The short sale of 695 Grand View Avenue #101 closed escrow on 3/3/09 with a reported contract price of $435,000. That’s 9% over its last asking ($399,000) but 11% under its original ($489,000), and 21% below its purchase price of $552,000 in January of 2007.
∙ Still Not An Official Apple Until It Sells, But A Suggestion (Or Two) [SocketSite]
∙ Noe Valley Apples to Apples With A View: 695 Grand View Ave #101 [SocketSite]
Wait, is Noe Valley part of the “real” SF or not?
dear socketsite,
i really liked the way you worded this post. instead of a snarky tone about how it will be reported as over the asking price per SFAR reports, you gave all of the details (original price, most recent price and the past sale). thank you!
Whaddayano — another “apple” that fits in very neatly with the broader measures showing about a 20% drop in SF prices from the peak.
Garrett, maybe he finally realized he doesn’t need to do his own snark.
“Wait, is Noe Valley part of the “real” SF or not?” — that took about fifteen seconds, tops.
BDB, is Grand View the “real” Noe Valley?
Socketsite, this relentless coverage of marginal Noe Valley properties on the periphery (and arguably one not even in Noe) of the district is not very interesting. For one, a home buyer looking in the heart of Noe Valley can’t even use them as comps, and two, there are so many more interesting homes on the market to cover.
For instance, 3520 Baker in the Marina. A very nice, very comfortable home with dead on views of the Palace of Fine Arts—a coveted home that should sell in any economic environment is hovering right around its 2001 purchase price. If it sells for 4% below its current list, it will actually hit it (bought for 3,350,000 in ’01).
How long did this short sale take to execute. Don’t they usually take many months?
Debtpocalypse,
If asking was 399, then a sale over that price didn’t really require the lender’s approval, imho. If the highest offer had been less than asking, then the seller or his agent would have to ask the lender for approval on the new price.
Everyone is kind of OK on this property. The seller got out with a short sale and probably lost less sking than expected, the lender probably got more money than what he apporved, the buyer is getting a place cheaper than 2007, and the agent is making a sale. A good step forward towards price recognition.
The seller (and bank) were smart here. Cut the price to something lower than the market will support, and watch people “lose” the auction process that ensues (the “Winner’s Curse”).
I’m not surprised that it sold quickly, and am only mildly surprised that it generated a 9% overbid. 20% off last sale price is irresistable to some potential buyers who don’t think in terms of “intrinsic” or “fair” value, and it only takes one. Other sellers should take note of this strategy and make aggresive price cuts to move properties (amd even generate an “overbid”!!).
Great catch, Auden. I hadn’t realized that D7 was approaching 2001, at least at that price range. But I think that’s an aggressive price and it will go quickly for more than asking. A++ location and a great layout is going to be hard to resist.
http://www.estately.com/listings/info/3520-baker#listings/info/3520-baker
A money losing apple anywhere is worthy of note. So this Noe property was a good indicator. Great street and nice view.
They got a good price for this place.
” D7 was approaching 2001″
Why do you constantly flame like this? What do you get out of it? One property is not equivalent to “D7.” The trials and tribulations of the Baker property have been documented on this site. It has issues. And it isn’t even sold yet.
Look at 3355 Pacific. Using your one property metric, one could say, “I hadn’t realized D7 is still getting 1400 a foot.”
anonn, where is the thread for 3520 Baker? I would be interested to read it but cannot locate it. Are you thinking of 3271? I also agree that one marina comp hardly signifies a rollback to 2001 for D7, but its an interesting one nonetheless–and could prove problematic for high end SFH Marina properties in close proximity in the near future.
You’re right Auden, 3271 is the one I’m thinking of. I did an MLS search, recognized 3271, and forgot what you had said. (I’m thinking the reason I glossed over the address is because 3250 is 3.5M and has been on the market for only one week?) Don’t feed these trolls crumbs made out of assumptions and eventualities. As long as the tidbits are negative a platform will be crafted out of them, and flames lobbed.
re: 3520 Baker: if you believe p-shark, though close to 2001 pricing, it is still $1300/ft²…
“As long as the tidbits are negative a platform will be crafted out of them, and flames lobbed.”
That’s pretty good writing. You must have a lot of free time. 😉
When the hype was ridiculously positive, many people (maybe you?) didn’t seem to mind so much.
