The listing for 135 Fernwood has fallen out of contract and its list price has been reduced $600,000 (20%). Now asking $2,395,000 which is $605,000 (20%) under its purchase price in December of 2005 ($3,000,000) after which it was completely renovated and restored in 2007 (and after which they were asking $4,285,000).
From the listing prior to its latest reduction: “Home is priced at below $500 per sq ft & represents INCREDIBLE VALUE.” Now priced at just under $400.
UPDATE: From a plugged-in reader with respect to 135 Fernwood:
NOD confirmed on SF Recorder’s website. RealtyTrac appears to be showing an auction date of Sept. 23 with $2.4 million (Yahoo shows it as $2.845 million) set as the price (but I don’t see a NOTS on the Recorder’s website). And to think, I was worried about the neighbors defaulting…
∙ Listing: 135 Fernwood Drive (7/4.5) – $2,395,000 [MLS]
∙ The Full Plan Financial Monty For 135 Fernwood Drive [SocketSite]
∙ The Full Plan Monty (135 Fernwood Drive) [SocketSite]
well the price dropped so clearly it’s not ‘real’ Sf, or there is some problem with the layout like an awkward kitchen or bad closets, the remodel is not ‘Dwellish’ enough or is that it’s to much like ‘Dwell’. Oh wait, I know, the buyer simply ‘overpaid’ in 2005.
Regardless, at this price it is sure to start a bidding way and close above the 2005 price. Right? Right?!?!
It can’t be that the market has fallen because SF is immune, or at least the high end is immune, oh I mean ‘prime’ properties are immune, well I am sure that my property is immune at least. Isn’t it?
It definitely fails the Lazy Bathroom Indicator (TM) test. There are only 4.5 bathrooms yet 7 bedrooms. They’ll need to add AT LEAST 2.5 more bathrooms (probably more so that each bedroom can have its own dedicagted bathroom) if they want to sell in this market. Rich people and their children CANNOT be expected to share a bathroom, and they always need one close at hand for those ’emergencies’ that just sneak up on you …
How much would it cost to take the white paint off the original dark wood beams and other elements in the ceilings? When are these fools going to stop doing that?
It looks like a lot of stairs up from the street. Can any of the realtor readers of this blog comment on whether that is a major issue in this price range?
The listing says 4 car parking. Is the parking enclosed?
I realize that neither of these conditions has changed in the past three years…sometimes people overlook things in bull markets that become deal-killers when the market cools.
Prices have fallen in SF. Is anyone still denying that?
^Yes. I am denying that.
Four parking with two in a garage. I count FOUR steps. Except for Mr. Burns of the TV show, The Simpsons, I think 4 steps is probably not going to be an issue for anyone. This is the back of the house:
http://www.mapjack.com/?xGrmWM4qbFbB
Got any other excuses? Or could it be this place is without ANY major flaw but no one is going to pay the old price, because prices have dropped like a rock?
Yawn. Only 4 car garage and 4.5 bathrooms. Someone in this price range wants a climate-controlled 12-car garage, a stable and quarters for the standard 7 full time palfreniers as well as 2 bathrooms per servant (you don’t want horse manure in their quarters now, do you?). All thing that are frequently overlooked in bull markets that become deal-killers when the market cools.
Talking about price range. I was all wrong in the original thread. I estimated that the net worth range of the potential buyers would have to be 10-20M. Well, the target group got downgraded to 5-10M net worth.
@tipster
I think you are failing to catch the sarcasm in SausalitoRes’s post. 🙂
Wow, that sarcasm seemed almost like a real post. I fell for it too.
This place actually does have a nice little servants’ quarters just behind the kitchen. (I’ve been in the house.)
No short sale indicated on the listing, so these specuvestors must have pretty deep pockets. They made every mistake in the book with their pricing strategy – this would have sold for well north of $3M in 2007 (there was an offer around $3.75M), but rather than cut to what the market would bear the specuvestors rented it out for a time (starting in 12/2007) thinking the market would “come back”.
No one would like to see an even bigger wipeout, but I do think this will sell quickly here – and for a bit over ask. Smart strategy imo to take a huge cut like this ($600K). There are still suckers out there – the mission must be to snare one in an overbid situation.
(Actually, at $2.4M this isn’t a horribly foolish deal. I’d peg intrinsic value at around $2M, so we’re not at that much of a premium if it were to go at the current ask.)
Actually, my comment wasn’t intended as sarcastic. I didn’t realize the photo was the back of the house.
Perhaps Tipster confuses me with someone who makes excuses for the housing market. The comment at 9:23 seems a tad angry…
Make that “No one would like to see an even bigger wipeout than I would” in my comment above.
I hope the SS crowd doesn’t think I’m going soft 🙂 I love that the specuvestors are getting an expensive lesson here.
^Angry? I’m THRILLED!!!
LRiM,
Do you really think this was done by a “specuvestor”?
Not only do I think it, sparky-b, but I know it. They’ve done others (including one on St. Elmo that sold for $2.1 just prior to this one). There was a hobbyist element to it, though – wife is a designer/decorator who did one of the restaurants on West Portal Ave.
We might have different definitions of “specuvestor”, though – but they never intended to live in this house, or the one they did before it 😉
They’re probably never going to stop doing that because the practice came into vogue before the 1920’s (started in bedrooms, and then spread throughout the home) and became so common that contemporary contractors and interior designers just gave in and started routinely painting/repainting dark woodwork white when doing restoration work.
It’s been so common for so long that a lot of not-so-knowledgeable upper class buyers (i.e., people of means who do not read Old House Journal, American Bungalow, etc.) expect to see it on pre 30’s homes, so I wouldn’t be so quick to call the sellers/stagers “fools”.
LRiM,
Your story checks out, wow what were they thinking on that $3M buy.
what were they thinking
Maybe the same thing as the owners of 160 Westgate Drive. At one time there appears to be near 100% financing (refi!) of a purchase price of $1.295 million. There goes the neighborhood as the bank just took it back for $1,051,437 (hmmm, price is very close to a similar property that sold recently up the hill). St. Francis Woods proper (its all micro, bro) seems to be about the only neighborhood that has yet to be hit with a foreclosure.
Forgot the detail on 160 Westgate Drive: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths at 2,053 sq ft.
This house is gorgeous.
The exterior elevation on El Verano (what you see in the listing photpgraphs) is charming. But the “front” elevation, the facade facing Fernwood, (thanks to Tipster for the link) is graceless and completely lacking in curb appeal. Hard to believe these are two sides of the same house!
There also appears to be no really private garden area. What should be private is completely open to El Verano.
is this a notice of default on 135 Fernwood??
Also, if you google “135 fernwood drive A1” you’ll get a link to floorplans and more.
[Editor’s Note: Of course you could also get the floor plans by simply following The Full Plan Monty link above…]
Notice of default: the plot thickens…
NOD confirmed on SF Recorder’s website. RealtyTrac appears to be showing an auction date of Sept. 23 with $2.4 million (Yahoo shows it as $2.845 million) set as the price (but I don’t see a NOTS on the Recorder’s website). And to think, I was worried about the neighbors defaulting…
Clearly this wasn’t the “right” property. If you buy the “right” property in San Francisco, than it’s guaranteed to appreciate in value, because the real San Francisco is immune from any real estate issues. Therefore you should hire ME as your realtor so I can find you the “right” property. You need to spend the day with me driving from one overpriced san francisco property to another so I can point out the beautiful crown moldings, which cost like $50 bucks at Home Depot, but I’ll point out those moldings to you anyway. Than you can hear me comment on “curb appeal” and other catchy things that great realtors do. I can also say witty things to counter your concerns. Like if you say something like “I think those people are selling drugs on that corner across from the condo I’m thinking of buying”…I’ll say to you “oh don’t worry, drug dealers only shoot other drug dealers so you’re safe. And don’t forget, you get a front row seat to Bay to Breakers!”.
Great sleuthing on the NOD.
Very satisfying to see this, I have to say. Original loan was on prop shark for $2.4M. It looks like the only smart thing they did was stop paying the mortgage a while ago (I’m guessing that’s how the unpaid balance got to $2.8M -arrears, penalties, fees, expenses, etc.).
