As we wrote this past September:
Listed for $2,100,000 in April 2008, the two-bedroom Green Hill Tower (1070 Green) condo #902 sold with a “confidential” sale price reported on the MLS that June. As such, the list price of $2,100,000 would have been used when compiling MLS based median and average sale price reports.
Public records, however, suggest the sale price for the Russian Hill home was actually $1,910,000. And two weeks ago, the two-bedroom view condo returned to the market listed for $1,695,000. Currently in contract, but it would appear that not all contingencies have yet been waived.
The sale of 1070 Green Street #902 closed escrow today with a reported contract price of $1,675,000, 12 percent ($235,000) under its recorded sale price in 2008.
aninee already explained this “rotten” apple on the previous thread cited by the editor.
“yeah, two year hold in the midst of worldwide economic turmoil=not a good idea.” Posted by: anonee at September 22, 2010 2:31 PM
Not that “singular” data points say anything about the neighborhood.
[Editor’s Note: We’re assuming that’s sarcasm, but just in case…keep in mind that a “rotten” investment doesn’t make for a “rotten” apple which is simply a measure of the market versus a return.]
Down only 12% from mid-2008 is pretty good, considering. They only lost about $350k after costs, more of course if you compare it to the cost of equivalent rent. But renting would have been “throwing money away”.
they should have rented if they contemplated such a short holding time.
i guess everyone knows the market has come down since the peak?
“they should have rented if they contemplated such a short holding time.”
True, obviously, in hindsight, and crystal clear to many in mid-2008 regardless of the projected hold time. But this was not the conventional wisdom in SF in mid-2008. My educated guess is that the 2008 buyers:
a) did not anticipate selling so quickly. But life happens, which is why rent vs. buy calculations should assume a reasonably short (5-7 yr) hold to properly factor in the risks and transaction costs.
Or
b) they anticipated a short hold but did not want to “throw away money on rent” (as El Bombero notes) even for a short period, and prices “only go up” in SF so they would sell for more even two years later.
Could have gotten quite a nice Tahoe vacation home today w/ 100% cash for that $350k they “threw away on buying.” Or put two kids through great colleges. Or bought an annuity and had a few extra thousand dollars a month in retirement for life.
oh they should have rented? “schlepped” their family from rental to rental? Are you not the guy who mocked lmrim for “schlepping his family from rental to rental?
Anyone who wants to pay me $300,000, I’ll be happy to do the shclepping.
@stalker,
“oh they should have rented? “schlepped” their family from rental to rental? Are you not the guy who mocked lmrim for “schlepping his family from rental to rental?”
if you are going to stay somewhere less than 5 years you should probably rent to cut down on unreasonable transaction costs (unless you are planning to fix and flip, of course).
that’s doubly true if re prices have been on a lengthy tear.
otoh, if you are a self proclaimed “millionaire”,
a “hedge fund” guy who tells everyone that 45yo hipster’s ‘crappy tic’s are worth the rounding error of your monthly expenses’ and other such boasts, well heck, i would think that you had the wherewithal to stay out of mcdonalds and to suck it up and buy a house to settle down in and teach your 3 year old calculus…lol!
anyway, anyone who would trade florida for california does not seem to be such a good trader, imo. same as the guy buying a $2m condo, during the great unraveling and then selling into the collapse. but hey, they have their reasons.
^The *start* of the collapse.
He’s going to look like a genius a year from now.