“When the hype was ridiculously positive, many people (maybe you?) didn’t seem to mind so much.”
Thanks. Free time? Enough time to type a little comment here or there, sure. Enough time to properly look at whether Auden said 3271 or 3250, apparently not. I’ve been on the phone and writing emails pretty much all morning.
People say that about the positive spin hype, and bulls. But I started posting here in like spring ’07. Back then the bears were all looking at list prices, using the rationale of slapping Case Shiller MSA charts onto individual properties and predicting tank jobs. This was followed by none of them addressing the “Sold for list price” or “Sold for over asking” posts which brought the month old thread back to the front page momentarily.
well this one did not go into forclosure and did not go for $700 psf as predicted originally.
3520 Baker: 2700 sqft, purchased in 2001 for $3.5M ($2.5M ARM), refied in 2004 ($2.24M ARM).
good god, where is the outrage? a super crappy 1960’s building in what is really Twin Peaks or Diamond Heights, only getting the Noe designation for being on the “right” side of the highway known as Portola/Market… and it sells for $43,000 higher than it’s 2005 selling price… for what… a 585 SqFt shoe box of an apartment????
there should be screams of “fool”, “knife catcher”, etc as you your jaws drop to the floor at the stupidity of anyone buying well above the rent/sale price “fundamental”
check out the old thread… predictions of $100,000, so it sold for over 400% higher… and $85k higher than even I predicted.
so we’re back to 2005 levels (the remodel excuse doesn’t appear valid… it looks like a $10,000 job of new appliaces, fixtures and paint… $20k tops if the guy didn’t know what he was doing)
sfrob,
We need to make the distinction between what some of us think a place is “worth” in terms of rental value (that’s what 695 should be, imho) and what the market will still pay.
I have very high standards for my money and will not part from it for low value or tiny ROIs like this place. Obviously not everyone shares the same standards and this will make for good deals down the road.
But if the sale of property shows us one thing, it’s that you cannot fool buyers as much as you could 2 years ago. The not-so-prime location (arguably Noe or DH or Twin Peaks), the looks, the small size, the nature (1/1, again more adapted to a rental) all point to the lower segment of the market.
But it’s one data point on the way to price discovery.
It sold for $35K over what I predicted, though they may have thrown in the obligatory 3 years of HOA fees, the buyer’s closing costs, or any of a myriad of items that would mask the true final price, so I was probably within spitting distance of the actual price they got.
But it did not go into foreclosure, so that’s a victory for the seller!
Off by 35K —> may have thown in “obligatory” 3 yrs HOA, closing costs—> “probably” within spitting distance.
Ridiculous.
Tipster, you are a goofball. Single sellers do not throw in 3 years worth of HOA fees for fun… and 10% off is not exactly worthy of showing off.
yup, short sales are bank approved, throwing in free HOA’s is too complicated for pencil pushers.
the bottom line is this has to have surprised the relentless bears on this site.
i don’t disagree that prices have come down, that they will come down a bit more (a lot in some areas like ridiculous over price SOMA market), but when trying to figure out what a place will sell for right now…. there are some really off the wall guesses on this site
but i love you all 🙂 a nice diverse group… would be interesting to get a live round table going… maybe fluj and tipster can arm wrestle to kick it off
would be interesting to get a live round table going
These guys wouldn’t want to meet anybody in person. They love their double non accountable status. (That’s the non accountable anonymity + the non accountable ability to spout off at will without repercussion.) This condo went over asking. Whether or not it was reduced, it indicates that there was competition post the final reduction. Yet here comes Tipster with his tried and true “I smell a rat” nonsense. So typical. He’s anonymous. He blurts out whatever. And he’s on to the next one.
“the bottom line is this has to have surprised the relentless bears on this site.”
“This condo went over asking.”
Are you serious? This place lost 20% in two years. I bet that would be a 100% loss for most buyers in San Francisco over the past few years. Sold for over asking? What a joke.
I am amazed at how easily drops of a “mere” 10% are dismissed by realtors in this town. What is that a $70K loss for the average buyer over the past few years? No big deal when you collect a $20K commission no matter what happens I guess.
My head hurts for all the spinning to justify a 20% decrease in price.
Hmmmm, a 100+% loss on an investment in only 2 years (assuming they put anything close to 20% down). This doesn’t even account for how much more their mortgage was compared to monthly rents. It took Bernie Madoff over a decade to get these stellar results. Yeah, color this bear shocked!
