No photos and few details, but we couldn’t help but notice the (short sale) listing for a ninth floor studio at 199 New Montgomery seeking $225,000.
In addition to said studio there are currently ten other listings at 199 New Montgomery. And as plugged-in people know, that’s only about half the effective inventory.
∙ Listing: 199 New Montgomery #911 (0/1) – $225,000 [MLS]
∙ Selling The Rest Of Their Sold Out Inventory At 199 New Montgomery [SocketSite]
property shark shows it was purchased in 2005 for 400K, with a 320K first loan and 80K second loan, if i’m reading it correctly (new to property shark). if one made an offer at asking price, how likely/unlikely is it both banks will clear this transaction?
I’ll take this unit for $275k if it had deeded parking. Sight unseen.
It’ll sell for $225k to an investor and will be on the rental market soon.
condoshopper,
The purchase price seemed outrageous to what they are now asking, so I double checked the tax records at the SF Tax Collector website. It appears you are correct. Also, no NODs, but there is a mechanics lien on the place. Checking the records, I’m speculating this was a flip to someone who can no longer afford the recast payments (first is listed as a variable rate mortgage). What really sickens me is that this sale appears to have been used as a baseline comp for other 412 sq.ft. units in the building that were subsequently (re)sold.
if memory serves me right, i think this unit was listed during summer-fall of last year and i visited the open house. they were asking 450K or so, and the unit is interior, facing the i guess what you can call a light well and looks directly at the other walls and windows, so no view to speak of here.
EBguy you are right on the comp issue; these 412 sq ft floor plans went up to 500K at some point, according to a realtor who tried to make me bid on a similar unit.
This sounds awful. Even if it commanded $1200/mo in rent, that only leaves $800/mo for the mortgage and taxes.
Could someone explain, in short simple sentences, why this is an “investment”?
Redfin shows the unit has been listed off and on since Oct 2008.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/199-New-Montgomery-St-94105/unit-911/home/17461857
HOA dues seem high for such a small place with no parking.
Is the Unit # a coincidence or what??
[Editor’s Note: We shouldn’t have let that one slide (and have since updated the headline).]
Too small, too interior, and HOA too high. Make it $300 and throw in parking.
Holy crap, this building is really going downhill fast. I know two people here who are considering walking because they’re underwater and can no longer afford their readjusted payments.
One estate sale hit this building (a 1/1 on the 7th floor, if I’m not mistaken), which sent comps downwards on similar units by about 100K.
I can’t help but wonder how low this building will go, but I suspect that we have a lot of pent up demand to sell units with distressed mortgage holders or that are soon to become bank owned.
Yikes.
If half the inventory is for sale, what does that do to the HOA fees for someone who buys into that unit? I know if it was was newly built unsold by the developer, then the developer has to pay the HOA fees until it gets sold.
But once its sold, then if people abandon their property, the burden of HOA fees fall on the rest of the occupants, no? I don’t know for sure, but it sounds like the other units have been abandoned, and aren’t unsold by the developer. Wouldn’t that mean that HOA fees could continue to rise for whomever buys into this place, for as long as the other units are unsold?
The developer didn’t abandon units. Any individual who bought a unit and abandons it and won’t pay, sticks the association with the bill. They can send a collection agency after the individual, but good luck. If the lender takes it over, they are not neccesarily on the hook for the dues. Most associations build in some loss reserve. And since this building has had an operating for a while (4 years?) they’ve likley built up enough reserve to deal with some delinquency.
My understanding was that the developer might be in some distress from other commitments, though I do not know that for sure. The building might have some reserves built up, but there are more than a few units currently in arrears on their dues – at least that’s what my sources at 199 tell me.
It’s a pity. This is really a rather good building. Not all units are equal, and certainly those that face a center courtyard with no view are less than desirable. But we need medium density housing like this in SF, and it should be affordable to the middle class. Maybe once all this shakes out it will be.
The loan is against the property is approximately $319k The listing agent is very evasive about showing the property. he says they are trying to arrange ONE showing for anyone who is interested to see the property and then 8-10 days later they will accept offers. He say the “short sale negotiator” is in control of setting up the showings and he doesn’t have contact info for the owner… hmmmmmmmmm?
what’s the % of condos with deeded/asigned parking in 199 New Montgomery St?