March 25, 2009
Coming Soon And An Überprime Data Point To Be: 2306 Broadway
Coming soon and asking $6,495,000 according to Nina Hatvany, it’s a plugged-in tipster that suggests we keep an eye on 2306 Broadway which is currently being prepped for sale.
And while we don’t see a recorded sales price for its purchse in August of 2000, we do see a tax assessed value of $7,648,507 which would suggest a purchase price of roughly $7,000,000 for this big view prime Pacific Heights home eight years ago.
Do keep in mind, however, that the sale of 2306 Broadway won't yield a perfectly clean "apple" as the kitchen has been updated and the master bathroom remodeled since. But it might offer some interesting insight into what’s happening with property values high atop San Francisco as opposed to a throw-away observation like it's still expensive.
First Published: March 25, 2009 11:15 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
The assessor's office shows some interesting information regarding taxes and tax assessed value on this property.
Last year taxes were $84,654.88, and they were paid ;) At last year's tax rate, that would imply a tax assessed value of $7.5Mish, which would be consistent with w/ a sale of around $6.8-7.0M back in 2000, which is also consistent with the editor's surmise.
However, current tax assessed value is $5.1M, and there is a note that an "Escape" bill had been issued and the tax assessed value "corrected". Escape bills are used (among other things) when a homeowner requests an assessment down because values have fallen. I can't tell for sure of course, but it looks like the homeowner requested a lower assessement based on comps, and the assessor agreed. Perhaps some others out there have more expertise and can chime in. BTW, taxes are current - no deadbeats here ;)
It would be ironic if the first "1999" price that we see as the bubble washes out is on Broadway around there, an address most definitely "primo".
(Anyone can see the tax records by inputting the address here: http://www.sfgov.org/site/treasurer_index.asp?id=4615)
Posted by: LMRiM at March 25, 2009 11:40 AM
The views from that A+++ location, location, location are spectacular.
This is the home of the CEO of Visa USA. Stock price has dropped by half but I'm sure he made a mint in the IPO about a year ago. If anything, he's moving up from all that IPO ca$h - I assume his lockups have expired and he can sell and move to an estate in Atherton.
I'll be shocked if it hits a sub year 2000 price, with a remodel thrown in to boot. 3910 square feet, it could easily outdo $1600 psft. Great place.
Posted by: tipster at March 25, 2009 11:53 AM
I've never understood the situation between this house and its twin neighbor. I wonder what was here prior? There is also an odd shared parking situation with this home so it really has more of a Town House feel to it. It also has no real outdoor space unless I'm missing something.
This should be interesting to watch. I don't think it will command $6.5M. I think this sells for $1300psf.
Nina has been scooping up a lot of high end listings recently. I suspect that she is wooing clients by promising high asking prices that other high end agents are not willing to commit. I think all her listings are at least ~10% over market. I do like the Filbert street listing that I think is a little more accurate in terms of pricing but still a tad higher.
Posted by: eddy at March 25, 2009 12:12 PM
I don't know what exactly transpired here. Almost exactly three years ago one trust seemingly transferred its ownership interest to another trust, ostensibly for a valuable exchange. At that point a new tax basis was probably arrived at. But the last MLS -- read, open market -- sales data is 5.95M with an asterisk, and the financing reads "cash." Do you think it went for a 1.05M over asking? I don't. I don't have any way of knowing. I also don't respect comments such as this one, It would be ironic if the first "1999" price that we see as the bubble washes out is on Broadway around there, an address most definitely "primo". " Because he really doesn't have a base from which to say that. And where's that helpful Oceanview comp when we need it?
Posted by: anonn at March 25, 2009 1:04 PM
Plus - great block - great views
Neg - hemmed in ; assume not great outdoor space; just ok curb appeal.
and theres a lot of open houses in this area in this niche right now.
unless interior just incredible, i say $4.50 MIL, under $5.0 max.
Posted by: Louis at March 25, 2009 1:04 PM
Per propertyshark, it looks like the 2005 transaction was just a refi (PS indicates $2.1 million). The 2000 sale indicates a $1 million loan. And the tax basis indicates a little less than a $7 million sale. So the $5.95 million "cash" indicated on the MLS (with a *) plus a $1 million mortgage (may as well take that tax deduction) would net out to a $6.95 million 2000 sale consistent with the tax basis.
It wouldn't surprise me at all to see homes at this price point fall the furthest -- this is where the dot-com bubble had a big impact in the late '90s. The 1993 sale price was only $1.9 million.
Posted by: Trip at March 25, 2009 1:16 PM
I don't know what exactly transpired here.
Almost exactly three years ago.... At that point a new tax basis was probably arrived at.
Taxes last year were $84K+, as I mentioned in my first post. The tax bill # was 022576. That means that the tax assessed value was well over $7MM last year. This would be inconsistent with a sale for less than $6M (as you surmise) back in 2000. In addition, current tax value is $5.1M, which means that the assessment was lowered. Perhaps the tax records are wrong, but that's what we've got.
Do you think it went for a 1.05M over asking? I don't. I don't have any way of knowing.
Then stop mucking up the discussion with nonsense. I gave the caveats, and the sources of my information in my original post. If you have some real information to add, please do it.
And where's that helpful Oceanview comp when we need it? [re: 1999 prices]
That "Oceanview comp" (262 Minerva) sold for $190K in 1998 (we don't have a 1999 sale, unfortunately). It's asking $369K, and while I'm assuming it won't go for that much, it's still looking like it will be up maybe 40-50% above a 1999 price (assuming they cut the price quickly enough to get it sold fast - prices will be lower next year of course). That's looking like a much better asset price performance than this PH "apple"!
BTW, flujanonn, do some work before you mindlessly criticize. The info that I brought up is all easily verifiable. I'd welcome reasoned discussion, and I'm sure most on the site would as well.
Posted by: LMRiM at March 25, 2009 1:24 PM
But you don't know that Trip. It also might have been 4.95M + a 1M mortgage, and you're missing a 3/27/2006 transaction between two trusts. Socketsite should know better than to devote a post to something so full of unknowns, but the editorial intent is very clear.
[Editor’s Note: As always, the "editorial intent" is to flush out as much information about the market as possible. We don't care if it's "good," "bad," or "ugly."]
Posted by: anonn at March 25, 2009 1:25 PM
I looked up the tax info too, H.W.S.S.S.W.H.M.H,A.S.H.S.G.G.i.M., (hobbyist who suffered sticker shock when he moved here and still has sour grapes guy in marin). I said that three years ago there was another transaction, that may or may not have been at arm's length. I looked it up using a superior resource, a title company's premier subscription service. The nonsense is yours. You're speculating pretty wildly. I don't blame you though. The editor baited you, and you took it.
Posted by: anonn at March 25, 2009 1:32 PM
It feels like there's suddenly a lot of listings in this price range (3222 Jackson, 3570 Washington) - is that just seasonal?
Posted by: kthnxybe at March 25, 2009 1:44 PM
Also, the Washington street house is just amazingly weirdly done. Someone really liked teal. Any predictions on that one?
Posted by: kthnxybe at March 25, 2009 1:46 PM
I agree that we usually assume an * price on the MLS indicates that the buyer paid under list and the seller wants to mask that fact (for whatever reason). But I think it may have worked the other way in this case and the buyer wanted to mask that he paid $1M over list. What's a one million dollar overbid to a high roller, priceless? Oh wait, that's MasterCard not Visa. The entire sale went down in a week in August 2000 - so there wasn't much time for a lot of dickering. Maybe he put the sale of his Visa card and earned a bunch of miles. Perhaps he was influenced by the recent sale of 2257 Green. Listed for $2.05M in May 2000, it closed for $3.0M in less than two weeks.
Posted by: FSBO at March 25, 2009 1:48 PM
I love it. Vocal Socketsite Bears TM deem every asterisk we have ever encountered to mean less than asking, every single time. You know. Except this time. LOL.
Posted by: anonn at March 25, 2009 1:53 PM
So, it looks settled. The speed of the closing and timing of the sale (August 2000), and the 2007-08 tax basis on which taxes were actually paid in 2007-08, all suggest an approximately $6.95M sales price 9 years ago.