It is a bit ridiculous to claim that the “relentless bears” got it all wrong because some predicted a 30% price drop and instead it only dropped by 21%. That is a devastating decline in only two years. And the bottom is nowhere in sight. I suspect the new buyer will lose more than the 2007 buyer (and lender) did on this place.
Yes, a questionable argument indeed when seen from the bears side. It’s only one tiny data point in the overall picture, but the mind twistings that justify these more and more frequent data points are getting pretty funny actually. Just like a whack-a-mole game with exponential mole popping and only one bat.
LOL about sfrob’s “relentless bears get it all wrong” comment.
Proud “relentless bear” that I am, here is what I wrote in the earlier thread immediately after the dramatic price cut to $399K:
“I’m guessing that someone will catch this knife around here (because of the large price drop, remodeling, view, and the magic of “noe” which only now seems to be fading).”
Conversely, here is what sfrob said:
“IMO this “would” sell at it’s 2005 value if it weren’t a short sale… but i agree with missionite… it has 2 loans, and i highly doubt the overrun loss mit dept’s of each can agree with each other… so it will become an REO.”
Just who got it wrong?
Like I said, I’m not surprised that it sold. I am a little surprised at the 9% overbid, but there were probably some closing costs wrapped into the loan (and hence the reported price) – that is becoming standard on conforming loans I am told by a family member in the title insurance business who does a few of these a week on the East Coast.
As Trip implied, there is no reason to think that the current buyer is any smarter than the prior buyer, or has any better handle on what a property should be worth objectively. Especially in view of the extremely low interest rates on conforming mortgages, and the fact that it is 21% lower than the last sale, it shouldn’t be too surprising at this early stage of the bubble unwind that at least one of the “Mr. and Mrs. Howmuchamonth?” crowd could not resist the bait. Again, no real surprise to me or to some other bears on the earlier thread who predicted it would sell without going REO, but evidently it was to sfrob!
Yeah, well, I for one simply found Tipster’s insertion of his patented “Chicanery in escrow TM” postulations. Clearly. Funny how the ensuing march of the bears ignored that point. Three years of free HOA, on a two unit building! Taa daaaah! (And Michael, ya took my “over asking” comment out of context, clearly.) Typical.
No mind twistings over here. In fact, I challenged some twisted reasoning. (Thanks for taking my “over asking” out of context, Michael. Nice one.) I simply found Tipster’s “Chicanery in escrow TM” assertions ridiculous as usual. The point was that the last price point, yes arrived at after a reduction, got it down to a price that created competition. This would obviate any and all kickbacks. Funny how none of you found that funny, aint it? typical.
If you cut it, they will come. Again, that was a very smart move.
“Single sellers do not throw in 3 years worth of HOA fees for fun”
Um, it’s a competitive market, and they are going to do what they need to.
Check out this listing (from the current top post on socket site):
“1 yr. HOA concession”
http://sfarmls.rapmls.com/scripts/mgrqispi.dll?APPNAME=Sanfrancisco&PRGNAME=MLSPropertyDetail&ARGUMENTS=-N195003036,-N232385,-N,-A,-N17314384
That’s just one listing, and it’s the initial offer. It just isn’t that hard to get several years of HOA and closing costs these days.
Any how many games have we seen with the final “sale price”. $100K cash back? Huge allocations of the money paid to furnishings? I think the sale prices are pretty flexible in terms of what they cover. I would take them with a grain of salt.
Did you see any such language in this listing, Tipster? Why pay over the asking price in a downmarket? Because it was competitive most likely. There’s no other reason. The extra monies spent during years of interest carried would make such a ploy foolish in a down market. Besides all of that, banks and lenders have gotten wise to it. As if you would know that, or acknowledge it. It would be nice if you would think about what you say for a change instead of going to your “X Files” card every.single.time.
Why pay over the asking price in a downmarket?
Lots of reasons. One of them could be that your agent was worried that there might be another bid, which would cause him to lose out on the commission dollars. The “auction” and “bidding” process are wholly opaque, after all. The agent could tell the potential buyer anything, including that there are “multiple” bids out there and that the buyer should bid “aggressively” to win it. A transparent bidding process could eliminate all that of course. Just saying….
