CFAH

Listed for $1,200,000 last February but subsequently reduced, the sale of 3110 California #2A closed escrow last week with a reported contract price of $855,000. The sellers had purchased the 1,270 square foot Pacific Heights condo for $1,000,000 in September 2004.
While One Is Ready To Sell A Neighbor Seems A Little Less So [SocketSite]
A Little More Ready To Sell (And Compete) On California [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Eddy

    Ok, just to be clear, is the editor confirming his agreement that south side California Street is LPH? As we’ve had some debate here in the past. The truth is that it only really matters from a marketing perspective and a truth in advertising perspective. The reality is that living on California isn’t really desirable no matter the district designation. Personally, I think this place is still a bit overpriced. Nothing really special about it and the sellers (or bank) got lucky,IMO.
    [Editor’s Note: It’s not a matter of opinion, the official dividing line is California Street with the north side Pacific Heights and the south side “Lower” as we’ve pointed out before.]

  2. Posted by lol

    15% down from 2004. I’ll let others speculate how much that would have been from peak.
    From the latest link, I pointed out the poor timing of the reductions. The summer market is almost dead and property stuck into the fall season have to fight both low activity and the stigma of a high DOM. They could have been more aggressive from the get go instead of trying to make a buck in pure 2009 fashion. Then again, no-one knows. Congrats to the buyer.

  3. Posted by eddy

    I’m tracking a condo that sold for $2M in 2003 right around the corner from this place on Sacramento. Seems like an apple to me but I don’t think the editor will feature it. I’ll report back when it closes; and I predict will close well above its 2003 price.
    The drubbing this place too (-15%) wasn’t a surprise to anyone on here. I wouldn’t be saying congrat’s to the buyer either.

  4. Posted by eddy

    Ok, well that didn’t take too long. The condo atop 3439 Sacramento St #403 sold in 2003 for $2.065. It was listed last year for 3.5 and didn’t sell; and re-emerged on the market today for $3M and it is already in contract-firm. While I cannot confirm it is an apple, and I’m sure there were some cosmetic upgrades, the descriptions sound similar enough. And hey, 0 DOM! Can’t wait to see where it closes.
    Here is the 2003 listing notes:
    Fabulous Presidio Heights Top Floor Condo!3Bd/3.5 Ba., 2-story newer construction. Owner never occupied. Skylights,hardwood floors, gourmet kitchen w/ brkfast area island, 1 fireplaces, master ensuite.Formal Dining Rm. Private roof deck with hot tub. Two car s/s parking. Appt only
    So it seems hard to believe this place needed much in the way of improvements. I’m calling it an apple unless someone can prove otherwise.
    In all fairness, the same place seems to have sold in 2001 for $3M but that would have been new construction, and from the 03 listing the person never moved into the unit. So depending on where this unit closes you can say that we’re either back to 2001 prices, or we up 50% from 2003 (assuming is sells for listing price, which I assume it will since the listing was already sold before it was put on MLS this morning.) Should be fun.
    [Editor’s Note: See comment below.]

  5. Posted by lyqwyd

    So about 4.25% annualized return before carrying and selling costs. Not great, but at least they beat the s&p 500.

  6. Posted by El Bombero

    It looks like the sellers of the California Street condo put down $300k back in 2004. So, after costs and commissions, they only lost 65-70% of their down, maybe $200k? Not too bad, considering that they only held for 7-1/2 years and it’s a busy street and all.

  7. Posted by eddy

    Something like this probably rents for like 2800/mo so that’s 250k in rent over 7.5 years. Obviously they had taxes and other costs along the way but you gotta live somewhere and no one said you were supposed to live for free. I’m sure they thought they were going to do better than this though.

  8. Posted by El Bombero

    ^ They thought that their condo would appreciate at about 6% per year, because that’s what their realtor told them. Condo should have been worth $1,500k’s by now…..

  9. Posted by eddy

    Wait, I’m totally confused. Did the realator really tell them it would appreciate at 6%?

  10. Posted by A.T.

    “I’m sure they thought they were going to do better than this though.”
    And they did do better, for about three years. Then they did really crappy for the next four years.
    They held just about the average for all owners, so this wasn’t any “short hold” problem.” This only made sense vs. renting if one built in a generous expected appreciation (about 8%/yr or a little more) for many years. They got it. Then they didn’t and then some. Probably ended up costing them 300k-350k more than comparable rent, enough to put 40% down on this very place at the 2012 price.

  11. Posted by lyqwyd

    @eddy
    Are you sure it was rented? The realtor saying “Owner never occupied.” seems to imply to me that it was vacant not rented. Having a tenant having lived in the unit is worse than an owner occupant to most people. I think it would have been foolish not to have left it vacant, but it does happen.

  12. Posted by lyqwyd

    I meant to say “foolish to have left it vacant”

  13. Posted by lyqwyd

    I forgot about leverage since it was probably financed. Factoring that in their ROI would be significantly better than the the 4.25%, depending on how much money they had to put down.

  14. Posted by eddy

    @lyqwyd, no idea. Not even clear if it was a legit purchase price or a developer strategy to lock in a comp. Wouldn’t be the first time we saw that strategy. I imagine the person that did buy a $3M new condo at a premium prices, takes a $1M hit in 2 years probably didn’t care about renting it out. Who knows. But the 2003 sale is legit. Maybe someone with better records access can find the name of the 01 ‘buyer’.

  15. Posted by SocketSite

    The condo atop 3439 Sacramento St #403 sold in 2003 for $2.065. It was listed last year for 3.5 and didn’t sell; and re-emerged on the market today for $3M and it is already in contract-firm. While I cannot confirm it is an apple, and I’m sure there were some cosmetic upgrades, the descriptions sound similar enough.
    Come on eddy, from the very site to which you link:
    In 2006, the 2,596sf Penthouse, infused with natural light from windows on three sides, was extensively and meticulously renovated enriching the architectural detail with luxurious finishes and thoughtful infrastructure improvements…
    So no, it’s not apples-to-apples for 3439 Sacramento Street #403. Now back to 3110 California #2A which was…

  16. Posted by eddy

    Come on yourself; I’ve looked through those pics and aside from nice lighting fixtures and maybe some some upgraded textiles here and there, I don’t see any architectural improvements other than maybe some glass on the roof deck. Maybe those wine fridges are new. The 10 year old bldg is still in meticulous condition and I still doubt there is much improved here. Forgive me if I question the marketing speak you quoted from the listing agent, and for raising a competing data point on a north-side California comp 2 blocks away that shows a markedly different outcome than the one presented here as a subject of the post. I never mind being called out / corrected; hey we all make mistakes. But even if this place had 150k of improvements we’re still going to see a big big upside here.
    PS: Thanks for finally fixing the copyright. That was driving me crazy!
    Cheers

  17. Posted by eddy

    No permits filed on #403 either from DBIs site either. So maybe its close enough for horseshoes.

  18. Posted by eddy

    Looks like 3439 Sacramento Street #403 closed at $3M. Up 50% from 2003. Maybe not an apple but an interesting comp.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles