October 23, 2009
Former Thirteen Million Dollar Mansions And New Comps To The South
While a plugged-in reader reports that 200 Manzanita down in Woodside "that sold for $13.8mm back in 2000 just sold for $8mm (after trying to get more than they paid and following the market down for three years)," according to the Chronicle the key witness in the Galleon investigation sold "her $13 million Atherton mansion" for $9.4 million in May.
UPDATE: We can’t confirm, but another plugged-in reader believes the 2009 sale price for 200 Manzanita was actually even less:
I believe that the more recent sale price (contract executed in August, with the sale having closed in September of 2009) was $5.62 million, not $8.0 million.
If so, call it a 59% drop in value over the past nine years for the Woodside mansion. If not, it’s only 42%. And perhaps Kahn did okay.
∙ Trying To Tell It Like It Is For 114 Crescent Avenue In Bernal Heights [SocketSite]
∙ Listing: 200 Manzanita, Woodside [tomdallas.com]
∙ More players emerge in Galleon Group scandal [SFGate]
First Published: October 23, 2009 6:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
No, these repeated 30% discounts can't be true.
The anecdotal evidence I keep hearing on this site from people trying (unsuccessfully) to unload their peninsula homes is how hot the market is down there. Would they be making that up just to talk up the market? I'm shocked!
Posted by: tipster at October 23, 2009 9:21 AM
These sales are not indicative of the peninsula market. The previous buyers of these properties probably just overpaid.
Posted by: location at October 23, 2009 9:42 AM
tipster, the $10M atherton/woodside/hillsborough market is not hot, and hasn't been since 2000. some google money create a little recovery in 04, 05, but the high-end bubble was caused by IPOs and M&A activity.
has anyone on socketsite ever (in any comment) ever claimed these markets were strong, or are you attacking another strawman? some of your comments are insightful, but the above is not one of them.
Posted by: steve at October 23, 2009 9:44 AM
Anecdotal for sure, but I can say that the sub $1M peninsula market is solid (if not hot). Houses priced properly in my school district are selling at listing price (which is definitely down 5-10% on average from peak) within 4 weeks.
To me, it feels like the the downward pressure really kicks in around $1.4M+.
Posted by: prefabisgood at October 23, 2009 9:52 AM
"has anyone on socketsite ever (in any comment) ever claimed these markets were strong, or are you attacking another strawman? some of your comments are insightful, but the above is not one of them"
Oh, maybe this one, where you change the subject of sales in SF to discuss palo alto:
"I don't know what is happening in SF-proper, but in Palo Alto and Menlo Park, tight inventory of quality houses has been translating into higher prices since late winter/early spring. maybe the supply and demand curve works differently in tipster's city?
Posted by: steve at October 13, 2009 2:24 PM"
I didn't see you qualify the statement to any particular market. Maybe I missed it. Of course, your unsupported statement was to be completely refuted by me later:
according to Redfin, 94301 (nicest part of Palo Alto) inventory is up 66% YOY and 6% from last month and prices are down and falling. Sales are down YOY and MOM. Median sale price per square foot is down. Asking price per square foot is up a bit, but who cares.
Palo Alto in general:
Inventory up 40% YOY, 8% MOM, Sales down YOY and MOM, price per square foot down YOY, up a bit MOM.
Thanks for sharing your anecdotes.
Posted by: tipster at October 13, 2009 3:09 PM
Average DOM for sub 1.5M in 94301 Palo Alto (any type of property) is currently 83 days, though there are almost no SFRs in that price range (7 SFRs, DOM 67 days). Up the peninsula in San Carlos where that price range has a large number of homes, average DOM is 80 days in 94070. DOM for 1.5M and down homes in Mountain view:63 days.
Posted by: tipster at October 23, 2009 10:20 AM
glad to see you are in full a-hole mode today, tipster.
1) palo alto/menlo park is very different from atherton/woodside/hillsborough where lot sizes are 1 acre min and median prices are substantially higher.
completely different housing stock, completely different peak price time, completely different buyers. peak price for palo alto, for example, likely came in summer 2008
2) palo alto/menlo park prices are exactly as I described. I'll ask know for the second time (the first being in the thread you link) did you read my comment and look at your charts? they support what I said:
in Palo Alto and Menlo Park, tight inventory of quality houses has been translating into higher prices since late winter/early spring.
3) your comment does not address my question in this thread at all:
has anyone on socketsite ever (in any comment) ever claimed these markets were strong, or are you attacking another strawman?
I take you silence as assent that you are presenting yet another straw man.
Now, to tie things back from SF, what I am seeing when I look, again mostly peninsula but some Noe is shortage of quality listings. Other buyers here report the same. What do you see when you go out and look?
Posted by: steve at October 23, 2009 10:36 AM
This property indeed sold for $13.8 million in December of 2000. I believe that the more recent sale price (contract executed in August, with the sale having closed in September of 2009) was $5.62 million, not $8.0 million. Prices in high-end Peninsula market areas such as central Woodside never even came close to recovering to their Internet/VC money-fueled peak level, even in the housing market mania of the previous economic cycle. Most people don't follow such high-end markets and thus probably are not aware of that fact.
Posted by: Franco at October 23, 2009 11:26 AM
> This property (200 Manzanita) indeed sold for $13.8 million in
> December of 2000. I believe that the more recent sale price
> (contract executed in August, with the sale having closed in
> September of 2009) was $5.62 million, not $8.0 million.
I was the one that “heard” it sold for $8.0mm when I was at a party down the street not long ago. Before I posted what I “heard” on Socket Site I logged in to the title company database and saw that the sales price and current assessed value were both listed as $8.0mm. After reading Franco’s post I logged back on to the title co. web site and see that the “sales price” has been reduced to $5.62mm, but the “assessed value” is still $8.0mm. I wonder what is going on??
Posted by: FormerAptBroker at October 23, 2009 3:55 PM
It takes some time for any county assessor's office to get around to reassessing a property after a sale. This property sold only about a month ago and has not yet been reassessed.
Posted by: Franco at October 26, 2009 10:09 AM