3570 Washington
While MLS based reports and sales history reflect a “confidential” sale price of $5,600,000 for 3570 Washington in April 2009, it was a plugged-in reader that first reported the property had actually sold for $5,225,000 (which public records confirm).
And just five months after said purchase, the Presidio Heights property returned to the market asking a real $5,600,000. Yesterday the list price was reduced to $5,250,000.
∙ Listing: 3570 Washington (6/3.5) – $5,250,000 [presidioheightsviewhome.com] [MLS]
If You Missed It When It Sold Five Months Ago… [SocketSite]

15 thoughts on “Perhaps Seven Percent More Five Months Later Was A Bit Aggressive”
  1. Can socket site (or another reader) clarify how to access the public records that confirmed a $5.225MM sale price. Is there a website with a tax assessment and then you gross up based on the tax rate? Perhaps a post on the most helpful real estate resources, on the web or otherwise. I took a quick look through the “real estate resources” tag but didn’t find anything. Thanks much

  2. Previous owner before this attempted flipper must have had it for a long time. The tax value was under $370K in 2008.

  3. I saw this place when it came back on the market; all the current owners did was give it a coat of paint and possibly clean the carpets. They over-paid in April last year and it’s still overpriced even with them loosing money now (which they will, given the sale costs).

  4. This is interesting because I’ve been perplexed by published sales prices on Redfin, (MLS) etc that contradict reported sales prices to me. This also applies to Square Footage. Recently, I’m noticing that many of Redfin’s Sold prices are actually the last Asking price. I assume Redfin and MLS reports are the same.
    Redfin shows 3570 Washington St now asking $5,250,000 but the caption under the picture says, Last Sale: $5,600,000 (04/28/2009) which we now know is inaccurate. This can be very misleading when their published Sold Prices are widely being used as Comps.
    I first noticed this with the sale of Sea Cliff’s 632 El Camino Del Mar. My records always showed that it sold for 8M but Redfin and others say 9M. The former owners actually took a big loss, similar to 135 Fernwood Dr. They purchased using approximately $4M equity from their previous home, 98 Sea Cliff Ave and getting a First Mortgage of 4M. After they purchased 632 El Camino Del Mar for $7,950,000, they took an additional $3M construction loan for the renovation.
    Other Redfin\MLS Discrepancies:
    45 McLaren Avenue $4,200,000.
    Redfin $4,580,000.
    2601 Lyon Street $5,700,000.
    Redfin $6,399,500.
    2310 Buchanan Street $2,750,000.
    Redfin $3,590,000.
    3222 Jackson Street $6,000,000.
    Redfin $6,995,000.
    Since we are not privy to the terms and conditions of the sales agreements, we really don’t know if there are any credit backs or other discrepancies that may affect\amend the actual recorded sale prices. How are we supposed to know what anything is worth when we can’t depend on any info that we get?

  5. It is interesting that every error is in the direction of making RE sales look higher. That implies that they are not random and there is a bias in the way these stats are computed.

  6. That’s only your reading, which indicates bias. Because actually the reported, asterisk attached price is the same as the list price. Who wanted it that way, the client or the agent? It’s not known. The practice will most likely be coming to a stop by and large anyway.

  7. That people are still trying to flip properties like this tells me that prices still have a long way to drop/correct before we have a more normal market based on fundamentals.

  8. Was this really a “flip?” Did someone actually think the market was going to improve in 5 months and they’d make a profit? I don’t think it works that way. Holding for a few years, maybe, but not this. There’s probably more to this story that we aren’t seeing.

  9. Milkshake, it’s that the MLS practice is to use the last listing price as anonn said. That intentionally introduces a bias into the numbers because list prices are generally higher than sales prices these days (and usually are, except for the recent boom).
    How often did this happen when all houses were selling for over asking? I bet there were fewer instances.

  10. The current owner appears to be firmly entrenched on the East Coast (venture firm, non-profit board member, class at Colombia), so its unclear in my mind why they bought this place. That’s one heck of a pied-à-terre — or maybe a flip?
    I’ve spent too much time on this… ahhh, looks like the owner holds the note on his daughter’s(?) house about half a mile away in Pac Heights. Maybe this was supposed to be an upgrade for them? At any rate, there is no deed of trust (that I can see at least) on 3570 Washington; now that’s deep pockets…

  11. My guess was always, they bought this house without having unloaded another property. When that failed to sell they had to throw this one back on the market. That seems more logical than an insta flip.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *