Purchased for $800,000 with 10 percent down in July 2004, the property at 834 44th Avenue was taken back by the bank this past December at $575,000. From its latest listing at a rather aggressive (“especial” considering its condition) $899,900:
“Contractor especial! Fixer needs a major renovation!…Please allow 2-3 business days for seller’s response, cash sale, bank will not finance as is!”
As far as we’re concerned “contractors special” (or especial) and “fixer” (which this is not) do not belong in same listing. And bad things happen when people confuse the two.
∙ Listing: 834 44th Avenue (3/2) – $899,900 [MLS]
I’ve seen houses in the slide zone of the Berkeley hills suffering foundation problems described as “fixers.”
Absurd.
Went to mapjack to see what 149 Mangels looks like now, seems the Mapjack vehicle came by at an opportune time. . . .
not that hard to find actual homes in that area for that price.
For the trifecta the listing needs to add “the value’s in the land!”.
Dreamer. You know you are a dreamer.
They’ll be lucky to get $575k.
Nothing like “CASH SALE, BANK WILL NOT FINANCE AS IS! NO REPAIRS!” to induce a deep sense of trust into this deal.
My estimate: 376K. 200/sf max for a project with water damage. Anyone paying more than land value for this is a fool and deserves to be separated from his money.
Let the bank pay for lending to the biggest fool.
so why does the listing say “FREE credit report if buyer finances through Bank of America Home Loans” and then follow with “BANK WILL NOT FINANCE AS IS!”?
Beautiful picture on 149 Mangels. WOW:
http://www.mapjack.com/?QarmWs9wbFTE
You have to see it to believe it — seems like Mapjack was reading the news reports…
For essentially the same price, there’s a “fixer” on Scott near Pine that’s at least out of tsunami range…
http://vanguardsf.com/LOTL-365793.php
In my country (the People’s Republic of Yerba Buena), we call this a teardown.
I love what it says on Redfin:
Public Facts for 834 44th Ave
Beds: –
Baths: 2.0
Finished Sqft: 3,734
Unfinished Sqft: –
Total Sqft: 3,734
Floors: 2
Lot Size: 3,480
Style: Single Family Residential
Year Built: 1920
Year Renovated: –
County: San Francisco County
APN: 1686033
Last Updated: January 29, 2010
These facts may not match MLS-provided listing facts.
I think it was former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” 🙂
Anyway, I agree this place is a tear-down, and so whether it’s 1,882 sq. ft. or 3,734 is kinda irrelevant: It’s zoned RH-2, so some enterprising flipper will probably buy it and turn it into a multi-family as soon as credit starts flowing freely again.
“…as soon as credit starts flowing freely again.”
Is that before or after the upcoming (2 year) wave of foreclosures?
There’s been a shift around here in bear CW. What was once, “property values will shift drastically because the easy credit that created competition and overvaluation is gone” doesn’t seem to be the mantra any longer. Now it’s, “all the people who bought more than they can afford will be selling en masse, creating a surplus and therefore lack of demand will create a drastic price shift.” Can either explain the allmighty SFR’s performance so far? Or, if you’re honest, do you need to include micro factors? hmmmmm.
is this a saitowicz?
The market is returning to historical medians by any means necessary which is the usual thing. Understanding that isn’t only a bear or bull thing. Does anyone really expect interest rates to stay around zero for good?
The last time interest rates were shifted northward appreciably, around 2007 or so, the effect was not detrimental to the San Francisco market.
The last time interest rates were shifted northward appreciably, around 2007 or so, the effect was not detrimental to the San Francisco market.
What is your point?
Are you suggesting that residential real estate is immune to increased costs of capital?
Are you suggesting that the market profile of SF residential real estate today is similar to 2007?
Seriously. I’m not one of your perennial antagonists. But this observation is lost somewhere between worthless and asinine.
I made my point I thought. There are a lot of people talking about “the coming interest rate shift is necessarily going to signal a huge market slowdown” around these parts. Well, I’ve heard that talk before and it proved false. So I’ve made a point. Have you? Have you seen a mortgage rate sheet this morning? I have. In historical terms rates will still be low. People with 20 percent to put down will still get mortgages too. And so will FHA borrowers as long as that’s kept going. You can go ahead and not talk to me again for another six months unless you actually have something to say for all I care. Calling something asinine or worthless without making a counter argument is less than nothing.
I just looked at the 3 month eurodollar rate…..it can’t get much lower. It’s practically free money. 30 year bonds are a trifle lower.
Look to Japan, they’ve been giving money away for 30 years and still their economy is in the dumpster. I can’t speak to their real estate prices.
Interest rates didn’t use to matter in 2003 to 2007 thanks to negative amortization and no-docs. The business models of many investors from that time were revolving around an anticipated appreciation. When you expect to hold 2 years and cash out a profit leveraged at 10-to-1 or 20-to-1, the interest rate difference is not a very big deal.
Now that people are buying to actually enjoy their property, interest rates do matter. Between paying 3000 and 3500, it does matter when the 500 come from an actual income.
There are all sorts of mistakes and overstatements within that synopsis, wow. The years don’t sync up properly with the programs use or termination. You seem to be floating an idea that fixed rates weren’t always more popular and that’s also false. The two year cash out hold was a rule rather than an exception, etc etc. No. Interest rates mattered all along, they still matter, and they will still be at the lower end of things historically even if they shift up an entire point (unlikely to occur in anything but a gradual manner).
anonn,
I think you need to clarify your thoughts too. In 2 posts, you are saying:
1 – The last time interest rates were shifted northward appreciably, around 2007 or so, the effect was not detrimental to the San Francisco market.
2 – Interest rates mattered all along
Your first post could be construed as “interest rates did not matter” though I understand you meant something a little bit more subtle.
Back to your comment. Imagine you go to BigBadBroker in 2006 and say you want to buy an SF 1.5M house but only want to pay 4K in mortgage with 10% down. You’d find a lender with Neg Am, No Docs or both. Whether you had interest rates at 5, 6 or 7% your typical investor would only look at “how much is my monthly payment”.
I understand this was not the vast majority of the loans, but markets were influenced by these outliers either directly (removing supply/ adding demand) or indirectly (by affecting outside markets that would affect SF by domino effect)
Fast forward to 2010. BigBadBroker will ask for your docs, and Neg Ams are out. The broker and the bank will look at how much you can actually afford. On the buyer side this does matter too, because people tend to fill up their liabilities to capacity (following the mantra: buy as much house as you can). A difference in interest rates will matter on both sides.
My understanding of what annon was saying is basically that yes interests matter but that you can not just make the blanket claim that as soon as interest rates start to rise you will see an automatic decline in home sales, leading to increased supply, then declining price.
Personally I would expect that when interest rates start to rise that we may actually see, in the short run, an increase in sales activity as buyers who have been on the sidelines waiting move to lock in a low rate before the rate increases scale up. I doubt we are going to wake up one day and find the mortgage rates have jumped 2% overnight. So there will be a window where people might actually be more inclined to buy because of rising interest rates.
Right now if you believe that interest rates are not going to rise this year and that the housing market is still not out of the woods, you have very little incentive to buy now. But if the economy continues to improve such that the Fed decides it can start to raise rates without killing the recovery, then perhaps some people might decide that is the time to stop waiting on the sidelines.
Right. My initial comment was made in the context of the prevailing sentiment that an interest rate hike will spell a market sea change. Not, “they don’t matter.” I appreciate those who don’t view everything in such black and white didactic terms on here, honestly. Lending is always in a state of flux by its very nature. What if 10% down full docs came back, for example? Who can say what programs will begin once the RESPA inquisitions ease up? Not a bunch of guys on a BBS.
Of course, if the bank won’t finance, then what’s the point of the free credit report? My criticism is of the realtor who even mentions a free credit report (with a value of what, $20), for a property that is $899K. That’s like saying, you get a free tootpick, with your steak at Mortons.
The list price for 834 44th Avenue has been reduced $36,000 (4%), now asking $863,900.
The list price for 834 44th Avenue has been reduced to $719,900. Once again purchased for $800,000 with 10 percent down in July 2004 and then taken back by the bank this past December at $575,000 (in its “especial” condition).
834 44th Avenue has returned to the MLS with a new listing, now asking $588,900. Once again, purchased for $800,000 with 10 percent down in July 2004.