1k/sq. ft. after speaking to agent. I believe this sold for $1.6M in June 2006, but I did not thoroughly check the tax records. Assuming this is correct, this would be quite an increase from 2006 pricing. Hopefully someone else can verify the info.
1364 Union #C sold for $1.325M in 2006:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/1364-Union-St-94109/unit-C/home/1838190
They were asking $2.099M for this 2007 remodel. Tax record says 1879 sqft, but listing says 1976 sqft. According to DBI, they did kitchens and bathrooms.
There’s also a 2008 cancelled permit for underpinning for the building to the tune of $60K declared, related to construction of 1372/1374 Union St. Sounds like an interesting story there, and I didn’t find anything on SS about that property.
Interesting. Based on what I could see of the appliances and finishes in kitchen and two baths I could easily do a complete remodel for $150k including other things like refinish floors and complete paint job and that is being very generous. Therefore, I would estimate $1.5M in.
Russian Hill + GGB views = $$$, typically. People bid irrational amounts for these kinds of places typically. That’s why 1219 Lombard on Russian Hills sells and 1112 Lombard doesn’t. Well, that and the fact that 1112’s driveway more directly backs into a tourist trap.
Nothing with a view in RH went for 670 psft in 2006.
I guess this would be a good apples-apples story of 30%+ appreciation from June 2006. I believe avg/median condo prices are off about 10%-15% from highs in D8. First Republic Prestige Index is off about 10% as well from high. The price may be irrational in your mind, but not in the buyer’s. The price/value is set by the market, and yes, views do command top dollar.
@tipster: data to back this statement up “Nothing with a view in RH went for 670 psft in 2006.” Current tax records indicate assessed valued at $1.5M so goes with sales/remodel price.
Wait, 1364 Union #C is most definitely not an apple as I pointed out. I’m confused by your statement, Skirunman. It looks like they even increased the square footage by 100 sqft somehow. They probably also did more than just kitchens and bathrooms and just didn’t write it on the permit.
They did not increase the square footage or change the outside in anyway. They did do what I call a “cosmetic” remodel. Plumbing/electrical/HVAC systems all good as originally built in 1980s. Ask the agent if you want confirmation. Tax records are notoriously incorrect with regards to square footages anyway. From what I can tell it is an apple based on about $1.5M in.
[Editor’s Note: As commented above, don’t confuse return on investment with appreciation (which is the point of “apples-to-apples” comparisons). Now back to 49 Hill.]
Your definition of an apple doesn’t match the SocketSite definition of an apple. Cosmetic or not, this is remodeled.
As I mentioned, view properties generally get irrational prices. They definitely count as comps and they definitely count as “market” sales (whatever that means), but I’ve generally found that you can only really compare them to other view properties. I’m sure some people here would dispute that, and say something silly like “good properties get good prices.
OK, I guess I am just dense. I took $1.325M 2006 sales price and added in my assumption of $175k in added value for remodel (I am being generous on this number) to get to $1.5M Apple1. Assuming it does sell for $2M we have Apple2. Apple1+$500k = Apple2 or 33% appreciation since 2006/7. Where is my math or logic incorrect?
Also, I don’t understand the Editor’s comment, which seems a bit condescending to me. I have only been talking about appreciation, no mention of ROI. In my own biz I use IRR calculations and CoC to measure my returns just as I did when running the Corp. Div. group of a major high tech company. To keep it simple, I expressed my assumptions in nominal dollars. So what is the purpose of apples-apples again?
This isn’t a view property, is it?
“So what is the purpose of apples-apples again?”
The idea behind apples-to-apples is to exclude properties with significant remodeling, renovations, or additions. This way, you can measure appreciation of a property without taking into account boom-time additions of $15K of pergraniteel to irrationally raise a price by $100K as was common in markets with lots of flipping, but also exclude properties where someone added 1000 sqft or rehabbed a place, and it’s hard to compare value before and value after.
This method has also been used well by the Manhattan Beach housing blog. It was salient there, as in SF, because people often buy smaller houses and then reconstruct them into larger houses in both areas. (Manhattan Beach also allows more teardowns than SF, probably)
The problem with including a guesstimated price of remodels is that reasonable people disagree. You see all kinds of estimates for what a job cost, and no one knows the true amount. You see $150K, someone else sees something else.
OK, I got it on apples-apples. I actually looked at this place to purchase in 2006 so I have some “inside info” on what it was before remodeling. Certainly no one has to take my estimate, but I know I could have done the remodel for $150k easy, and therefore, I give it $175k in added value max. Rest of my analysis stands (for now).
Let’s do the same on 49 Hill. Assuming it does sell for $2.4M (big if) then we would have an apples-apples nominal appreciation of $400k or 20% since April 2004 as I believe the remodel was done in 2002.
Hi there,
My husband and I are looking to move to SF and we were interested in this house. The comments seem to show that it isn’t in a very good area, whereas to us, a $2 million property must be in a good area.
Are you able to shed some light on areas we should look in. Family friendly, safe at night, transport nearby preferred, and in a quiet street.
Many thanks
Kayley, there are lots of family friendly neighborhoods in SF, so it would be hard to answer your question without knowing more of what you’re looking for. E.g. where you’ll work, do you mind fog, how important is walking to stores. You might want to look in Noe Valley, which is nearby, but [west] of Dolores St and a little more South.
Kayley,
As pacific said if you don’t mind a bit more fog you can try Saint Francis Wood and West Portal. Commute is good (downtown and south), walk to stores, families, playgrounds, etc. Plus it’s not as foggy as people say it is, today it was T-shirt weather at 7 for example but if you polled people in other hoods they would think the sun didn’t come out today. Also yesterday it was much nicer here than in the richmond or the marina.
Also, the place is listed at $2.6M and you mention $2M, which is a big difference. If you are really looking at the higher $2M’s then you can get a comparable place in Noe Valley, where it is more family friendly and safer.
Kayley, the vast majority of SF neighborhoods are family friendly and safe at night. Easy access to transportation is more complicated as it depends on where you will generally be traveling (e.g. Pacific Heights has several bus lines but it is a long journey to travel to certain parts of town from there).
“today it was t-shirt weather at 7”
and now it’s what? top and bottomless weather? man it’s hot all over the City today – close to last week’s two smoking hot days. Ocean Beach is probably off the charts today.
Family friendly – $2 million-ish. Many meet that criteria. Noe Valley lots of families and lots of $2 million homes. Pac Heights and other northern nabs tend to be over $2 million unless of course tipster can interest you in a $1.3M dump. But you can get still buy in your price range unless you’re expecting a huge house for the money.
But for $2 million you’ll have a lot of choices and up to $4 million you can buy almost anywhere (but not almost anything)
What do people think of 3324 21st St. listed at $2.2M? It’s a block away from this place but is only a 4/2 with no true master bedroom, but a legal unit downstairs rented at $2K/mo, 2 car parking (vs. 3 for 49 Hill), and a slightly bigger lot than 49 Hill. They listed it last year too, but probably yanked it because they weren’t getting the price.
It seems like 49 Hill might be a favorable comp for 3324 21st, but it’s suspicious that the listing for 3324 21st doesn’t have pictures of the whole house. I wonder if it isn’t as remodeled as 49 Hill, in which case, it just wouldn’t compare. Has anyone seen it?
Btw, 1112 Lombard which I mentioned above is BOM last week at $3.625M. According to another commenter on another thread, it went pending back in May at $3.675M, and had been sitting on the market at that price since December ’09.
This guy was trying to flip this property for $5M originally after buying it for $3.06M and doing very little work. There is an incomplete permit for some bath and kitchen work, which is expected to be done in this price range when you move in. This one has a view of Alcatraz through the gap of two buildings, but no Golden Gate Bridge views according to the listing, unlike some of the other houses on this block that have sold recently that have been mentioned on SocketSite.
The other interesting part of its history is that the prior owner donated it to the Catholic Church, and then the Church sold it about 5 months later to the current owner. I guess he must have thought he bought it from the Church at a bargain price when he listed it for $5M.
49 Hill sold for $2.5M. That’s $833 psqft, no view, and about 100 feet off Valencia
I agree that it’s a lot of money. I think it proves (as Fluj has been saying) that the Mission has been surprisingly strong throughout this recession. That’s a big house, with a per square foot value similar to the best in Noe Valley.
I won’t say “overpaid”, but I’ll think it.
