1333 Waller Street
Returning to the market this winter, 1333 Waller (a.k.a. “Fall” in the row of “Four Seasons” Victorians on Waller) closed escrow near the end of spring (6/12/09) with a reported contract price of $1,725,000 (asking $1,895,000), 6.8% under its purchase price of $1,850,000 in October of 2005.
The Waller Street Four Seasons “Fall” (1333) On The Market In Winter [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by LMRiM

    Too bad they didn’t sell in 2007 or early 2008 – I bet they would have been able to get out at least for even.
    Still, $125K in capital loss + maybe another $100-125K in transaction costs is not too bad considering the size of the bubble and the 3-1/2 year hold period. Congrats to the sellers here – $250Kish is not a lot of money in the overall scheme of things and I bet a 3-1/2 to 4 year hold starting today is going to fare much worse.

  2. Posted by lolcat_94123

    Awesome place. How much of a budget do you need for maintenance on a home like that? Re-paiting alone must cost a small fortune.

  3. Posted by rr

    If the four buildings are held by different owners, is there some sort of contract requiring you to maintain the ‘seasonness’ of your particular building, or can the new owner paint it grey and be done with it?

  4. Posted by Shza

    Interesting question. If there were some legal obligation it would have to be a restriction on the deed that runs with the land rather than something between the owners.
    But it probably (?) serves the property value interests of all 4 owners to maintain this shtick regardless.

  5. Posted by joe shmoe

    LMRiM, where else could they have put their money that would have held value as well. Should they have left it in the stock market? Could anybody have had the guts to really go 100% cash? Relative to other asset classes, SF real estate is holding value very well.
    rr, while the colors contribute to the seasons, there are victorian design motifs on each house that represent each season. I suspect that removing those external features would require a tedious permitting process and that there would be strenuous objections from the whole neighborhood. I suspect Shza is right though, that there is mutual interest in maintaining the value of the set.

  6. Posted by LMRiM

    LMRiM, where else could they have put their money that would have held value as well. Should they have left it in the stock market? Could anybody have had the guts to really go 100% cash? Relative to other asset classes, SF real estate is holding value very well.
    LOL. This was likely a cash-on-cash slaughter. I can’t tell how much money was put down, but even assuming 20% ($370K), they are looking at a 60-70% loss, after transaction costs of course. The actual economic loss is greater, too, because the imputed rental value was well below the actual carrying costs of the place I’m sure.
    There were many asset classes to be invested in. Cash, treasuries, gold, probably even diversified foreign stocks, would all have been better bets. Looked at strictly as a cash on cash question (which is likely appropriate, as the vast majority of people here purchase with leverage, especially in a “non-trophy” type of house such as this one), even US stocks would have been a better bet.
    I sort of agree with your underlying premise, though. People silly enough to commit to overvalued SF real estate as late as 2005 probably would have lost the money anyway on some other foolish choices had they not bought the place. Easy come, easy go.

  7. Posted by joe shmoe

    LMRiM, of course, it is all speculation. I am left wondering though… if you are so much happier renting in Marin, why do you still spend so much time here online, don’t you have anything better to do in Marin than spend time on a bearish SF real estate blog? If Marin is that great, why are you still wasting your time and talent here? Shouldn’t you be hiking, bicycling, and taking your kids to the beach and enjoying the warm weather instead of staring at a computer screen?

  8. Posted by jeff

    ^^^Personal attacks instead of critcal discussion? Joe Schmoe, this does not help a widely read discussion forum where many readers are appreciative of LMRiN’s comments. BTW, I live in Chicago, but use this site to keep in touch with what is happening in real estate in S.F. as I own a home in the 94123 (rented out to tenants similar to LMRiM) and rental units there,(admitedly I own this property through inheritance), does the fact that I don’t currently live in S.F. make my comments not valid?

  9. Posted by SF

    BTW, how could this site be “bearish” when it highlights new listings, sales, and statistics without, for the most part, much editorial comment?

  10. Posted by chuckie

    You a realtor joe shmoe? Nothing against realtors, but more than one has tried to shush lmrim’s musings on this blog.

  11. Posted by joe shmoe

    definitely not a realtor. why do you guys always pull out that accusation? How do we know that LMRiM isn’t really managing opm and using this board as part of his effort to short mortgage backed securities? I mean he sure has an axe to grind and a background in hedge funds, he’s the one I’d be suspicious of!
    jeff, no personal attack, just a reasonable inquiry into motivation. A lot of what LMRiM is saying suggests to me that he is managing money and attempting some manipulation.
    It does seem odd to me that LMRiM is telling us how great the Marin lifestyle is, but that he spends so much time online (not here in particular). That he spends so much time online looking at and discussing San Francisco real estate is open to interpretation, but I am not going to be the one to say the obvious. Again, there is probably more of a financial motive than anything else on behalf of our frequent poster who has a history in managing opm.

Add a Comment

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