$600K down payment + the entire cost of the renovation (had to be at east $500K imho) is now in heaven.
LMRiM –
When I die and go to heaven will my money that went to heaven be there waiting for me (along with my other eye)?
That begs the question if they are current on 155 San Anselmo which seems to be the primary residence…paid about $3M in 2004 and carrying a $2.4M mortgage. Under water… maybe not yet?
I’d bet 255 San Anselmo is way underwater on a $3M buy. That’s almost $1000psf – nice spot, but not that nice. I’d say it would sell for less than $2.5M in this market, perhaps substantially less. Geo has looked a lot more recently in St. Francis – perhaps he could chime in with a better guesstimate.
I do hope there is an afterlife for bubble money that died a glorious death.
^There is! The previous owner, and not one, but TWO Realtors are all having a grand time with that money!
Even at this price, it would be the third most expensive house ever sold in this neighborhood. The original price was delusional.
I am guessing that it sells at this new listing price.
Money in heaven is an interesting topic.
Viewed as a medium of exchange, it is only there when you want what someone else has more than what you have. And vice versa. So both of you trade, and use money to do so. At some point, everyone is done exchanging and there is no more need for money. Mises called it “the final state of rest”. The book of revelation has a lot of interesting things to say about this, such as “the mark of the beast” on your forehead is necessary to buy or sell, which I interpret as the (conscious) awareness of lack. It is viewed negatively. Like Mises, St. John’s Apocalypse says all of it will stop. And the Essene book of Revelation says “For you the days of buying and selling are over”. So there is a consensus against currency, at least if ancient wisdom is to believed.
When viewed as credit, or hope in future wealth, I think we can be a bit more optimistic about money. Gold is commonly viewed as a metaphor for righteousness, and in that sense there are descriptions of streets paved with gold, but no one bothers to pick it up, since there is no lack.
Interesting reverie, Robert. I tend to think money these days serves more as a unit of accounting than medium of exchange, delineating one’s place within a very highly structured society. As such, it is inextricably linked with control, and that’s why it is such a hugely political topic. Although you cannot store money wealth (arguably, you can’t store any “wealth” that you cannot defend yourself) you can seek political control that maintains your place in the food chain.
Getting back to 135 Fernwood, the specuvestors’ previous flip (now that their names are out in the open) was 125 St. Elmo. Sold for $2.15M in October 2004 after a purchase for $1.175M less than a year before.
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/125-Saint-Elmo-Way-San-Francisco-CA-94127/15137520_zpid/
Imagine how far down that one is by now!? 4/3, 3300 square feet, less desirable than 135 Fernwood in every respect and slightly less nice street (but only 5 or 6 houses away from 135 Fernwood). Sure, NVJ, at $2.4M 135 would still be a very pricey Monterey Heights houses, but it’s one of the 5 or 10 nicest in the nabe, is in move-in perfect condition, etc. People who bought after 2002 or so in that nabe are by and large going to be underwater and trapped – especially the 2004-2007 cohort. As the unwind progresses I fully expect this nabe to eat into at least a large portion of the large outsized gains registered 1997-2000.
135 Fernwood is in contract (no surprise that it went quickly here – see my post above at August 11, 2009 9:41 AM). It’ll be curious to see if they can untangle what has to be a messy loan situation and actually get it closed. If it goes for $2.4M, that’s a good result imo – 20% below its pre-renovation 2005 price; a few more years of declines and this nabe will be at reasonable pricing.
anyone know what happened here? does not look like it sold?
That begs the question if they are current on 155 San Anselmo which seems to be the primary residence…paid about $3M in 2004 and carrying a $2.4M mortgage. Under water… maybe not yet?
Chuckie, good question, and now we have a (partial) answer. The home at 155 San Anselmo received a NOD on Nov. 13 for ~$1.7 million. It appears to have been bought in 2004 with a $2,350,000 mortgage. Property tax records show that it’s currently assessed at $2.9 million. For those of you keeping score, this is in SFW proper (or, at least, that’s my plebeian understanding). Send lawyers, guns and money…
Geo, RealtyTrac is now showing a Jan. 12 auction date for 135 Fernwood (we should get confirmation on PS in a week or two).
Ouch.