December 30, 2009
Back To Year 2000 Rent For The 3,300 Square Foot 75 Folsom #1204
Purchased for $4,125,000 in September 2000, the 3,300+ square foot 75 Folsom #1204 was unable to find a buyer at $4,400,000 (down from $6,200,000) in 2009.
And while a plugged-in agent reacalls having leased it out for the owner in 1999 at $10K per month (asking $12K at the time), a plugged-in tipster notes the current owners are now asking $9,500 per month down from $12,000-$15,000 per month this past August.
∙ From Three To One And Six-ish To Five-ish (So Far): 75 Folsom #1204 [SocketSite]
∙ $9500 / 2br - Enjoy Panoramic views - two bedroom condo [Craigslist]
First Published: December 30, 2009 7:15 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
It's not really fair to compare these high end rental prices. There seems to be an upper limit on rentals right around the $10k/mo mark for whatever reason. Some properties obviously rent for more, but you tend to find some $3.5M and $9M homes all renting for around $10k in many instances. This has been true for several years in my casual observations.
Lastly, Wavro and his agents are always 15-25% over real market rates IMO. This place certainly doesn't look anything close to what I'd expect to see for this price. See name link for a sweet place in R.Hill for about the same asking. Much nicer IMO.
Posted by: eddy at December 30, 2009 11:13 AM
Using the rule of thumb that real estate should sell for no more than 10% of the yearly rent, the asking price for this property is way too much. Let's say they could rent it for $9,000 per month. Then it should sell for no more than $1.08 million. Yet they were asking $4.4 million. In other words, why would anyone want to buy this property when they can rent for so much less? The owners paid way too much for the place in 2000. Think of the opportunity cost. Even in this low interest rate environment you can get at 4% on a tax free muni. That's about $14,000 per month. That means if they can rent it for $9,000 per month, the owners would be losing $5,000 per month + costs such as property taxes and maintenance. We call this a very bad investment. They are banking on the allure of SF to trump fundamentals. You could do that for perhaps 10 years but no more.
Posted by: A. Zarkov at December 31, 2009 4:34 AM
There seems to be an upper limit on rentals right around the $10k/mo mark for whatever reason.
Like not that many people making 450K+/Y? At these levels employees usually have sizable capital on the side (from stock options or others) and do not bother to rent.
Posted by: wow at December 31, 2009 8:04 AM
wow -- Doesn't seem particularly prudent to be renting at $10K/mo even if you make $450K/year. That's near the top edge of 28% of gross for $450K ($10.5K is exactly 28%). I don't think I'd assume sizable capital on the side though, unless it's well above $450K.
Posted by: JimBobJones at January 4, 2010 3:32 PM