October 20, 2010
647 Grand View Number One Falls To Well Under Five (Per Square)
As we wrote in July:
Speaking of distressed listings, the list price for the bank-owned 647 Grand View #1 has just been reduced $60,600 to $1,153,200 ($498 per square foot). Once again, the 2,316 square foot Noe Valley condo was refinanced in October 2007 with loans totaling $1,870,000.
647 Grand View #2 and #4 appear to have sold in October of 2007 for $1,100 and $764 a square foot respectively. And the sale of the 1,068 square foot 647 Grand View #3 closed escrow last week with a reported contract price of $610,000 ($571 per square foot).
This past Thursday the sale of 647 Grand View #1 closed escrow with a reported contract price of $1,043,200 ($450 per square foot). That’s 14 percent under its last original list price, 44 percent under what it was refinanced for in 2007, and 52 percent under the average sale price per square foot of its sister units three years ago.
Don't forget, "This property originally came on the market in spring of '07 for $2.4 million."
Also closing escrow last week, the sale of 1471 Francisco on 10/13 with a reported contract price of $905,000. That's 1 percent over asking, 3 percent over its 2004 price, and 11 percent under what was owed.
∙ Now Asking Under Five Hundred A Foot For Three Bedrooms Atop Noe [SocketSite]
∙ A New High For Distressed Listings In San Francisco [SocketSite]
∙ A Grand Fall For 647 Grand View Atop Noe Valley [SocketSite]
∙ A (Grand) View To A (Comp) Kill [SocketSite]
∙ Who’s Down With OPM In The Marina? [SocketSite]
First Published: October 20, 2010 2:30 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
It seems to me that prices have really started to drop in the Mission-Noe-Castro area. On South Van Ness, there were two identical condos sold in the last 4 months. 2nd one sold for 5% less than the first in only 3 months. The above at less than $500/sq ft is almost reasonable.
Posted by: MissionGuy at October 20, 2010 3:11 PM
Bank sales aren't comps, sorry.
Posted by: anon at October 20, 2010 3:18 PM
"Bank sales aren't comps, sorry."
This is true. In fact, MLS sales, short sales, and FSBO sales that show prices dropping are not comps either.
Posted by: sfrenegade at October 20, 2010 3:30 PM
Anon @ 3:18 - I don't buy the argument that bank sales aren't comps. If the bank puts out a unit a specific price and a buyer negotiates a price that the bank accepts, why isn't it a comp? Clearly the bank found a buyer willing to pay a certain price.
Posted by: Fishchum at October 20, 2010 3:32 PM
Bank sales aren't comps, sorry.
Tell that to the neighbors (#4 & #2). BTW, they are still hanging tough with their WaMu-financed condos.
Posted by: EBGuy at October 20, 2010 3:48 PM
Maybe they overpaid. It happens. But the market is still strong--over $1M for a condo in a poor area? Hardly the 50% off the perma-bears have been predicting for years. Is that the best you can do?
Posted by: anon at October 20, 2010 4:21 PM
I don't understand the "they overpaid" argument. If they agreed upon a price with the seller, how does it diminish the sale as a comp?
Posted by: Fishchum at October 20, 2010 4:26 PM
Talking about #s 2 and 4. Anyway, can't deny somebody paid over $1M for this condo, not exactly a sign of weakness.
Posted by: anon at October 20, 2010 4:28 PM
If #4 and #2 are still hangin' tough, does that make the buyer of #1 the new kid on the block?
It wasn't really a surprise when WaMu went under. The blogger Mike Shedlock used to detail one particular WaMu Alt-A loan portfolio, but he stopped at some point. It kept getting more and more delinquent, percentage-wise, and this was only in the first year after creation, which didn't bode well for other Alt-A portfolios. Here's the last update I remember, in May 2008, where the portfolio was already 31% 60+ days delinquent and almost 23% foreclosed/REO:
Posted by: sfrenegade at October 20, 2010 4:41 PM
anon, did you miss this? "44 percent under what it was refinanced for in 2007"
How do you get the idea that the market is strong? I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to ask, since nothing else you've said has any validity or rational thought to it.
Posted by: lyqwyd at October 20, 2010 4:44 PM
"Anyway, can't deny somebody paid over $1M for this condo"
People have paid over $1M for both crappy condos and designer penthouses. Why is a price without any other information an inherent sign of strength or weakness? The fact that a giant family-sized Noe condo sold at $450/sqft in 2010 seems to be the most important number out of the numbers above.
All else similar (e.g. floor and view), do condos generally sell for the same per square foot whether they are large or small? I know for houses that small houses tend to be higher per square foot, largely because land costs tend to be higher per square foot of building on average.
Posted by: sfrenegade at October 20, 2010 4:49 PM
What it was refinanced for is irrelevant. Kind of like asking prices.
What is relevant is what it sold for.
And Bank sales are definitely comps, but IMO should be taken as a slightly discounted price due to the hassle of dealing with the bank and longer time to close.
Posted by: R at October 20, 2010 4:52 PM
P.S. And every time I see that picture, I'm like, what, did they run out of tile? Or maybe they found some extra and didn't want to have to carry it out to the truck, so they tossed some more on the wall?
Posted by: R at October 20, 2010 4:53 PM
"What it was refinanced for is irrelevant."
The relevance is that someone (the bank) thought that the property was worth enough to serve as collateral for that amount at some time in the past.
"What is relevant is what it sold for."
True, the sales price is a more relevant data point. Appraisers are not necessarily accurate especially in a rapidly changing market.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at October 20, 2010 4:57 PM
"What it was refinanced for is irrelevant."
Why's that? I'm curious here. In this particular case, it was a cash-out, so at minimum the bank who had this property as collateral thought it was worth it. Furthermore, refis are a good indication of what the market thinks about a house generally, since appraisals, even as massaged as they were then, are an indication of what comps were.
I'm not saying the refi is exactly what it's worth, but even if you discount it by 15% as an arbitrary amount, this is still a massive loss, and at the end of the day $450/sqft is $450/sqft.
Posted by: sfrenegade at October 20, 2010 5:02 PM
"What it was refinanced for is irrelevant."
A refinance is a sale (defacto if not dejure). A new bank has bought the property and given the Ho-moaner an option to buy it back at an inflated price.
Posted by: diemos at October 20, 2010 5:05 PM
Refinance is not a sale. Maybe "irrelevant" is too strong though. But it should not br used to say the place is down X%.
Just because some banker somewhere signed off on it doesn't mean it is or ever was worth that on the market.
Posted by: R at October 20, 2010 5:42 PM
What did it sell for last and when did that sale occur? The assessed value is $633,840 according to Property Shark, so it must have been less than that.
None of the usual web sites seem to have the last sale info.
Posted by: NoeValleyJim at October 20, 2010 10:39 PM
The 400s is what I think these areas are worth in terms of rent/buy comparison. Never 700 or 800 or (gasp) 900+. Only speculation/delusion would create these prices.
We're getting closer. And as I said, I am actively shopping around.
Posted by: lol at October 21, 2010 8:02 AM
Sure a refinance is not a sale, but it's still useful information, and nobody used it to say the price was down X%.
It was only 1 of several statistics used to support the argument that the place is significantly down from it's peak.
Posted by: lyqwyd at October 21, 2010 9:06 AM
"nobody used it to say the price was down X%."
Actually it was mentioned as being down 44% from what was refinanced at in the initial post and then repeated again later in response to anon saying that prices hadn't fallen 50% as bears predicted.
Posted by: Rillion at October 21, 2010 9:39 AM
You guys just don't get it. Whether one person made or lost money--who cares? Them and only them. No one put a gun to their head. Maybe they overpaid. So what, it happens. They'll live.
What matters is that the SF is still, even after 2008/09, strong. Over $1M for a lowly condo, and things will only get better from here.
Posted by: anon at October 21, 2010 9:41 AM
"a lowly condo"
Somehow a 3/3 with over 2300 sqft in a prime neighborhood became "lowly." Okay, sir.
Posted by: sfrenegade at October 21, 2010 10:07 AM
i am pleased with the price this unit sold for and i know that some of the new owners in the building are as well (i personally know people that live here). frankly i'm shocked that this unit fetched more than a million bux, but the prices in this building have finally come back down to reality. as broken up and awkward as the floorplan is in this unit, the building (new and highly reinforced foundation, pipes, roof, finishes, etc) is high-quality. mark my words, there will be another foreclosure in this building, remember, there are still two more units in there that haven't turned over yet...
Posted by: og at October 21, 2010 10:36 AM
Read the quote again:
"44 percent under what it was refinanced for in 2007"
note the "REFINANCED FOR" portion.
@anon, if you define strong by continuing to decline, with very few sales, and huge inventory, then I agree with you.
Posted by: lyqwyd at October 21, 2010 12:02 PM
#4 is back: 35% off its $2007 price. $600,000 down the toilet.
Posted by: tipster at April 20, 2011 10:05 AM
Did it have a tenant before? It does now.
Posted by: sfrenegade at April 20, 2011 10:27 AM
I'd still like to write a book about this developer. Talk about a grandslam homerun. This building is now on target for going four for four. Its official, turn out the lights Johnny. Both Units #2 and #4 have now thrown in the towels on their WaMu financed units. NODs filed on March 29 and 10, 2011, respectively.
Posted by: EBGuy at April 20, 2011 12:31 PM
#4 reduced to $990K. $710K gone. 42% off.
Posted by: tipster at May 3, 2011 10:50 PM
#4 reduced again to $940k. NOTS filed on June 14.
Posted by: EBGuy at June 22, 2011 1:26 PM
Looks like the listing for #4 has been pulled. RealtyTrac is showing an auction date of August 8 (though I haven't been able to confirm on PS). Unit #2 received a NOTS on June 30. RealtyTrac shows a August 22 date with the courthouse steps.
Posted by: EBGuy at July 25, 2011 3:20 PM
Unit #2 hit the MLS as a short sale at $799k. It was purchased for $1.625 million in 2007. Dates at the court houses steps keep getting pushed off by a month.
Posted by: EBGuy at September 13, 2011 3:55 PM
You were corrected on that previously, EBGuy.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at September 13, 2011 4:22 PM
Actually, you weren't. Sorry about that. But after I displayed that these weren't arm's length, you went back and looked at tax bases, confirming that only one was an arm's length transaction, 2 not among them. Guess you forgot.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at September 13, 2011 4:31 PM
Posted by: A.T. at September 15, 2011 11:09 AM
I'm going to call it a grand slam as Unit #4 closed as a short sale for $900k in Jan 2012 (previous retail value: $1.7million) and Unit #2 closed as short sale for $790k in Dec. 2011 (previous retail value $1.625 million).
Gotta love those condo conversions back in the day -- nice to know SF played a small part in the near destruction of the free world. So long WaMu, it was good to know ya.
Posted by: EBGuy at June 14, 2012 3:16 PM
How did you get the exact comment link?
[Editor’s Note: Likely "View Source" and parsing the HTML, but we'll be making it much easier in the coming weeks.]
Posted by: eddy at June 14, 2012 3:27 PM
Outstanding news. Let me know if you need a beta tester.
Posted by: eddy at June 14, 2012 3:48 PM
you went back and looked at tax bases, confirming that only one was an arm's length transaction, 2 not among them. Guess you forgot.
No, I guess you didn't read the whole thread. Particularly the part where I noted: The property taxes have been updated; Unit 2 is showing a tax basis of $1,657,500. Oh, and it looks like taxes are past due. Hmmm, excellent use of foreshadowing. I may have lost the war, but I definitely won this battle.
In fact, these units (they're condos for cryin' out loud) caused me to misunderestimate (sic) the staying power of Noe (what with gentrification, urbanization and that highway exit to SV). That and the doctor's foreclosure caused a bit of fogging in the crystal ball. At any rate, you and sparky-b have got all the marbles. But really has the fat lady sung? See you in 2020 (sigh... I couldn't resist).
Posted by: EBGuy at June 14, 2012 4:21 PM