33 Prosper
As we wrote last month:

Purchased in July of 2007 for $920,000, the single-family re-work in progress at 33 Prosper was taken “back by the bank” (or more accurately the Kahn Family Trust) in July 2009. It’s another Muhawieh driven comp of yore asking $789,000 today.

On Friday the sale of 33 Prosper closed escrow with a reported contract price of $770,000. And as the list price for 33 Prosper was reduced from $789,000 to $770,000 on the same day it closed escrow, it’s another sale “at asking” according to those industry stats.
UPDATE: While still unexplained, apparently the recorded List Price change for 33 Prosper on April 16 occurred after the listing’s status was changed to Sold earlier that day. And as such, it appears (at least on the surface) as though the sale will be reported at 2 percent under asking. Cheers.
UPDATE (4/21): Mystery partially solved by a plugged-in reader (cheers!).
33 Prosper was listed on the MLS twice, once under Single-Family Homes and once under Lots & Acreage. The List Price for the listing under Single-Family Homes wasn’t changed on April 16 and reflects a sale at 97.59% of asking. The List Price for listing under Lots & Acreage, however, was in fact changed on April 16 and reflects a sale at 100% of asking.
We’ll just average the two and call it a reported 99% (and two sales for the price of one).
UPDATE (4/21): And the List Price for the Lots & Acreage listing for 33 Prosper has just been changed back to $789,000. Both now reflect sales at 97.59% of asking.
An Ironic Address For Another Ex-Muhawieh Property (33 Prosper) [SocketSite]
Two More Muhawieh Comps Of Yore Head For The Courthouse Steps [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by anonn

    Malawieh didn’t make much money on the buy with his last few, that’s for sure. On the other note, changing the list price 19K while in escrow, if that’s actually what happened, is weird.

  2. Posted by anonn

    That’s not how it reads at all. It actually reads like the property was contingent till the very end, is all. This site should really be more certain before it casts stones sometimes. Irresponsible.
    [Editor’s Note: Listed on March 4 at $789,000; contingent on March 15; reported sold on April 16 at $770,000; list price changed on April 16 to $770,000. In all sincerity, what are we missing?]

  3. Posted by D

    At first I was going to snark about the price for a boarded-up special. But, the location is amazing. No snarking here, just wish I had the cash to have financed the construction.

  4. Posted by anonn

    The MLS very clearly shows a 789K list and a 770K sale, with 97.59% of lp captured. What you’re missing is that it went from contingent to pending to sold in the space of about 40 minutes. Nobody manipulated price here. It was simply contingent up until the end.
    [Editor’s Note: Again, if you can explain the List Price – not status – change to $770,000 on April 16 (and it’s impact on any sales stats) we’re all ears.]

  5. Posted by A.T.

    Yeah, it’s irresponsible to correctly note that the “asking” price was reduced on the day it closed. You’re bringing to light the games that realtors play and the misleading information they put out to the public, man. It was contingent till the very end, so, you know, well, they can change the asking price on the day it closes because they just can. Man, that’s just irresponsible.

  6. Posted by anonn

    That’s not the current information, ed. I’ve told you what is on display. Also, the MLS doesn’t show the list price changing on 4/16. It shows a sale on 4/16.
    AT, why do you feel like there’s a place for your uninformed words here? What’s your point? I’m telling you exactly what the database displays. Yet you think you can talk? The Mission hasn’t changed in 10 years. Yesterday it was the most ever for a property on a street is not significant. Now you’re talking about something you obviously haven’t even looked at.

  7. Posted by A.T.

    fluj: “the MLS doesn’t show the list price changing on 4/16.”
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/33-Prosper-St-94114/home/708301
    “Apr 16, 2010 Price Changed $770,000 — Inactive San Francisco MLS #367244
    Apr 16, 2010 Sold (MLS) $770,000 — Inactive San Francisco MLS #367244”
    Rule #1 for those who lack all credibility is to challenge the credibility of anyone who calls them on it — even if you just have to make something up.

  8. Posted by noearch

    I could swear I read here that fluj was no longer around.

  9. Posted by EH

    anonn, are you using that karl rove-style math again?

  10. Posted by anonn

    Like I said, the list price wasn’t changed. Why would someone manipulate the numbers for two days and then go back and let the proper trajectory stand? They wouldn’t. No reason at all. Not exactly sure what happened on 4/16 but it reads like a typo. Not a place to grandstand per se. But hey, keep on hating with your half-formed thoughts. They love it on here, obviously.
    [Editor’s Note: The problem is the List Price was changed. Whether or not it was changed on accident, and how changing a List Price after a listing’s status has been changed to Sold effects any downstream stats, we’ll probably never know. Regardless, we’ve added an UPDATE above.]

  11. Posted by anon

    The last list price for that listing will show up as the selling price, no? So if you’re pulling stats of last list price vs. selling, it’ll appear that it sold at asking.

  12. Posted by anonn

    The MLS, neither in its history, nor in the way it currently reads, shows a changing of list price. Redfin gets its data from the MLS. So why Redfin would display it that way is unknown. But it looks like someone hit “sold” instead of “pending.” AT, you’re welcome to apologize any time you say something to me, with venom, that gets shown to be stupid.
    [Editor’s Note: CleanOffer which also pulls directly from the MLS reflects a List Price change on April 16 as well.]

  13. Posted by anonn

    So they had the admins delete a mistake. Not before Redfin and Cleanoffer harvested the data. But before a certain blog spun it a certain way.

  14. Posted by nsc 68

    Socketsite- Your attempt to tie the street name into the title makes the title misleading. Since when is 2% under asking a bad deal for the seller?

  15. Posted by Scooter

    ^^
    Maybe when it’s $150K under what the last guy purchased it for?

  16. Posted by formerly%whatever

    I think editor is wrong on this one. The reported sales price ends up being in the “New Price” column, and under the “Change Type” column the entry is “Price/Status”. Looks to me like any other sale report. There was no last minute price change that I can see.

  17. Posted by jw2200

    The problem seems to be that the MLS has the property listed in two separate categories — single family home and lots/acreage.
    The history in the MLS for the single family home listing is very clear and there is nothing unusual about it. Unfortunately I can’t reproduce it here and maintain the format so I’ve reworked the format:
    Listed: 3/4/10, $789,000
    Contingent: 3/15/10
    Pending: 4/19/10
    Closed: 4/19/10 with the sold price reported as $770,000. The MLS reports the property sold for 97.59% of list price.
    The MLS shows exactly the same dates and numbers for the lots/acreage listing EXCEPT that the MLS reports the property selling for 100% of list.
    Redfin seems to have attempted to “merge” the information from both listings but it is easy to see that only one of the listings indicates a “price change” on the close date. Redfin also reports that the property was “delisted” on 3/15/10 which is actually the date the property went into contract.
    One of the problems using a secondary source of information is the potential for inaccuracies to creep in. And, in this case, the primary source is wrong on one of the listings.
    A quick call to the listing or the selling agent (both are shown in the Redfin information) probably could have resolved the apparent discrepancy. But I guess it’s more fun to jump to to dark side conclusion that the listing agent must be trying to manipulate the numbers.
    In this market, the listing agent can be justifiably proud of being able to sell this property very close to asking price in less than 45 days.

  18. Posted by stucco-sux

    That is a high high price. Yes its a sweet little street, but the corner has a lot to not like. The price ultimately depresses me. We live in a town where even a totally effed up shell in an ok spot goes for an absolute fortune. The early gay’s whose whole bliss was to find these sorts of properties and turn them into personal statements would throw up their hands and move to Palm Springs over a price like that. Its google money, and ultimately that distorts the market to the point where life isn’t fun here anymore. Just sayin.

  19. Posted by Oceangoer

    Hey stucco-sux, for many of us life is still fun here. Dissing high prices by using the google ploy is getting old. And anyway some stucco looks pretty good 🙂 Just sayin.

  20. Posted by sucky_lamer

    Dude not even the almighty GOOG is currently handing out the cash for people to drop 800k on a shell of a house like this.
    I don’t know where it comes from, but yeah it’s depressing as hell. The total price of 1.X million between purchase and renovation arguably represent the sum total of my earnings for the next 20 years. I make 6 figures (barely) BTW. Very depressing.