And for me, I would LOVE to live in that location.
This is 1.3%/year real increase and 3.8% nominal increase. That’s a huge win for the seller for such big money. It’s probably more a testament to the good remodeling job done by the prior seller than anything else. Is this an apple? We haven’t seen many 2004 apples, have we?
The sellers of 3324 21st a block away should be happy, although I don’t think their house is as well-done as this one. You can see some odd staging choices, plus it has a rented in-law which is said to be legal. It is at $835/sqft right now, but I’m not sure how the rental unit factors in.
Well, I was only $100k under, but made the time frame. I’m batting 1.000 so I think I will hang up my “price estimating” hat. Seriously, this is a very good outcome for the previous owners and seems to be an Apple in my eye. I don’t think we count paint as improvements do we?
Agreed on all counts: it was a good outcome for the seller and a good guess on your part.
The editor has a selection bias but props for posting this home and for the follow up. The bears can divide by 6 and perform inflation adjustments all day, but this is a +500k gain on what is most likely a leveraged $2M home.
Skirunman, I wouldn’t call being off by 100k under in what you called a “big if” @ $2.4 as batting 1.000. 🙂
[Editor’s Note: Try scrolling through our apples archive sometime. If anything we feature a disproportionate selection of higher-end homes which tend to outperform the overall market. And in terms of a “+500k gain,” you’re not even close.]
“The bears can divide by 6 and perform inflation adjustments all day”
It’s not actually dividing by 6. I find the compound interest rate there. So it would be the sixth root of the overall increase.
And the inflation adjustments matter because people tend to assume that an increase is an increase. That’s imply not true, especially since even flat prices for several years, as is often the case in housing busts, can result in quite a significant loss over time. The time value of money matters in determining whether someone made money or not.
Anyway, this is a huge win for the seller, as I said before. Keep posting apples as you find them, eddy; I’d love to see more from all the people who say there aren’t enough posted here.
I agree with you, Eddy. This is a $500k gain on what was likely a leveraged purchase. $500k – $125k fees – $35k paint job = $340k profit. On a 20% downpayment of $400k, that’s an 85% return in 6 years. Slice and dice all you want, but that’s a fantastic return to realize in 2010 after spending 6 years in a gorgeous house in a fun neignborhood.
“$500k – $125k fees – $35k paint job = $340k profit. On a 20% downpayment of $400k, that’s an 85% return in 6 years.”
You forgot some stuff in that calculation. But that’s okay, most people suck at math.
Props to the editor for featuring this.
As to what I think…it takes only one. And in my book, skirunman is batting a 1.000
I used the same math that I would use for evaluating the return on any deposit of a large chunk of cash (e.g., stocks).
I wouldn’t back out time value of money concepts, etc. All investments have that.
I also wouldn’t factor in the costs of ownership. (I realize this is heresy on this website.) Presumably the owners did the math and were comfy with the monthly cost of living there. More than renting an apartment? Absolutely. But it isn’t an apartment. And they didn’t rent many nice houses like that in this neighborhood in 2004. And they had control over how long they lived here, etc. When you make a high enough income, the value is there for you. you don’t think of the monthly costs (or marginal costs of renting) as adding to an investment.
I suspect the owners feel like they left with $340k more than when they arrived. It really is that simple.
[Editor’s Note: If you’re really evaluating the return on an investment, especially one that’s highly leveraged, you had better be including the cost of capital in your calculations.
But you’re probably right that the owners feel like – or at least have been told that – they left with $340k more than when they arrived. Unfortunately, it really isn’t that simple.]
I never said it was a +500k gain for the owners, but I guess throwing in the “leveraged investment” jab did give that implication — so I will cede that point. But in terms of Apples, this home appreciate +500k from it’s 2004 price.
I thought that renegade was simple saying that equation left out closing costs and transfer tax as $125K is just the agents.
“I suspect the owners feel like they left with $340k more than when they arrived. It really is that simple.”
Well, then you’re saying they’re stupid, but I doubt that they are that stupid unless they’re a celebrity of some sort or a trustafarian, rather than someone who engaged in hard work to make their money.
“When you make a high enough income, the value is there for you. you don’t think of the monthly costs (or marginal costs of renting) as adding to an investment.”
Your description is interesting, but what you’re talking about is not investment. What you’re talking about is consumption, when you say that they got to live in a nice place, found the cost of living acceptable, and got to decide how long they lived there (whether or not that’s actually true or not — they could have moved for many reasons). People often confuse consumption and investment when they are talking about housing, especially because of the recent boom.
Most people are bad at math, so they don’t calculated total cost of ownership, but it still matters. You simply can’t call this an “investment” without doing the numbers. As for inflation, if you live somewhere for 10 years, inflation can still be very relevant, especially given that inflation was more than 25% since 2000 according to CPI, which notoriously underestimates inflation.
Most people who aren’t celebrities or trustafarians buy a house like this by being smart with their money. They can certainly choose to consume, but even they don’t confuse that with investment.
“I thought that renegade was simple saying that equation left out closing costs and transfer tax as $125K is just the agents.”
Certainly. Even without doing all the cost of ownership stuff, they didn’t walk away with $340K, I’m guessing. But again, Here is talking about consumption, not investment.
Wow. I love this location, but I’m flummoxed by the selling price. Very good outcome for the seller and the real estate agents. I hope the new owners enjoy the house for a long time.
My guess would be younger (okay, younger than me) buyers who came into a windfall. Facebookers? Zyngars? Where is the lazy Google indicator these days?
Factoring opportunity cost into something that was probably an 80 to 85% return on 400K is what they want to factor in, first (even though that’s 14% a year or so and destroys any safe instrument.) Secondly they’ll want to demonstrate how much it cost per month. Third they’ll want to not subtract out how much it would otherwise rent for. Fourth they’ll want to posit that in no way did anybody deduct taxes.
In short, do not ever bother.
err, deduct interest on property tax or interest, that is.
whatever. don’t bother.
once again the ed. inserts his commentary into a bullish statement and leaves bears to say whatever they like. Anybody else keeping count? 9001 to 0?
[anon.ed],
i agree. but in the parallel universe that is ss
you do not have to bother with inconvenient facts.
Yes, agree with anonee that one must not forget the inconvenient facts that:
interest deductions are capped at $1M principal;
AMT further erodes deductibility;
maintenance costs are real;
opportunity costs are real;
the premium over renting is also a real cost;
6 years of inflation matters (eats away about 70% of the gain in this case).
These sellers did fine, particularly in these awful selling conditions. but the ed. was exactly right that there was no $500k gain or $340k gain anywhere except in some peoples’ imaginations.
“Opportunitu costs are real”
In a scenario where the money did better than a safe investment instrument ? Why insert that imaginary cost ?
IMO we should not be talking about a personal home using investment terms like “gain” or “ROI” or worrying about “opportunity costs”. They lived in the house and got personal satisfaction or utility from it. Hard to put a true number on that. Rent versus own calculations don’t apply either. What is true is that they will be handed a nice sized check at close of escrow and let’s call it what is, $500k increase in price on an apple over six years. Most folks don’t look at their personal house using strict investment terms as they understand that it is not really an investment in the true sense, but instead is a consumable that may (or may not) increase in value over time. History says in the long term it will increase in value, and in better locations, even out pace inflation.
but the ed. was exactly right that there was no $500k gain
This house sold for 500k more than it did previously. This is not your imagination playing tricks on you. It is very much a market reality.
eddy, you are, of course, correct. My point (and, I think, the ed’s) is that a sale price of 500k more than paid six years earlier is very different from a 500k “gain.” But as many have noted, this is a very good result for the seller.
This discussion just goes to show what a horrible financial hit is being taken by all the owners of places selling well below the purchase price of 5-6 years ago. Just like the real gain on this Hill St. place is quite a bit lower than the sale price delta, the real loss on all these other places is actually far greater than that delta. See, e.g.:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/150-Ripley-St-94110/home/1870814
what’s a comparable rent on this place / this location? assume rent control. So what would a 4/3.5 very nice SFH go for in 2004 on this street? Just curious…$4,000?
No rent control on SFHs.
Nice neighborhood, parking, fully reno’d. $5k/mo easy. Assuming a house in this condition would ever be rented out in the first place …
J(NLB) is correct that homes of this quality rarely hit the rental market, which makes the argument of, “why not just rent a similarly styled home for much less” unrealistic. SF rental stock is terrible. At least in NYC you can get fair comp rentals versus similarly styled homes for sale.
Doubt the seller cared that much about the cash involved in this house. He sold a company to AOL back in the day for quite a sum (look it up, all public record and easily accessible when you google search his name). Not only did he not live there (has other properties in the city and in others), but this was probably a better investment than the AOL stock that he had to sell to buy it (not sure what the stock/cash split was on the sale, but guessing it was heavily weighted towards stock).
There have been a bunch of sales on Hill street since 2004, but none of the homes are this big, nor were most of them in comparable shape (ie, modernized and needing zero work). There are very few SFHs this nice in the area and a lot of people are scared off by the prospect of renovations…
“SF rental stock is terrible.”
Not at the price point this buyer will pay. At 5% interest, and accounting for $500/mo for insurance and maintenance, they are looking at $12,400 per month after taxes, and they’ll probably lose $500K when they sell.
Now take a look at this one web site of rental properties. Once you hit $4000, you really start getting some very nice stuff. At $3K-$4K, it’s out there but somewhat more difficult to find. Your maintenance headaches are zero, and some of these owners would only be happy to sign up for a 3-5 year lease if you were worried about it.
http://www.sanfranciscoleasing.com/Propertiesframeset.htm
Here’s one in Pac Heights (Broderick between Vallejo and Green) for about $25K less per year than they’ll be paying for a 5/4, plus den and two offices. It’s bigger, in a better quality hood and cheaper. And they won’t lose hundreds of thousands of dollars when they leave:
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/1971927493.html
I’ve been paying in the $3K-$4K range, every thing I’ve rented has been as nice as anything I’d buy, except it was cheaper. Either nearly new or completely redone. And I didn’t take the $200K-$700K hit like the owners did.
I do like the owners of my homes: they have all been very, very gracious about all the money they lost on me: not anywhere close to what I ever paid in rent, bless their souls!
i will grant you that the downside of the rentier lifestyle is having to occasionally deal with odious tenants…of course it is worth it when you consider how absurdly high rents are.
$10k a month rental with NO parking?? Now that sounds appealing. Where do I sign up?
So let’s see… rents are $5k+ for this place, loans are at 2.2% IO with 35% down … property taxes … interest deduction … hmm hmm h… hmm ok, I got it.
Cheaper to buy. Monthly buying cost of $2979 in interest + $2291 in taxes. Even without the income tax deduction, its cheaper. Factoring that in makes buying a total no brainer.
Provided you have $750k down. Hope you bears have been saving up!
“Doubt the seller cared that much about the cash involved in this house. He sold a company to AOL back in the day for quite a sum (look it up, all public record and easily accessible when you google search his name). Not only did he not live there (has other properties in the city and in others), but this was probably a better investment than the AOL stock that he had to sell to buy it (not sure what the stock/cash split was on the sale, but guessing it was heavily weighted towards stock).”
You really have no idea what you’re talking about. Combining one fact with a ton of speculation doesn’t make it true.
You would have said the same thing in 2004 when this guy bought this place at $2m. Anyway, this place is atypical, but my thesis of late is that there are unique opportunities out there and that buying is not always the worst strategy. Nominal flat will be the norm from 2010 onwards with several bad buys leading to future losses, and good buys leading to some gains. And I’m mostly looking at the market prices of homes. Anyone that buys/sells a home in under 5 years deserves what they get so I don’t really care much about the transaction costs. Not saying they aren’t important for certain types of analysis, but as a whole, individuals make bad financial decisions all the time. Market prices are all that matter (to me).
“Doubt the seller cared that much about the cash involved in this house. He sold a company to AOL back in the day for quite a sum (look it up, all public record and easily accessible when you google search his name). Not only did he not live there (has other properties in the city and in others), but this was probably a better investment than the AOL stock that he had to sell to buy it (not sure what the stock/cash split was on the sale, but guessing it was heavily weighted towards stock).”
I agree with Justin. You don’t seem to know what you are talking about. He didn’t get so much from the sale to AOL that he wouldn’t care about the money here, for one thing. I don’t think he has as many other properties as you are saying either unless as a trust beneficiary.
anybody have a link to the plans for this home?