(I bet something like that happened with that 2155 Buchanan propert that recently sold for $925K after asking $885K and 100+ DOM.)
C’mon, fluj. Sure tipster is just speculating, but it is not a completely unreasonable suggestion. If we stuck to “just the facts” this board would get pretty stale. And you’ve done the very same thing: “This condo went over asking. Whether or not it was reduced, it indicates that there was competition post the final reduction.” Your hypothesis is also perfectly fair. But do you know for a fact there were multiple offers — i.e. competition — on this place? It very well may be that a single buyer made a bid, was counter-offered, and accepted for whatever reason.
We’ve see a tremendous amount of funny stuff in the market the last several years. Suggesting there may be more to this price than meets the eye is within reason.
Oh, I think not. In a market such as this one the “there’s another offer coming” card from the listing agent would be much more transparent than opaque. That’s if the open houses at the new pricepoint weren’t full of people. Which they likely were.
I bet something similar to this one happened at the Buchanan property too. I know it’s tough for you lot to get your heads around the fact that there are still a lot of buyers out there, and they will still grudgingly compete if they perceive value. But it’s a fact. You, and others like you are now too far detached from the current market’s nuts and bolts to have much to really say on the subject.
OK Trip. They got three years HOA, free furniture, free sno-cones at 7-11 for a year, and a lifetime supply of Turtle Wax. Have it your way.
anonn,
dude, it’s just closing costs and HOA. Not that unusual in this market.
I’m done talking about this. Think what you’re gonna think. Who cares? If Crayola had a color called “detachment” that’s the crayon you’d be coloring yourself with.
Ha ha, that was great anonn!
If real estate ever dries up, you should be a writer.
Of course, because you’ve been selling real estate for so long, you’d probably be best at writing fiction…
from LMRiM $250K fair value estimate…
And you are pointing out that I was wrong? Seems like some serious backpeddling in your Buchanan comments too. But by comment above wasn’t solely directed at you… it was ALL of the “relentless bears” including those in the earlier thread who said $100,000 was it’s fair market value. They aren’t right, and they will never be right.
The Dow is at 6800 and unemployment is close to 10% and this crappy condo sells for $435k. Good luck with your future “fair value” predictions, I quite certain you’ll be as right as you were here.
They aren’t right, and they will never be right
Good to see you managed to master the art of time travel.
The Dow is at 6800 and unemployment is close to 10% and this crappy condo sells for $435k.
Today. A ball rolling off the hill will not reach the bottom right away. It’s still a little early to say where the bottom will be, but the facts we have are things we can measure: today’s rents and what a landlord expects in terms of ROI when appreciation is taken out of the equation.
Right now the “own to save on rent at any price” crowd is getting fleeced. Once this is done, reasonable pricing will appear.
“Good to see you managed to master the art of time travel.”
You say that to sfrob, and then you immediately go on to make like three future times calls yourself. Could you possibly be any more disingenuous?
Correction:
Once this is done, reasonable pricing could appear.
By kind of a crazy route, 3271 Baker in the Marina entered into this thread yesterday. Price on the place was reduced today to $2,195,000 (shows a 11/25/08 sold price of $2,550,000).
“Think what you’re gonna think.”
Ok, then I’m gonna think that this recently sold for 21% below its purchase price of $552,000 in January of 2007.
“I’m done talking about this”
Didn’t we hear this before? I sense another sockpuppet being crafted.
“Ok, then I’m gonna think that this recently sold for 21% below its purchase price of $552,000 in January of 2007.”
That wasn’t really disputed now, was it?
“Didn’t we hear this before? I sense another sockpuppet being crafted.”
Was that something? It seemed to me like sort of nothing, “Anon.” I understand tho. You see my name and you gotta be contrary. Have a good one, bruh.
Fronzi – by correcting with “could” vs “should” I think you get my point. I don’t think a crappy condo in a 1960’s building that is 565 SqFt large (um, small) should ever sell for $435k, but it did. And in SF, it’s price will continue to out pace the “relentless bears”.
I predicted $350k, and it sold for $435k. If the market continues to drop I’ll eventually be right. But I don’t think that satchel’s predictions, or any other of the “relentless bears” will ever be right in their off the charts predictions.
