July 9, 2007

Glassworks: Going Once, Going Twice At Two PM Today

San Francisco's City Hall (www.SocketSite.com)

An eagle-eyed reader notices that condo number 401 in the Glassworks (207 King Street) is tentatively scheduled to be auctioned off on the steps of City Hall at 2:00 PM today (7/9/07). And if PropertyShark is correct, while the condo last changed hands on 1/9/2004 for $820,000 (and looks to have been 100% financed at the time), on 9/21/05 it was refinanced and the unpaid debt obligation on the condo currently stands at $1,050,020.

UPDATE: The auction for 207 King Street #401 was postponed until next week (July 17) “at the beneficiaries request.” Same bat time, same bat place.

The Glassworks (207 King Street) [SocketSite]

First Published: July 9, 2007 3:50 AM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

Hmmmm.

$1M 30yr fixed at 6.5% = a monthly payment of $6320.
(not including taxes, hoa)

Cost to rent an identical unit = $3000.

Posted by: diemos at July 9, 2007 6:46 AM

You got all this info off of PropertyShark .. for free?

Posted by: Sullivan at July 9, 2007 8:54 AM

All this info is free on PropertyShark only for the city of San Francisco.

Posted by: tipster at July 9, 2007 9:12 AM

I'm increasingly seeing listings for short sales, especially in the east bay. Some quick research usually reveals the same pattern - bought for $X in '04 or '05, current loan balance of $X + $200K. Will be interesting to see what this place sells for, if it even sells.

Posted by: Dude at July 9, 2007 10:56 AM

Hi Dude:
Where are you seeing these short sales listed? Also, what cities in the East Bay?

thx.

Posted by: question for dude at July 9, 2007 10:59 AM

It's a 2 bed / 2 bath at 1772SqFt. Pretty large unit and depending on the location, view, etc. might be a reasonable buy at 1.1M.

I think other units that size sold for around 1.5M in the past so I'm wondering why the owners didn't try to sell it before going into foreclosure?

Posted by: anon at July 9, 2007 11:19 AM

what's the opening bid going to be?

Posted by: james at July 9, 2007 11:32 AM

I believe they had it on the market for a while with no takers. Once somebody can't make payments anymore, they'll try to sell first. If that doesn't work and a short sale occurs, the bank/agent will try to sell to cover the loan balance + fees. If that doesn't work, it goes to foreclosure. Which implies that the market value is below the current loan balance, otherwise somebody would have bought it already.

To answer the first question, I look at listings on pacunion.com and craigslist. Some (but not all) short sales are noted in the comment. As mentioned, most short sales are listed around the current loan balance. You can find what the owner paid for the house at bayareasoldhomes.com.

Posted by: Dude at July 9, 2007 12:01 PM

Thanks Dude for the website link... very handy to get sales info.

Ugh, when you see what people are making for the homes they bought less than 10 years ago... some even less than 6 years ago... and to be able to turn around and sell them now for $400-$500K profit (well, minus whatever renovation costs, if any they had, plus minus any broker fees)...

Anyway... hopefully a little bird at the auction site will let us know what the unit actually sells for? I suppose the bank can say no go if the price is too low..

Posted by: another post at July 9, 2007 2:04 PM

I went to one of these auctions a while back... the minimum bid will be the outstanding loan balance, and when no one bids over that it will belong to the bank. At that point the bank will list the property with an agent and try to recoup whatever they can.

Posted by: DP at July 9, 2007 2:15 PM

I'm curious what happens here as well. Another indicator lamp on the dashboard for the SF market.

Banks don't want to own real estate, but will turn down low ball offers like anyone else. Until they have too many REOs...then "low ball" transfigures into "market."

Sure, there are lots of people who bought 6 years ago and made $400K. But there are also people who bought a year ago and are upside down right now.

Posted by: Dude at July 9, 2007 2:17 PM

If a 1,772 sq ft 2/2 is selling for about 1.1 million in the area, you may be right about mortgage costs.

However, you're way off with regards to rental costs. I live in the area and recently looked into other rentals. You MAY be able to get a 2/2 rental in the area for $3,000, but the going rate is more like $3,500-4,000 and that tends to get you around 1,000-1,100 square feet. This is an absolutely enormous unit and with that, you're probably looking at a rental price of $5,000-6,000 per month....not a huge difference between purchasing and renting.

Posted by: SFhighrise at July 9, 2007 2:47 PM

So why didn't anyone buy it before it got to foreclosure?