There have been some improvements, so it is not a perfectly clean "apple", but I'd suggest that at this rarified price point, whether someone spent $50K (or $250K) on kitchen and bath upgrades really has very little relevance for the change in underlying value over the years. At the really high end I'd guess some personalization is the norm, and some Italian cabinets or fancy Euro "stove" isn't going to matter much.
It will be interesting to see at what price it closes.
BTW, if anyone has any practical insight (or comps) to explain why the assessed value for tax purposes would have been decreased from $7.5M in 2007-08 tax year to $5.1M for 2008-09, that would be interesting.
Posted by: LMRiM at March 25, 2009 2:03 PM
It most certainly is not "settled," H.W.S.S.S.W.H.M.H,A.S.H.S.G.G.i.M. Explain the transaction between the Kingsley Trust and the Coghlan Trust on 3/27/06. Then find how much taxes were paid both before and after that transaction. Once you do that, it will be settled. Until that point in time, first know that a $1M loan with 4.95 down does not take 19 days to fund. And second, admit that every single asterisk you've ever seen on here you've deemed to be for less than asking except for this one, because doing so would snap the 1999 values limb you went out upon.
Posted by: anonn at March 25, 2009 2:09 PM
Well, anonn, don't forget that I'm a lawyer and have access to lots and lots of databases -- way beyond your title company "superior resource." It's all public and you just need access to the data others have compiled. There was no sale in 2006 (or any time after 2000). There have been a number of refis and HELOCs (most of which do not show up in propertyshark). SS has the right tax assessor information. This was sold for just under $7M in 2000.
Posted by: Trip at March 25, 2009 2:09 PM
I'm going on record as saying that this block has THE best views in all Pac Heights. It's dead center on the bay. Outer Broadway may have a higher elevation, but the views here are ridiculously dramatic.
The drawbacks to this house are: No outdoor space and shared drive entrance with the twin house next door and the bus line goes in front of it.
Posted by: sleepiguy at March 25, 2009 2:12 PM
"Perhaps he was influenced by the recent sale of 2257 Green. Listed for $2.05M in May 2000, it closed for $3.0M in less than two weeks."
Wonderful. So the "price everything $1M under comps and then marvel at all the bids from the suckers who hadn't caught on that the asking prices were artificially low to generate lots of bidding" trick was being done at the upper end in SF in 2000 too.
Wonderful industry. Love dealing with people who are playing the buyers for suckers like that.
Reference my explanation on 3/16 at 9:55 here for the whole story:
Posted by: tipster at March 25, 2009 2:14 PM
Oh, so you're basing a conspiracy theory off of an unverified assumption -- namely that 2257 Green influenced this -- even though it isn't in the same price range. Is that right, Tipster? And to back it up you link to an anecdote and an assumption of your own, huh? You're such a credible source. Excellent journalism! Just want to be sure we're speaking the same language.
@ Trip, I just looked it up again. And now I've named what the transaction was. A corresponding document was filed. Whether or not the tax valuation was determined prior to that transaction, or post, is the crux of this matter. You folks are assuming prior, because that is your bias. But the truth of the matter is that we do not know. Clearly, all asterisks we've ever seen on here up until this one have been assumed under asking.
Posted by: anonn at March 25, 2009 2:26 PM
Sleepiguy: any predictions on the selling price?
Posted by: tipster at March 25, 2009 2:33 PM
The $7.6M number is the 2008 tax assessment . . .
Posted by: Trip at March 25, 2009 2:35 PM
tipster & Trip,
The internet is a scary thing, that's for sure. If this is really the home of John Philip Cohglan, unfortunately there was probably no VISA ipo payday for him. He was replaced just before the IPO:
Back in 2000, he was with Schwab. I'd imagine that there was a lot of money flowing from all the suckers who were trading the dotcom bubble, and it probably would have been unseemly for someone at the tail end of the greatest stock bubble in history to not overbid. What's really scary is that if you google the name, the 5th or 6th link will turn up what looks like the actual separation agreement and general release, including all salary details, from when he left in 2003 (after the tech wreck). As an attorney, Trip, I know you're familiar with the circumstances under which these agreements are drawn up..... Amazing that something confidential like this is on the web.
Posted by: LMRiM at March 25, 2009 2:48 PM
"Just ok curb appeal." That's still too kind.
Posted by: flaneur at March 25, 2009 2:51 PM
"unseemly for someone at the tail end of the greatest stock bubble in history to not overbid"
Right. Because highly successful rich people hate to get good deals and love to overpay for everything. Especially property. Man. The lengths to which you will go to not appear as if you're not calling naked guesses reality.
Posted by: anonn at March 25, 2009 3:00 PM
My gosh, that is frightening. Good time to be at Schwab, and I'm sure he did well. But even if it were not strictly confidential (and it may not have been as Schwab is a public company) I would not want my separation agreement splashed on some forms shop's web site . . .
I swear that 1/3 of the parents in my kids' classes struck it rich in the dot-com years and they all live in beautiful Pac Heights houses. Hence my prediction about values there as that was a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon.
Posted by: Trip at March 25, 2009 3:03 PM
Fluj, what do you gain by claiming "conspiracy" every time a house sells for less than before? Why would prices dropping be bad, when I think it is great. My brother, who was a renter for 7 years in Chicago, finally turned into a buyer at a recent auction for the Vetro Tower and picked up a sweet 2bd unit for payments less than his rent. As a real estate "professional", you should be enjoying lower housing costs since it will increase sales and business for you. Nina sure is busy and you don't see her complaining about better deals being available now.
Posted by: anonandon at March 25, 2009 3:16 PM
Good point, Trip. I guess being Vice Chairman of a pretty big division of a public company merits 8-K disclosure when you go ;) Or at least disclosure under some other '34 Act provision that I've long forgotten.
I'm glad I never worked at a public company ;)
Posted by: LMRiM at March 25, 2009 3:17 PM
Well, the rich sometimes do things with their money that escape us mere mortals.
One can wonder why this can happen, these people being successful and all. Maybe it's the rarefied air that can cloud judgment...
Nobody is immune to falling prey to our lowest instincts, like trying to impress the neighbors or doing pointless cockfights with cash - or keyboards;)
Posted by: San FronziScheme at March 25, 2009 3:25 PM
A google Kingsley Trust yields a bunch of fraud FWIW.
I fail to see why the history here is of interest? All that really matters at this point is what this place sells for in today's market.
Posted by: eddy at March 25, 2009 3:36 PM
"Fluj, what do you gain by claiming "conspiracy" every time a house sells for less than before?"
1. Who is fluj?
2. Who claims conspiracy when something sells for less than before? I've not done it. In this particular thread you'll see me pointing out hypocrisy, not conspiracy.
Posted by: anonn at March 25, 2009 3:40 PM
2580 Broadway, a 1,866 square foot home, sold for $4,000,000 on 02/19/09, or $2,143 / square foot. Online pix when this house was listed reveal it to be a nice home with peekaboo Bay views but the $ / sq. ft. seems very high to me. According to Property Shark, the home at 2306 Broadway has 3,910 square feet which represents $1,661 / square foot if sold at $6,495,000.
I'm not too surprised by homes in Pacific Heights going for > $1,500 / square foot but > $2,000 /square foot for a property size that is relatively small without commanding Bay views seems very rich.
Posted by: Angel at March 25, 2009 5:04 PM
I live(d) pretty much kitty corner from this place. Top floor 2/1 remodeled apt. with views. jus' sayin' in case anyone wants to get the jump on the place b/c I'm movin' out.
Posted by: Rubicon at March 25, 2009 5:19 PM
Angel, where did you get the sqft for 2580. It seemed way bigger than 1866.
Posted by: eddy at March 25, 2009 5:49 PM
2580 Broadway was about 2500 sft and sold for $1600 per foot. Since that's about the only prime Pac Heights property that has closed escrow in 09, it's pretty much the only comp which makes guessing the sale price of this home a real challenge.
The good news is that downsizing is now trendy, so having a smaller pad in the city with stunning views should be really desirable. I say if it ever goes into contract, it might do so at an even 6. Seriously though, it's the only true view home available in Pac Heights right now.
Posted by: sleepiguy at March 25, 2009 6:13 PM
I got the square footage for 2580 Broadway from www.propertyshark.com and www.trulia.com:
Posted by: Angel at March 25, 2009 6:31 PM
I think "sleepiguy" 2,500 square foot statement reflects about 700 square feet of outdoor space but the interior should be 1,866, at least according to Trulia & Property Shark. I could be totally misreading the online information but this what I think is true.
Posted by: Angel at March 25, 2009 6:35 PM
2500 for 2850 seems much more accurate. My guess is Trulia used the same source for footage as PropertyShark. Neither are particularly accurate.
At 1600 per foot, I suspect there would be more view homes on the market than most would suspect. There are a few view homes coming to market in Telegraph Hill that IMO blow this place away (unless I'm missing something) at far less than $6M. Not PH, but not shabby either.
I do generally agree that smaller places are becoming en vougue but I would be surprised to see this go for $6M. I'm sure I'll eat those words -- but this should be fun to watch.
While we're on this block... what is the story with the home nest door that has been under renovation for 3+ years. They recently painted the exterior (sadly) and it looks incredible. Anyone have a scoop there? Is that ever coming to market, or is it for private use.
2 down from this one was purchased last year off market and is under major renovation.
Feel sorry for the guy in between! (Not too sorry :-)
Posted by: eddy at March 25, 2009 6:52 PM
I got the square footage and ppsf for 2580 Broadway directly from the source, so to speak.
Eddy, the house next door is owned by the sellers of 2306. 2342 I hear is a flip.. but that remains to be seen.
Posted by: sleepiguy at March 25, 2009 8:21 PM
sleepiguy, you are a treasure trove of information. Thank you. I assume 2306 will be moving into the home next door. Lucky for them. They get to choose their neighbor (sort of)! I was hoping to get a peek at that home at some point. Oh well. 2342 was a disaster but had potential for someone brave.
Upon thinking about 2306 I remembered the "Fillmore" house that sold for $5M. That has to be a comp here; so maybe I'm wrong that 2306 will sell for close to $6M. I remain interested for sure.
Posted by: eddy at March 25, 2009 8:45 PM
I think the interesting properties to watch this season are these--the primo of the city.
42 bids on an Excelsior home? My guess is that they will be sorry as we watch the high-end push everything else down....
With banks being as stingy as they have been in recent months, these homes are probably cash homes. So, my question is to potential buyers: Keep your $$ in a portfolio or sink it into a house? And, if you sink it into the house, do you still have enough left over to churn an income that can cover the high tax bill each year?? Or, er...maybe you have the $500k+ yearly income...at least until retirement...
Until Wall St gets better, these homes are not in good selling shape...that is my prediction.
Posted by: pumpkin patch at March 25, 2009 8:53 PM
looks like a 2000 sale of $6,600,500 with a $1 million loan.
It also didn't close in 19 days, it went "pending" in 19 days and closed 6 weeks later
In Escrow 6/28/2000
Schwab "SCHW" closed at a near all time high of $33.81 on 6/27/2000 which represented about a 500% run up in the prior 2 years.
So our friend Mr Goghlan was playing with monopoly money when he bought this home. A home with no yard. A 3910 SqFt home on a 2,063 SqFt lot. And somehow he thought it was worth paying 10% over an already high list price... but hey, the money was funny and there was plenty of it.
If he didn't sell $5.6 million of Schwab stock to buy this home, but cashed out today he'd have lost over 50% of this money. Instead, when someone new comes along who only pays $5m or $6million he'll have lost substantially less.
Yup, terrible investment.... bah.
To keep things in context, he bought at the height of one bubble, and is selling in a down market. I bet he'd have paid a lot less had he bought in 2001 or 2002 and then you would not have your "oh, we've lost 10 years of appreciation" apple.
Posted by: sfrob at March 25, 2009 9:22 PM
Man, you've got to be doing pretty well when 2506 Broadway is your guest house/temporary accommodations for your remodel.
Posted by: tipster at March 25, 2009 10:09 PM
It's funny the lengths to which the realtors will go to fantasize about how SF real estate "saved" people from the horrors of the stock market, and about how when apples show less than expected investment performance, the buyer simply "overpaid" - even when you're dealing with the top end (and presumably some pretty sophisticated advisors).
Thanks for confirming the $6.6M 2000 sales price. It's hard sometimes to exactly back into a valuation from simply the current tax basis b/c the fiscal years are different from calendar years, and it's unclear exactly when the valuation basis is raised when you buy after June 30, at least for a "hobbyist" like me. We got a little off tangent with that stuff from fluff (some of which has been removed by the editor), and fwiw I think you have been a good and honest resource on this blog (even if I often disagree with your characterizations).
About sales of stock and the story you spin about selling SCHW at the high ($33+), well, as you probably know insider transactions are reported on Form 4 to the SEC and it's easy to look them up. Sometimes execs enter into derivative transactions "off the record", and these can be very difficult to uncover (even though they are supposed to be reported), but that was generally a phenomenon of the dotcom fraudsters, not reputable companies/execs like Schwab.
While the fantasy of selling the stock to fund the house is an appealing story, the reality is that I can't find any Form 4 filing demonstrating that. However, I did find a Form 4 (the only sale I found) showing that he did sell 20,000 shares of SCHW right at the "beat low" as we say in trader land, July 25, 2003 - about $11 per share. Following the sale, which occured right about the time he "separated" from Schwab, the filing shows that he still retained direct beneficial ownership of 838,708 shares, which at the time would have been worth approximately $9.2M (down from presumably north of $25M three years prior):
It looks like he rode the stock right down from its high, and sold just a little pretty close to the absolute low.
After separation from Schwab in 2003, he likely would not have been required to file Forms 4 any longer, as he was no longer an "insider" and was never a greater than 10% stock holder. SCHW did trade as high as $26ish within the last year (its high since 2003), and I hope he used the opportunity to offload some of the position, because it's now back down to the $14ish range.
Obviously, I have no personal knowledge of the transactions and holdings; my info is based solely on the publicly available data identified. I'm guessing that sfrob's story about selling at the high and investing the proceeds in that wonderful bastion of stability - the primo SF real estate market - is based on fantasy.
Posted by: LMRiM at March 25, 2009 10:54 PM
First, let me say socketsite is wonderful and groundbreaking in many ways.
But, I still want back those 10 minutes of my life I spent skimming this thread.
Posted by: Delancey at March 26, 2009 1:22 AM
1.) Who is fluj?
I'm sorry but anonn gets two points for this one. . .
Posted by: nanon at March 26, 2009 10:59 AM
If he didn't sell $5.6 million of Schwab stock to buy this home, but cashed out today he'd have lost over 50% of this money. Instead, when someone new comes along who only pays $5m or $6million he'll have lost substantially less.
But the BIG question is: Are banks, today, willing to give an enormous loan against a stock portfolio given how tumultuous Wall St has been in recent months? If not, who is going to buy this except someone who has so much money it is a total drop in the bucket--someone who can actually cover the annual tax bill without blinking an eye...hm...maybe Warren Buffet!
Posted by: pumpkin patch at March 26, 2009 12:07 PM
Are banks, today, willing to give an enormous loan against a stock portfolio given how tumultuous Wall St has been in recent months?
Yes, always, pumpkin patch. Assuming real estate is held by directly by an individual cash-basis filer, you can't deduct more than the interest on $1M of acquisition debt anyway (up to $1.1M is combined with a HELOC). However, margin loans are always available from brokers (at broker call rates - which are admittedly not as good as secured real estate), and usually without any approval process whatsoever.
The interest on the margin loans is deductible against investment income regardless of size of loan. Brokers are very comfortable doing this because they can always liquidate some or all of the portfolio to satisfy a margin call, and they are generally pretty smart about determining how much leverage to extend against categories of securities. It's a very profitable business for WS.
Especially for execs who retain appreciated securities, this strategy is tax efficient - rather than selling the securities and recognizing gains at 15% fed + 10.3% CA rates, the exec simply borrows against it. I suspect that many "cash" sales of properties are actually funded with loans against securities portfolios.
The downside of course is that the margin loan is "callable leverage", and the tax efficiency can be overwhelmed by adverse moves in the stock/assets being margined. Bernie Ebbers found this out the hard way ;) It's pretty easy to hedge out some or all of this risk using swaps and derivatives, and the WS fraudsters love this b/c most corporate execs are not very sophisticated when it comes to pricing the insurance (and so they get ripped off a little). Additionally, since the margin borrower retains the real estate asset, in the event of a margin call, there is often the possibility of satisfying it with a secured loan against the equity in the asset itself, and WS loves this situation as well. In effect, the borrower must approach the broker for the secured loan b/c there is typically very little time to satisfy the margin call, and so fees and rates can be high.
