Purchased for $4,911,000 in March of 2008, one reader believes 1940 Broadway #6 quietly sold for $4,100,000 in February 2010, but that’s a sale we can’t confirm. That being said, we can now confirm its sale for $4,000,000 $4,200,000 a week ago, 14 percent under its 2008 price.
In the words of another plugged-in reader two weeks ago: “not only under contract…but co-op approved, and de-staged…all in 5 days!”
∙ A Heights Of The Heights Apple Returns (1940 Broadway #6) [SocketSite]
I guess this is another example of a D7 property on a “busy thoroughfare” ’cause those are the only property types that have taken a hit. More importantly, though, scare tactics are over – this subpar place only took a 19% hit, less than a million dollar loss.
Wow, another ~ million dollar loss in Pac Heights. Take that D10!
Right. The 561K 2008 overbid means nothing in Socketsite’s world. That’s why it wasn’t reported. Listen, I’m not interested in going tit for tat with trolls like you guys on this uneven playing field. And always the same language from the insipid “bridge as roof” mafia? It’s so boring. Plus your bosses at whatever jobs you’re currently goofing off at when you always try to bait me will thank me later.
[Editor’s Note: Actually, we believe the sale for $561,000 over asking in 2008 means the market disagreed with the agent’s list price and marked the asset to market at $4,911,000.]
comp up, comp down.
Your skull has been crushed countless times attempting to eat the cheese.
Uh, flujie, SS noted the original asking and the sale price back in 2008 and again last month.
I do love this comment from movingback after that 2008 sale was reported:
“I love it when the doom and gloom crowd is proven wrong on here. So, will this one factor into the exhausting debates on here that all real estate in San Francisco is going down? Or can we agree that in some places it is indeed not at all? Hmmmmm …. ”
I ask those questions again – will this one factor into the exhausting debates on here that all real estate in San Francisco is going down?
Yes.
Can we agree that in some places it is indeed not at all?
Those who are reasonable at all can all agree on the precise opposite after this million dollar loss on a 3-year hold in Prime Real SF. Well, there is perhaps one stubborn exception.
This particular thread wasn’t framed with the 2008 list price displayed.
Movingback was right when he made that comment, in 2008. Things change. They changed later that year. The market will go back up one day too. That is what markets do. They go up and down. Nobody, but nobody is saying that the market is not down since 2008.
If the 2008 buyer hadn’t grossly overbid the property value would have lost, what, 8%? That’s probably more in keeping with what prime Pacific Heights peak to trough properties are doing.
“the market disagreed”
Yes, that’s the stance that this website has, market as efficient entity. Others who understand that the SFRE market is an inefficient closed bidding market view it differently. They view it along the lines of individual people making decisions. Sometimes good ones, sometimes poor ones. You do not know that the next highest bid wasn’t 400K less, for example.
Finally realizing that they needed to be flexible and reasonable on pricing is what sold this place. It sat on the market for a while at unreasonable prices before this. See my notes on the prior thread regarding how long many of the condos in this co-op building sat on the market (#6, #7, #8, and #9) because of people’s unwillingness to deal.
@anon – Well, if you consider asking prices more relevant then transaction prices then the Sept 2008 list of $5.2M makes for quite a large $1.2M undersell.
https://socketsite.com/archives/2008/09/the_heights_of_foreshadowing_1940_broadway_6_returns.html
“More relevant” is not something I said. But again you are ascribing precision. I am not, particularly for relatively unique properties such as this one. It should be obvious that they were all over the map with pricing and anything but precise.
Unique, just like the other three floors of this building that are likely available!
“But again you are ascribing precision. I am not,”
Note though that the $1.2M under ask is more then double the 561k over ask (which you quoted to three significant figures!!).
You implied bias since the latter was not mentioned, but it could be considered balance rather then precision to bring up the former.
4.911 is sort of an odd price for a bid.
This looks more likely like a very precise, calculating estimate of market value, likely assisted or suggested by the buyer’s friendly realtor.
In any event, the continued decline of SF real estate is truly amazing. Huge amounts of money are being lost every day. Pretty amazing, if you ask me.