Posted by: Dude at July 9, 2007 3:09 PM

good point on rentals. it it looks directly at the park vs borders, it will be worth more than 6k per month.

Posted by: james at July 9, 2007 3:12 PM

If the owner could rent for $6K+, then wouldn't it make sense for him/her to just rent it out? (unless person is out of town owner, etc and too hard to manage it)...

Must be more to this story... very sad for owner.

Posted by: ok then at July 9, 2007 3:42 PM

"This is an absolutely enormous unit and with that, you're probably looking at a rental price of $5,000-6,000 per month....not a huge difference between purchasing and renting"

Nobody is going to pay 6,000 per month in this neighborhood. And the 6K mortgage payment per month does not cover property tax and HOA. Including property tax and HOA you are looking at about 8K per month. And did you mention the $300 per month for parking your car two blocks across the street? Renting was never more attractive......

Posted by: Anonymous at July 9, 2007 3:50 PM

Anon at 3:50:

All you need to do is to look at what rents are going for, with regards to the 2 Avalon complexes in the area. These tend to go for $3,500-4,000 right now for a 2/2 of about 1100-1200 sq ft. Avalon is reporting that they have a 2.5% vacancy rate and are about to build another tower at Mission Bay, so they are getting those rents.

When I was looking, I saw other buildings in the area for rent (Watermark, Beacon, Brannan) and there were many higher end units going for over 5,000 per month and they were nowhere near 1,772 sq ft.


Also, in terms of a purchase, yeah you pay a couple grand extra for HOA, property insurance and possibly a car, but you get a lot back in taxes, so you need to take that into account. For these reason, I see it as a wash.

Posted by: SFhighrise at July 9, 2007 3:57 PM

Depending on how many units were sold when this one was initially purchased, the parking space may be in the lower level of the building. There is one level of parking spaces in the building and people who bought fairly early on do have deeded spaces right there in the building. Once those spaces were all gone, then people were forced to park across the street.

Posted by: Mikey at July 9, 2007 4:39 PM

Regarding moving the auction date back a week:

Did the seller wakeup and realize they could have rented this place for $5000 a WEEK for the All-Stars Thang?

Posted by: redseca2 at July 9, 2007 4:57 PM

I walked by the unit after the derby last night and they had an open house. It is on the street level with a patio. That probably explains the price

Posted by: ottoman at July 10, 2007 10:55 AM

Posted by: SFhighrise at July 9, 2007 2:47 PM

So why didn't anyone buy it before it got to foreclosure?

Could be a handful of reasons. I tried to purchase a condo before it went on the auction block but the owner refused to accept the offer. And the offer was more than what he owed the bank. I will probably get flamed for this but I believe the realtor convinced him not to take it. Why? Because if he accepted the offer, the realtor would have been left with no commission. How do I know this? Because the realtor showed up at the auction steps when I was there and basically said he wouldn't accept a low offer because then he wouldn't get any commission. When I told him that at least his client wouldn't lose his place if he took the offer, he just kind of shrugged, like, "Oh well."

Posted by: Lori at July 10, 2007 12:49 PM

Regarding the earlier post about a comparable rental. In the SOMA/Mission Bay area, a 2/2 averages $3450/mo for 1,100 sf. Other readers are correct, this is a large unit. However, it will not command a rent amount near the $5k-$6k as someone noted. While investors like to look at $/sf, renters look at the monthly amount. For that price, you can rent a 3-4 house in Laurel Heights or Noe Valley.

I would venture to guess that the current owners might be able to rent it to just barely cover their mortgage (assuming the figures quoted above). The luxury for-sale market in SF is still relatively strong. However, the pipeline of new product is robust. Buyers will have a plethora of choices in buildings with better amenities and locations.

Posted by: Apartmentguy at July 11, 2007 9:36 AM

"Depending on how many units were sold when this one was initially purchased, the parking space may be in the lower level of the building. There is one level of parking spaces in the building and people who bought fairly early on do have deeded spaces right there in the building. Once those spaces were all gone, then people were forced to park across the street."

There is no deeded parking. Owners who have parking in the building are leasing those spaces as well. The developer retained ownership of the in-building parking garage.

Posted by: Barry at May 10, 2008 3:30 PM

Post a comment


(required - will be published)


(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)


(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« Oui, C’est Vrai (Or Rather Ney) | HOME | New Designs For Dwellings And Retail At Market And Sanchez »