Posted by: LMRiM at March 26, 2009 12:24 PM
So, a 6.6M 2000 purchase according to SFRob. A 6.95 list is yet to come. Who thinks that there's zero chance it could go over asking, even in this market, considering the block and the area's lack of inventory? The house right next door was bought for 9M, and another 3M thrown is being thrown at it we gather. Yet we have folks talking about 1999 price rollbacks and the like. The only irony here is the true meaning of irony. If you give these guys any credence (I don't) then this outcome is likely to illustrate the precise opposite of what was expected by the Socketsite vocalbears TM.
Posted by: anonn at March 26, 2009 12:30 PM
My "fantasy" isn't one in the sense that there is a reported $1 million loan and the rest is presumably cash. I've stated on here numerous times that there are a LOT of all cash, mostly cash and 1/2 cash buyers in ALL price ranges (including $500k condos) and have been told that's a fantasy too. Except that is the case in my little business with 2 more anecdotes in just the past 2 weeks, and I hear anecdotes from my colleagues every week.
So IF the "fantasy" of him selling Schwab stock is wrong, then it only means he's had more money than god from other sources. He comes up with $5.6 million in cash in 2000, and if he's the same guy today buying and gutting the neighboring house, then he is absolutely loaded. During is stay at 2306 he probably realized that buying a house without a yard was foolish, but in those heady days there were a lot of quick/foolish decisions even by wealthy people with "sophisticated advisors".
LMRiM... what you don't realize is that 99% of the world isn't any where near as sophisticated an investor as you, including people with "sophisticated advisors" who we're all learning really aren't that sophsiticated when you consider how many people didn't see the stock market crash, or realize the Bernie Madoff couldn't possibly produce the results he reported, etc, etc. You guys s*** all over Realtors as not really being advisors, but don't get that Wall St types, financial planners, etc, are all compensated in similar ways and are prone to the exact accusations you assume all Realtors are like. I'd have to think you know this given that the so-called fraudster/banksters are "sophisticated", and steal money from everyone, including the wealthy.
The bottom line is that a lot of people with money do very simple things like park their cash into expensive SF real estate and consider it stable. Just because you don't think that's smart, doesn't mean it isn't the reality, and not "fantasy". And until you and ex-SFer understand the kind of cash that gets thrown around san francisco, you'll continue to be wrong about the SF market. It's true of "low end" condos where parents buy for their kids, or Marin retirees buy a 1BR pied-et-terre for all cash, and it's true in every single price range.
Feel free to call it a fantasy, but I deal with these folks every single day and have no reason to lie about it.
Posted by: sfrob at March 26, 2009 12:34 PM
A 6.95 list is yet to come.
Nina Hatvany's site (linked in the intro) says that the listing price is 6.495M, so unless it goes overbid, it's already at a 2000 price. It's had some upgrades as well.
Posted by: LMRiM at March 26, 2009 12:34 PM
Oh, 6.495M, right. OK. Let's see what it closes at.
Posted by: anonn at March 26, 2009 12:44 PM
"it's already at a 2000 price"
Yeah, sure. Key word in that phrase is the word "a." Because it was actually listed at 5.95M in 2000 wasn't it? I know that the CW on here is that "low" list prices were designed to "manipulate" buyers and all ... But 5.95M with no outdoor space might have been spot on in the mind of the listing agent at the time. Not to mention the house next door bought for 9 and now another 3 going in. So "a" price? OK. Fair to extrapolate and talk about 1999 prices? No way. [Removed by Editor]
Posted by: anonn at March 26, 2009 1:34 PM
ok. must read this thread quickly in a few minutes.
but bottom line seems to be he sold stock to buy this house - stock which is now worth less than half of what he cashed out at.
sounds like a good move then - he is up on the deal in my book - surely no one is suggesting we use risk free CDs to calculate the historical opportunity cost of the downpayment??
Posted by: REpornaddict at March 26, 2009 7:24 PM
I almost bought an investment contract tied to financial stocks last May for between 2-3 M. It was 25% protected by Wells Fargo and leveraged.
I guess in my circumstance I really was saved. I heard bankers groupthink that financial stocks had bottomed last April.
Bank of America
all the usual suspects by the way.
Very happy I didn't buy it and bought my place, even if it goes down 50% I don't feel the loss is catastrophic.
Only speaking from personal experience though.
Posted by: jessep at March 26, 2009 8:04 PM
Thank you for explaining. Since we were part of the dot.com bubble, we had people tell us to do exactly what you are describing. We didn't. And, we heard all the stories of people who did and, were left with just an expensive house. Back then, it wasn't bad because the housing bubble was starting...their house appreciated. But, now?
Posted by: pumpkin patch at March 27, 2009 7:51 AM
Here is another reduction in a nearby ultra-high- end place on Pacific. Down another $550k and down $2.1M total. Really nice place although not as stately as these Broadway homes (also looks like there is a tenant -- a problem?)
Posted by: Trip at March 27, 2009 8:06 AM
The tax basis on this one is $4.9M. At least $700K (14%) to money heaven if it sells at the new list price.
I wonder what's the rent.
Posted by: chuckie at March 27, 2009 9:22 AM
Well, she's on the market now at an official $6.495. Pic's are OK; very nice. Rooms look kind of small and obviously no yard. A pretty nice semi-remodled home went into Escrow yesterday for $575 per sq foot / twice the size -- no view, but still a great Washington street address. 2165 Jackson St also went into contract at around $490 psf for a total fixer. 2306 in any other part of PH without the view is probably somewhere in the 900psf range.
So I guess we'll see the value of a view. I still contend that $6.5 is too high here.
Posted by: eddy at March 28, 2009 7:48 AM
The staging is kind of awful... and the photoshopping is very amateur, but I've changed my mind about this place. I say it sells for very close to asking. It's exactly what people are looking for in this market. Small, elegant homes with views in walking distance to shops and restaurants. Bring in the right decorator and you've got a sophisticated, but comparatively modest home.
Also, I already knew about the Washington St. sale, and I'm really shocked. That house is a flat out disaster inside.
Posted by: sleepiguy at March 28, 2009 10:12 AM
I'm interested in your apt. Please email, sthardester (at) google's mail service .com
Posted by: vapor at March 28, 2009 3:18 PM
Am I the only one who thinks its interesting that Nina Havatny was a Professor at Columbia Graduate School of Business and has a Ph.D. in Psychology from Stanford...and is now a San Francisco realtor?
Curious, curious indeed.
Posted by: jessep at March 28, 2009 6:02 PM
^^ My guess is that you never been on either side of a multi-MM transaction. Agents that cater to this demographic are serious rain makers relative to their peers and are taking down 2-3% on 100M+ plus in transactions a year in aggregate. Many of these agents are Stanford grads and Top tier MBAs who can instill confidence and talk on the same levels of their clients.
Posted by: eddy at March 29, 2009 8:57 AM
@ sleppiguy looks like Arthur got stuck using a lot of the home owners furniture... DR, BR's, etc. Think he did a good job not starting with a blank slate..
I think the parking for up to 4 kinda makes up for the lack of a back yard...
Posted by: DZinerSf at March 30, 2009 8:44 AM
"I think the parking for up to 4 kinda makes up for the lack of a back yard... "??
You can rent parking for $250 a spot in that area. Can't rent a back yard.
Did anyone make it to the open?
Posted by: eddy at March 30, 2009 9:19 AM
saw the open...it is a little misleading as they call it a 4 bedroom but on tour broker disclaims the basement BR as "not legal" after a little more research i found that no permits were pulled for the top floor BR. This home is a very expen$ive two BR house!
Posted by: flipper at April 1, 2009 10:20 PM
So, a 6.6M 2000 purchase according to SFRob. A 6.95 [sic] list is yet to come. Who thinks that there's zero chance it could go over asking, even in this market, considering the block and the area's lack of inventory?
We've got the answer to that question - the "market" thinks so. 2306 Broadway just cut to $5.995M:
That's 10% below its year 2000 purchase price, for those keeping score. At least for this property, 1999 is here. Amazing!
Posted by: LMRiM at April 15, 2009 2:17 PM
Posted by: eddy at July 21, 2009 5:31 PM