  21. Posted by lol

    What do I hear, GOOG stopped handing out cash?
    1) Stock bonus handout
    Please follow this link.
    Look the the row Stock-based Compensation Expense.
    GOOG is still printing money. In Q1 2010 it expensed TWO HUNDRED AND NIGHTY ONE DOLLARS. It’s as big as in previous quarters.
    2) Options exchange
    Also remember that in January 2009 GOOG decided to perform a stock option exchange when it was at less than 300. The lucky ones saw the shares they could sell almost double.
    That’s HUNDREDs of Millions, people. Divide this by the few 100 people who get to cash out. Compare to SF’s low inventory.
    And GOOG is not the only one. AAPL is printing money as well. And INTC and many others…
    Get used to it. Spoiled brats are buying up the region. They just don’t know what to do with it.

  22. Posted by ex SF-er

    lol:
    the GOOG 1:1 stock exchange was a one off event, designed to encourage “older” workers to stop jumping to Facebook. (at one point most of the stock options were all underwater).
    it replaced “lost” wealth as opposed to generating a lot of “new” wealth. (Some Googleaires saw their “net worth” fall by nearly half… the 1:1 stock exchange just replaced of that loss.
    Those who arrived early (pre-going public) to GOOG all minted massive bucks. The early arrivals were paid so-so salaries but got lots of options. (this includes my first degree relatives, so I know the workings well).
    The later arrivals didn’t fare so well. They got a modest amount of stock options and a so-so salary. (great compared to average households, but only so-so when you compare to the juggernaut salaries techies expect).
    Any recent arrivals (in the last few years) are paid modest salaries and few options. certainly nothing that can afford to buy nice SF properties.
    at this point, GOOG is a place you go to have a great job and a reasonable salary, but it certainly isn’t minting many more millionaires (some, but not many).
    IMO most of the Googleaires who are going to buy have already bought.
    GOOG stock is still a good metric for SF area income but is more abstract now, since GOOG can be used as a proxy for tech (actually, it’s a better proxy for advertising but I digress).
    the big question for SF real estate: how will it replace the rich tech folk from the dotcom bubble and the echo Google-bubble?
    Many hope that facebook and Twitter will fill the void. Facebook has a chance, but I think it may not help SF on a net basis, since many of Facebooks gains will come at an expense to Google.
    (they’re both essentially media companies that make their money through advertising)
    Likewise, many of Apple’s future gains may also come at an expense to google. (since people with iPhones and iPads often don’t use google to search, they can use apps etc instead).
    I think twitter will be a minor player.
    the problem is that much of Bay Area tech 2.0 is all based on advertising… so you have a lot of media companies masquerading as tech companies… but economically they will behave like advertisers.
    on the plus side for Bay area: the tech juggernauts can continue to steal from traditional media (newspapers, TV, mags, etc)… so the overall pie may still grow even though Google/Microsoft/Facebook/MySpace will fight for ad revenue.

  23. Posted by lol

    ex SF-er,
    GOOG went public in late 2004. People who are fully vested came in before Q2 2006, at a share price of less than 450. There was a lot of hiring in 2005-2006 if I recall (2 friends were hired at that time). Most of these people are in the money and funnly vested. GOOG recognizes this by including the “Stock-based Compensation Expense” to the clip of 291M, which is close to the highest they ever gave in any Q.
    I agree GOOG can be used as a proxy for tech.
    AAPL does not eat that much into GOOG’s market for now. The number of PCs/Macs still increases. Macs are a big part of AAPL’s growth and evenue. People buying Macs use Google too. The iPhone/iPad will make a dent eventually, but there’s room for both to grow their own way for a while. As the iPad goes more mainstream, there will be pressure to use it like a Mac and that will propagate to the iPhone. An interesting factoid on the next iPhone is that it has a camera pointed towards the user. Maybe a hint that AAPL sees iPhone/iPads as a perfect replacement for mobile computing which it is not for now.

  24. Posted by SocketSite

    UPDATE: Mystery partially solved by a plugged-in reader as noted above (cheers!).
    33 Prosper was listed on the MLS twice, once under Single-Family Homes and once under Lots & Acreage. The List Price for the listing under Single-Family Homes wasn’t changed on April 16 and reflects a sale at 97.59% of asking. The List Price for listing under Lots & Acreage, however, was in fact changed on April 16 and reflects a sale at 100% of asking.
    We’ll just average the two and call it a reported 99% (and two sales for the price of one).

  25. Posted by SocketSite

    UPDATE: And…the List Price for the Lots & Acreage listing for 33 Prosper has just been changed back to $789,000. Both now reflect sales at 97.59% of asking.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles