CFAH

946 Elizabeth
The sale of 946 Elizabeth Street closed escrow on Friday with a reported contract price of $2,260,000. While officially “over asking,” and perhaps even with “multiple offers,” on an apples-to-apples basis, the sale price was $115,000 (5 percent) under its November 2010 sale for $2,375,000 and $415,000 (16 percent) under its April 2007 sale for $2,675,000.
Can You Correctly Re-Re-Pick This Noe Valley Apple To Be? [SocketSite]
It Would Have Been 50 Percent Over Had They Priced At A Million… [SocketSite]
Have You Heard The One About The House With Over 50 Offers? [SocketSite]
946 Elizabeth Is Picked Up Down At 11 Percent Under Its 2007 Sale [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by unwarrantedinlaw

    Kudos and congratulations, it takes a lot of work and dedication to find a single family house in a good hood that a seller has lost money on. Getting really hard to find in this market.
    [Editor’s Note: Keep in mind that we first picked this apple two years ago.]

  2. Posted by thanksss

    Kudos and congratulations, it takes a lot of work and dedication to bring objective information about the local real estate market. As an average consumer, I appreciate having any sources of info out there besides your friendly local “objective” broker and the NAR. There is all too much spin coming from the other side; more information is better.

  3. Posted by anon

    “it takes a lot of work and dedication to find a single family house in a good hood that a seller has lost money on.”
    No it doesn’t. Just find a house that was sold in the five years from 2004 and 2008 and then was re-sold after that. 98% chance the seller lost money on it. Easy as pie.

  4. Posted by anon1

    Late 2004 through fall 2008 would be four years, anon. Funny how you think you’re being arch but you don’t even have the basics correct. (And “98 chance” is of course nothing.)

  5. Posted by anon

    2004 (1), 2005 (2), 2006 (3), 2007 (4), 2008 (5). See how that works, Ken? 2004 to 2008 is five years. Pretty simple math, really. Those were the big bubble years, followed by the crash. Those who bought during the bubble then sold after it popped lost money with only a very rare exception (hence the 98% figure rather than 100%). Not at all hard to find examples of this. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

  6. Posted by Eddy

    Assuming “late” and “fall” are equivalent to the second half the year……
    Late ’04-Fall ’05
    Late ’05-Fall ’06
    Late ’06-Fall ’07
    Late ’07-Fall ’08
    But whatever. We get it.
    Curious what 45 Lake will yield. I think it meets or beats it’s 2010 price.

  7. Posted by Eddy

    For the record my comment above is just pointing out the broad attempts to just add confusion. Re-reading what I wrote wasn’t clear. Obviously buying at the top and selling later is a good way to lose money.

  8. Posted by anon1

    Go look at a chart of 2004 sometime, ye can’t-driven.

  9. Posted by eddy

    Oh hey look, 45 Lake is already In Escrow FIRM. For the record, I have no insight into this home, but I suspect it’s going to beat out its 2010 price. This is a near perfect Apple comparison to the one presented here on a timeline basis.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles