Two short sales (and local market “comps”) that were recently withdrawn: 48 Cayuga and 1477 Hudson Avenue. And despite having advertised “Price Reduced! Seller motivated. All reasonable offers considered.” (and having once been in contact), it’s possible the infamous short sale of 400 Beale #1212 failed to materialize as the listing was officially “withdrawn from the market.” [UPDATE: According to Damion, 400 Beale #1212 was “immediately relisted as an REO property and sold quickly thereafter.”]
841 Webster spent four months on the market, and had been reduced by $310,000 (23.9%), before being pulled (i.e., no bidding war). And while the listing for 1487 McKinnon had only been reduced by $20,000 (and was advertising “below market value” and “won’t last”) it was also withdrawn.
As far as we know 755 Marina Boulevard never hit the auction block (or the steps of City Hall), the market might be shallower than we thought (as in the “it’s what counts on the inside” listing for 760 Haight Street was withdrawn as well), and while it hasn’t officially been withdrawn, 34 Presidio Terrace is now simply “off the market” (after roughly two years on).
Editor’s Note: These listings are not intended to be (and are not) representative of the market as a whole (although there are a few interesting data points) and simply represent an update on properties that we happen to have written about in the past (in case you’d like to know how the story, or at least chapter, ends).
∙ The SocketSite Scoop On That Short Sale In Rincon Hill [SocketSite]
∙ A Neighborhood Comp, And So On, And So Forth (48 Cayuga) [SocketSite]
∙ A Potential Short Sale (And Food For Thought) In Bayview [SocketSite]
∙ Betting On A Bidding War? (Once Again) [SocketSite]
∙ Reductions On Two Two-Bedrooms Approaching Two Months [SocketSite]
∙ Yahoo Unveils Underwhelming Foreclosure Center [SocketSite]
∙ Remember, It’s What’s Inside That Counts (Or So They Say) [SocketSite]
∙ New Year, New Price For 34 Presidio Terrace [SocketSite]
Does anybody know if it is possible to get stats on places that simply get pulled off the MLS unsold? I have noticed an awful lot of places where this has happened in the last year — they just disappear, and when I follow up (on Zillow, etc.) to see if they were sold and for how much, it shows that they were never sold at all.
We see stats on how many listed places were sold, pct going over-, under-, and at-asking. But the numbers of “unsolds” would be a very valuable stat. I just wonder if it is possible to compile it.
There is a box to check where withdrawn properties can be pulled up. The problem with that is that some are relisted and subsequently sold. Someone will have to weed through that as well.
WOW! What a difference a year makes. If someone a year or two ago had predicted the market changing this much, they would have likely been labeled a “bitter renter” or “schadenfreu” or something. Thank you SocketSite for reporting both sides of this currently “bifurcated” market with an unbiased view.
Now the war of attrition starts: how long can sellers wait before they have to accept that the ’05/’06 market is not coming back? According to the Map of Misery and ARM reset charts, most of them can ride this out for another 2-3 years, tops.
400 Beale No. 1212 was withdrawn, but then immediately relisted as an REO property and sold quickly thereafter.
“WOW! What a difference a year makes. If someone a year or two ago had predicted the market changing this much, they would have likely been labeled a “bitter renter” or “schadenfreu” or something. Thank you SocketSite for reporting both sides of this currently “bifurcated” market with an unbiased view.
Do you honestly believe that this sampling is representative of the SF market as a whole? Enough so to draw the above conclusion?
Not the state of the whole market, but the change in the market at least. I consider this the derivative near, or hopefully at, the inflection point.
I only make that comment because 12-18 months ago these kinds of things were unheard of. San Franciscans had more faith in their real estate than in their jobs, families, domestic partners, and respective deities. Lover cheats on you, bus skips your stop, your toy dog bites you, and the champagne at the spa is stale. But your real estate will always go up. There was a time in this city where it was nearly blasphemous to hint that prices may go down one day, or that market values were disconnected from fundamentals. Short sale? What’s that?
I think we’re finally seeing the collective mentality of buyers start to change. Party is ending, hangover is just starting.
“12-18 months ago these kinds of things were unheard of…”
Dude, San Francisco housing bubble talk has been going on for more than 2 years now.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/27/11191/3386
https://socketsite.com/archives/bubble_or_not/
Well aware of that. I’ve personally been calling it a bubble for well over 2 years now, as have many others here. But 2-3 years ago, if you called the market a bubble, people would literally laugh in your face. But the evidence is getting more difficult to ignore every day.
Let’s see.. 841 Webster is in the ghetto.. 1487 Mckinnon is in Bayview, enough said. 755 Marina was absurdly overpriced and 760 Haight has one of the worst facades imaginable and needs a down to the studs overhaul. 34 Presidio has been on the market for years… and I don’t think just the horrible interior is the problem.. *hint hint.. Basically buyers don’t want crap…
841 Webster is bang opposite the public housing projects.
I really don’t think this sampling is representative of the market.
Speaking of ‘absurdly overpriced’, I think this place is right up there.
http://sfarmls.rapmls.com/scripts/mgrqispi.dll?APPNAME=Sanfrancisco&PRGNAME=MLSPropertyDetail&ARGUMENTS=-N548907892,-N207570,-N,-A,-N9524975
[Editor’s Note: These listings are not intended to be (and are not) representative of the market as a whole (although there are a few interesting data points) and simply represent an update on properties that we happen to have written about in the past (in case you’d like to know how the story, or at least chapter, ends).]
Granted, you guys are correct in all respects. Buyers don’t want crap. But in 2003 and 2004 buyers were eating crap with a rusty spoon, for fear of being priced out forever or missing the boom.
On a side note, I’m curious what’s going on with the flips at the Watermark? Any updates there?
https://socketsite.com/archives/2007/02/six_relatively_quick_flips_at_the_sold_out_watermark_51.html
“400 Beale No. 1212 was withdrawn, but then immediately relisted as an REO property and sold quickly thereafter.”
Doesn’t “REO” mean that the condo was foreclosed upon and then sold off by the lender? If so, does that mean the Bridgeview is now “crap” as well?
Best priced properties in the most desirable neighborhoods are still selling very quickly, with multiple offers, and above asking price. Just take a closer look at Noe Valley, Castro, Glen Park, Bernal Heights, Miraloma Park, Pacific Heights, etc. etc. just to name a few. Markets are local, people. And in San Francisco, they are also quite specific to the exact neighborhood.
movingback, your post had a telling qualification: “best priced” properties are moving in these neighborhoods. That is true. Price a nice place reasonably, it will sell. But places are no longer moving at the overheated prices of ’05. There are exceptions, of course, but the trends are clear. We’re in a (long overdue) downturn.
Anon — long overdue downturn, correct. But the sky is not falling in San Francisco, as many of you speculate. Look at your available inventory, and upward trend in pricing in many areas of the city. We just relocated back to SF from the Washington DC area where housing inventory is running into the 7-9 month range in many areas, especially outlying suburbs. As long as you don’t treat your property like a cash machine, I still firmly believe SF is a very good place to purchase or invest in Real Estate.
Hrm. Looks like 841 Webster is back and at one thousand dollars short of a million. Listing