1167 Bosworth
While the sale of 48 Chenery closed escrow on Friday, 1167 Bosworth returned to the market. Having sold for $1,000,000 in 2004, the single-family Glen Park home was listed for $850,000 this past February and closed escrow for $1,051,000 this past March.
If a plugged-in tipster recalls correctly, the second highest bid this past March was under $900,000. There’s nothing quite like finding out you paid over $150,000 (18 percent) more than the next highest bidder.
Perhaps hoping for another 30 percent over asking outcome (and another outlier bid), 1167 Bosworth has been listed for $925,000 (the sellers are “relocating”), a sale at which would represent a 7.5 percent decline in value below its year 2004 price (12 percent less than this past March).
∙ Listing: 1167 Bosworth (3/2) – $925,000 [MLS]
While One Glen Park Apple Improved Resale Is Picked… [SocketSite]

15 thoughts on “1167 Bosworth Is Back And Seeking Another Outlier Bid”
  1. This is a nice looking house, but a VERY busy corner as everyone west rushes down the hill to get to 280. Busy enough to merit a stop light!

  2. wow, that is brutal. we went to the open house back in feb/march and it was PACKED. not surprised it went for over asking (but am a bit surprised the second offer was less than $900k). cute house. terrible location. my condolences to the new sellers.

  3. I’m curious to know how the plugged-in tipster knows that the second-highest bid back in March was under $900k. Not that I doubt his sources for a moment, but I thought this information was kept confidential. Is there a(n easy) way for the buyers of a property to find out what the other bids below theirs were and just how great their winners’ curse was (if they want to know, of course!)?

  4. St. George, none of the other bids are going to be public record, obviously. Realtors talk and if you’re friendly with one and they’ve got the info. they’ll tell you.

  5. “enormous professionally equipped KIT” that is lacking sufficient cabinet space. Works best if you don’t mind carting your dishes from the dining room, which does have some dish space. The bathrooms look like they were forced into the space, and some or all of the bedrooms look small.
    What’s also suspicious is the permit history, or specifically the lack thereof. Tax records show this place to have 1 bathroom and only 1000 square feet. Maybe that explains why the elements look so forced, no permits.
    There are only 2 building permits in the last 20 years, one in 1991 for re-roofing and one in 2007 (that was never finalized) for adding 2 skylights. Nothing about adding square footage or bathrooms. A new sewer line was adding in 2008.
    Of course, the current buyers seem to have bought without caring about these things.

  6. I actually think it’s not bad. LR, DR, Kitchen and even great room? 3 bedrooms. My goodness, a family could actually live here. clearly it has its issues, and clearly the previous sellers were insane to bid that amount in this market, but the house has its plusses…
    this will be interesting. let’s see if that 5-20% SF RE appreciation holds true for this home.
    From the last thread:
    “And that’s another problem with CS. The post late 2008 buyer by and large needed to put more money down in SF, and by and large had a better idea what he or she could afford. So you’ll probably not see as many of those turn over as rapidly.”
    ironic that we get this thread right after this comment was made (actually this thread was put up prior to when the comment above was made.) I just find it humorous… this one instance obviously proves nothing and may be just odd luck.
    Even the staunchest of bulls recognize that such a short term hold is catastrophe on a balance sheet. it’d be interesting to hear the back story on this.

  7. Let’s face it, the most humorous thing here is that the same people who proclaimed CS as harbinger of doom now are saying it isn’t worth much. Nothing, but nothing, compares to that in terms of funny. As for this Bosworth house, hey, it is one. You’re right. And of course on paper most anybody would think they stand to lose money. (I’d have thought the Collingwood condo would have lost money too.)

  8. Stats can be right at times and wrong at times. You need to always check them with other indicators to find out whether they are currently wrong or right. So it’s possible that a stat is correct and was used as such and is now not correct and is being called out for what it is.
    As for a short term hold, it is only a catastrophe when prices aren’t rising very fast. I didn’t see many short term holders in 2004-2005 losing money. So a short term hold in and of itself is not indicative of a catastrophe.

  9. @ Ex SF-er: It’s not only not bad, it’s a very cute place. Problem is the location. Good luck pulling-in or backing out of your garage. Heavy traffic ZOOMS past this place. Location, location, location.

  10. I looked at this place too. Nice house in a very challenged and dangerous – trafficwise – location. I was stunned when it went for so much over asking.

  11. I’m glad to see that folks are acknowledging the nice aspects of this home as well as the drawbacks. Nothing you can do about the location, but agree that it is really a busy street. We looked at this house back in what I think was 2004/2005 and saw the potential, and it looks like the owners took care of at least a few things, most notably, the backyard.

  12. It is technically in Bernal. South of San Jose Ave yes but not south of 280. I would think it is still somewhat comparable.

Leave a Reply

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