JMHO afterall, but I am a soul-less Realtor, and besides that making me corrupt, stupid, uneducated, and manipulative, it also gives me insight into a large number of “real” buyers and sellers and their thinking that most SS commenters are totally clueless about. So my time travel machine tells me that $250k is utterly ridiculous no matter how much the bubble unravels for crap places like the one in question
sfrob,
You’re a realistic Realtor, on the contrary. About the trend on the market and the crazy bears’ predictions, “off the charts” is already happening as we never experience such a drop across the board. Will we go back to the mid-90s prices? Something in between (Another 10-20%)?
As a Realtor you know emotions are an essential element in the business. First impressions, staging, “home” feel, the idea that you’ll miss out if you do not buy, the pressure of family members. I played on all these parameters when I was selling my own places. I think this market has a lot of emotion built in it. I see it around me. Some of my friends bought in the past 3 years in SF, Silicon Valley, NY, Santa Barbara, Portland, all are under water and stuck. All are in a frozen state (denial, mostly). This is non-scientific (and nothing in RE really is) but I think this market is everything but rational from a cold-hard-numbers point of view. This is the perfect environment for the brutal “asset reallocation” that is happening today.
Fronzi, your language is conclusive, as if you understand the SF marketplace. The two options you present SFRob with “Will we go back to the mid-90s prices? Something in between (Another 10-20%)?”
Just those two choices, eh? Whatever.
[Removed by Editor]
Choice 3: prices go back to their 15% a year natural appreciation as they should to bail everyone out of their bad timing.
Oh, that’s choice 3? Huh. That looks more like a “Fronzi Flame TM.”
Choice 3 is more like: San Francisco continues to slightly slide downward from its current ~5 – 10 % off-peak status, to a somewhat lower plateau. Individual properties continue to sell for both peak prices, and for occasionally 20 percent off peak. Bears on socketsite will continue to ignore the former and trumpet the latter, until true stasis is reached. At which point they’ll all slowly get replaced by more bullish posters.
“San Francisco continues to slightly slide downward from its current ~5 – 10 %”
I think you meant to post this in that “cognitive dissonance” thread and not this one, which is about a further indication that the “slide” is already 2 to 4 times worse than your pulled-out-of-thin-air numbers.
I do not see how my “Choice 3” was a flame. Or is there something we should know?
“Choice 3: prices go back to their 15% a year natural appreciation as they should to bail everyone out of their bad timing.”
That wasn’t a flame? please. 15% — flame. “Natural” — flame. “Bad timing” — flame. The underlying concept that you understand home buyers’ mindsets, and belittle it — flame.
Who is “DOM-bag”? San FronziScheme? I guess I really don’t see anything that extreme about his post (and I’m surprised you reacted so strongly to it). I suppose the comment that “‘off the charts” is already happening’ overstates it, but whether you call SF’s current decline from the peak roughly 18 months ago 10% or 20% (or more), either one is unprecedented as far as I know for such a short period.
Trip,
I do stand behind my “off the charts” comment. In the la-la-land of forever appreciation punctuated by a few 5-10% corrections, the current situation is definitely unprecedented, at least in our lifetimes (presuming we’re all less than 70 year old).
I used to live in SF and am glad I found this site. I just looked up “Local Info” on “Noe Valley” on Zillow.com. There are 7 units sold within the last 30 days. Of these 4 have previous sale prices from the last few years. I think area does include a bit of Diamond Heights.
651 27th St San Francisco CA 94131
3 beds, 2.0 baths, 1,175 sq ft
02/18/2009: $1,195,000
09/24/2007: $1,500,000
02/18/2004: $1,200,000
142 Clipper St San Francisco CA 94114
1 beds, 1.0 baths, 1,007 sq ft
02/19/2009: $700,000
09/07/2007: $760,000
07/14/2005: $650,000
5023 Diamond Heights Blvd # 12 San Francisco CA 94131
3 beds, 3.0 baths, 2,173 sq ft
02/12/2009: $753,000
06/12/2008: $702,773
11/14/2003: $748,000
130 Gold Mine Dr San Francisco CA 94131
3 beds, 2.0 baths, 1,387 sq ft
02/04/2009: $701,000
08/01/2002: $650,000
At the risk of over-generalizing (why not, everyone else here does), I think prices in District 5 right now are at about 2004-05 levels.
“…why not, everyone else here does…”
^^^ that’s pretty funny. generalizing about people generalizing.
To be specific, I rarely generalize 🙂