As we first wrote with respect to 769 Cayuga in August:
Purchased for $759,000 in 2006, the rather well kept Mission Terrace home at 769 Cayuga Avenue has returned to the market listed for $649,000 ($545 per square foot) in 2011.
Yes, only one bath, but with what would appear to be room for potential expansion down.
Listed for $649,000 at the time, it was reduced to $629,000 in September. And this past Friday, the sale of 769 Cayuga closed escrow with a reported contract price of $630,000.
Yes, it’s officially an “over asking” sale according to those industry reports and newsletters, but 17 percent ($129,000) below its sale in 2006.
∙ Curb Appeal On Cayuga (And An Apple To Boot) [SocketSite]
Nice except for the hideous vinyl windows in the living room contrasting with the molding. See the dining room by comparison.
Only a 17% loss? Purty darn good for D10 baby!
Yeah, the Jan. ’06 buyers only lost about $2500/month (plus the “owner premium” loss each month) during the 6-year hold. Could have rented a big, knock-out place in Pac Heights for less than they paid to live in this far lesser area, but then they would have missed out on the American Dream.
They are lucky, however, that they bought about 18 months before the bubble peak in SF. Here is a place around the corner that was purchased in June 2007 and sold a couple months ago, and saw a much steeper 33% ($274,000) dive:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/124-Santa-Rosa-Ave-94112/home/811960
With low interest rates, the recent buyers are just paying a little more than it would cost to rent here.
Never ceases to amaze me the amount of glee that some commenters exhibit on an owner taking a loss on a home. It’s a major investment, someone is out hundreds of thousands of dollars, likely related to a “life-changing” (and not good) circumstance. But we gloat. Classy.
Is it glee, or just analysis of an investment, same as if apple stock went way down (or way up)?
Never ceases to amaze me the amount of glee that some commenters exhibit on an owner taking a windfall on a home. It’s majorly consumption of shelter, yet someone serendipitously makes hundreds of thousands of dollars, likely unrelated to anything they did to even earn it, and driving a “life-changing” (and not good) circumstance for the next buyer who is forced to pay more for the same shelter.
When shelter costs more, people spend an outsized portion of their income on it & have less discretionary income, lenders take a bigger risk making larger loans, the workforce becomes less mobile, etc. But we gloat. Classy.
^one man’s attempt at pithiness. Written if some of these characters don’t gloat, and are not enabled? Please.
For the record, I wasn’t gloating with my comment. I was serious. Many owners lost 30-40% in D10. -17% is way better than average there.