I’m not sure why you guys are dwelling on 2008. The $4.9M price for #6 was a fair market price at that time. The market then tanked, get over it. I can confirm that in Feb, 2010 it was under contract before the broker showing and did in fact sell for $4.1M. That price was above the listed price of $3.995M. #8 also sold in Feb, 2010 for slightly less I believe. I can also confirm that SocketSite is WRONG and that #6 just sold again in Feb, 2011 for $4.2M (not $4.0M) representing 2.4% INCREASE over the 2010 price. Once again the property was under agreement before the broker open house and closed shortly thereafter. No surprise, as it is a beautiful apartment and priced to market! If the poor owner of #7 ever gets serious and prices to market (still in denial having purchased the unit in 2008 for something north of $5M and trying to stay whole), it will sell just as quickly. Any other questions?
[Editor’s Note: If so, someone might want to tell Sotheby’s, because the agent reported a March (not February) sale at $4,000,000 (not $4,200,000).]
I’ve been of the opinion that SF will trade sideways/mildly lower very slowly for a longer period of time; I’ve also been of the opinion that there are too many variables to forecast with any confidence for me or anyone else.
But, it sure seems like it’s worse than I thought if the bulls on the site are pointing to a $911,000 (maybe it’s “only” $711,000 ex-transaction costs if the last post is accurate) loss as being not a big deal because it’s less than $1mm. They overpaid, it’s a busy street, it’s a poor layout . . .etc. Basically, if it is down significantly, it is not the “real SF.”
As far as the uneven playing field. Please post relevant apples to the contrary. Some people will try to look at examples objectively, including myself. It’s an open forum. If you want to talk about an uneven playing field, let’s talk about the real estate industry and the NAR and about 85% of realtors and the “information” they provide. If that sounds personal, it’s because yes, I have been blatantly lied to in ways that have cost me money– in ways that would not be legal in any other business.
Gorgeous place, you have to agree!
#6 was under contract in February (2/12) but the closing was in March (3/9), I stand corrected. Sale price (before transaction costs) was $4.2M, take it to the bank.
“Any other questions?”
InTheKnow, any predictions as to when the slaughter will end for this building and SF more generally?
Price of #6 was up 2.4% ($100K) y-o-y AND the Seller bought another coop up the hill. Slaughter? Quality properties, realistically priced are doing just fine.
So, the answer is not for quite a while yet? I agree. When places like this are selling for $900,000+ (or $700,000+) less than just three years ago, you know we’re in the midst of a nasty decline.
Here is another that closed this week, down $200,000 from August 2008 and $210,000 from April 2004:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/186-Francisco-St-94133/unit-4/home/1126016
Getting out with only about a $10,000 per month loss is not bad in this market. Lucky for them they bought about a year into the downturn and avoided a greater loss.
“bulls on the site are pointing to a $911,000 (maybe it’s “only” $711,000 ex-transaction costs if the last post is accurate) loss as being not a big deal because it’s less than $1mm. They overpaid, it’s a busy street, it’s a poor layout . . .etc. Basically, if it is down significantly, it is not the “real SF.”
Nope. Big loss. Nobody denied it.
You read those things? Where? When? Whom?
You guys need to get some new material, badly.
“Note though that the $1.2M under ask is more then double the 561k over ask (which you quoted to three significant figures!!).”
Huh? It goes both ways. I didn’t say it did not.
Sorry but your “note though” thing went in the dumpster the day you prefaced the fixer which had sold its air rights with “note though” as if I was making some excuse instead of telling you what actually happened. You proved then that you like to talk your little talk. You don’t like to learn, or know, or engage. So save the notes. None have been taken.
@anon — Consider the fact that highlighting an obsession over a sentence posted months ago is perhaps not the best data point to bolster your contention that you are not taking notes.
I stand corrected on #8. From what I see in the supplemental tax record, it sold for $3.995M.
InTheKnow was enough wrong on #6 that we can just wait for public records on this one. It’s worth mentioning that $4.2M is $4.0M+5%, so that might account for the discrepancy.
what was I enough wrong about??? I had it exactly right other than the closing was in March rather than February.
“@anon — Consider the fact that highlighting an obsession over a sentence posted months ago is perhaps not the best data point to bolster your contention that you are not taking notes.”
As you asked I took note of that one.
1940 Broadway #6 has just been listed for $4.35M, 6 months after the last close of escrow. The property has already turned over three times in the last 3 years without anyone moving in! Here we go again…
Reduced to 4.2, which is what the last year’s price was reported at. If the actual sale price was 5% lower, I assume the realtors were paid separately on the side.
#6 is under contract. This time @ $4M (down from $4.2M sale in March, 2011).