The sale of 2041 Sacramento appears to have closed escrow today with a reported contract price of $1,950,000. Purchased for $2,286,500 in June 2007, call it an effective 15 percent drop in value for the remodeled top floor Pacific Heights condo overlooking Lafayette Park and Cathedral Hill (and with two car parking) over the past three years.
The property had been listed for $2,095,000 a little over a year ago before reducing its list price to $1,999,000 and then relisting as a short sale for “$1,695,000” this past January.
∙ An Apples To Apples (And Rather Prime) Update For 2041 Sacramento [SocketSite]
∙ North To South (And Apples To Apples) From Atop 2041 Sacramento [SocketSite]
Oh Oh — now we have an apple with a price drop in the Real SF…….
The lower unit is also on the market now as well; 2039 @1.595. Sold in 2001 for $1.15.
Also, re: 2041, I think it is increasing important to make it clear that this is a 15% drop from 2007. The vintage of the Apple is becoming more important.
From the original thread:
With a 30% haircut in Pac Heights from 2007, it looks like 2041 might be sold soon. Last listed for 1.695, pending now as a short sale.
Posted by: tipster at September 17, 2010 3:36 PM
This random comment was never explained or vetted?
[Editor’s Note: As written above, “Purchased for $2,286,500 in June 2007, call it an effective 15 percent drop in value…over the past three years.” We’re guessing the “random comment” was assuming a sale at the “$1,695,000” list price.]
a few thoughts
1) this sale helps to pull the median sales and average sales price for the city UP even though the actual sale is a loss from 2007. a possible example of how mix can be important.
2) the loss in home valuation is only 15% but it comes out to $336,500. ouch. this is one of the problems with SF real estate. even small losses in percentage terms can hurt in dollar amounts, even if you’re affluent.
3) the previous estimates of future sales price were pretty far off, with most people thinking $1.7M (excluding eddy, who felt it would go for more). I’m not throwing stones because I doubt I’ve ever bothered to hazard a guess about what a house will go for… I don’t know the micro-nabe pricing well enough. just thought it was interesting that several posters thought $1.7M would be the price.
all that said, there was significant improvement in the SF RE market between Oct 2009 when the predictions were made and summer 2010.. there has been deterioration since summer 2010 but not back to Oct 09 predictions…
Ed., I was just drawing the vintage, and their increasing importance out a bit further. Cheers.
I never saw the listing at $1.695 and it was never addressed on SS from what I can tell so I was just confused on that one. I also didn’t realize it is a short sale. So Tipsters analysis about the total loss to the owners is a bit void since some of the real loss was burdened back to the bank. Our government @ work!
Personally, I’m a bit surprised at the sale price to be honest. I don’t understand why this place had to go the short sale route if it garnered a sale @ 1.9?
@ex-SFer: “the previous estimates of future sales price were pretty far off”
I’m already shocked they are going to take a $400K+ hit with realtor fees.
Posted by: tipster at October 14, 2009 10:09 AM
They took a 400K+ hit, with realtor fees. I even qualified my guess, “with realtor fees”, because I did not think they would take more than a 400K loss without them. Was that a correct guess, or an incorrect one? Dead on, if you ask me.
And yes, eddy, the haircut I mentioned was the list price, the sale price being unknown at the time.
As for real SF, this is as real as real can be. A1 condition, the type buyers want today, and yet it still lost around $700,000 over the cost of renting over its 3.25 year hold. Outrageous!
This place sold in 2000 for $1.7M. Inflation adjusted, this apple appears to have made the trip back to 2000 or earlier.
Just as the Hill Street appreciated 500k from 2004, this place lost 300k from 2007. No denying it.
But claiming 700k loss here, $448,625 and 900k losses on the other thread are speculative at best. This was a short sale and probably had reduced realator fees, the sellers probably walked with break even or certainly less than the figures posed in these threads. Still, no doubt they lost here and are liable for the difference in taxes on any defaulted value but they certainly lessened the burden on this situation.
I’ll be curious to see where 2039 winds up. Between the 2007 – 2010 sale and a 2001 to 2010 sale we should get a good picture.
Good apple, SS. This 2007-2010 apple and the one you posted earlier (1070 Sanchez, an 8% drop from 2007-2010, https://socketsite.com/archives/2010/09/annualized_appreciation_of_185_percent_at_asking_for_10.html#comments),
provides some good 2007 ‘peak’ pricing information.
The bank took the loss. The government has done a lot of clumsy and unfortunate things, but getting involved in this short sale is not one of them.
“The bank took the loss.”
Before the “crisis” the banks were paying, oh let’s call it, 2% on 7T of deposits. 140B a year.
Now, after the government’s intervention they’re paying 0% on those deposits.
And thus we see who, exactly, is providing the cash flow to write off those losses.
@tipster…
read the old thread. I wasn’t talking about you. three other posters specifically mentioned $1.7M as the sales price. some even stated $1.5 to $1.7.
it’s not a dig at anybody, because I personally think that the local SF RE market was a very different beast in Oct 2009 compared to Oct 2010, and thus those valuations were likely not as far off as this sale in late 2010 would indicate.
Besides, as I said I wouldn’t mock anybody about valuation because I rarely if ever make estimates on valuation. If I did I would be millions of dollars off. I would pay maybe $750,000 for this place. If I were a wild and crazy guy I’d maybe pay $1.2M. The idea of paying $2M for this place is insanity IMO. which is why I am not an owner in SF, and why I don’t try to value SF RE.
I just thought it was interesting what people were thinking back then
I guess that’s why you’re an “ex” SF’er?
That’s the beauty of markets. No one cares about your opinion, unless you’re the high bidder.
“This place sold in 2000 for $1.7M. Inflation adjusted, this apple appears to have made the trip back to 2000 or earlier.”
If that $1.7M figure is correct, inflation says this place should have sold for $2.155M.
2039 Sacramento says sale-pending.
A NOTS was filed on July 21, 2010. Looks like a good outcome for all (happy buyer, shared losses, no foreclosure).
That’s the beauty of markets. No one cares about your opinion, unless you’re the
high bidderbank.Here’s an interesting up and coming property in the neighborhood, 2299 Sacramento #21. Originally bought for $875,500 in 2005, it looks like they managed to get a million out in a refi (2007). NOTS filed on Jan. 7, 2010 and with an HOA assessment in July.
If 2041 Sacramento Sold for $1.7M in 2000, and 2.28M in 2007, that’s a little over 4% annual appreciation rate, which seems quite low.
I thought annual appreciation rates were over to 10% in that time period.
Wouldn’t be surprised to see 2039 sell to the 2041 buyer. In Escrow Firm after 18 DOM. Loving the new SFARMLS rules on price disclosure!
I guess that’s why you’re an “ex” SF’er?
sure, of course that’s partly it.
I used to be asked this question a lot, especialy by RE bulls, back in 2007. Basically, I moved because the job market for doctors sucks in SF and the salaries are terrible. at first, I dreamed of moving back one day… but as time has gone on this has been less and less of a dream for me.
I still have friends and family there so I “plug in”. It is still possible that we may end up moving back at some point if the conditions are right because I do love the city… although I see it quite differently now that I’ve left.
but I would have to leave medicine and increase my income to move back to SF. (such as jumping into Venture Capital, something I consider intermittently.)
It’s not really up to me anymore anyway because I’m the secondary breadwinner… so I go where I’m told to go! haha.
“Loving the new SFARMLS rules on price disclosure!”
eddy, are you referring to the confidentiality rule change?
@sfr, yes.
Here’s the link to Zillow that shows 11/30/2000 sale for $1.7M
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2041-Sacramento-St-San-Francisco-CA-94109/54854465_zpid/
Click om ‘More Entries’ under Price History.
I’m not saying I doubt the sale or the price, only that it seems odd to have appreciation so out of line with what other properties were getting during those 7 years, but I could easily be missing something…
2041 on market @ $1,695,000
Doh!
UPDATE: While The MLS Reports A “Sale,” Public Records Report A Foreclosure.]
What a scam by the lying listing agent! Nice try to up your own stats and to juke the overall stats. And he/she even put sale-pending to refer to the foreclosure process.
Oct 05, 2010 Sold (Public Records)
This home was foreclosed and bank-owned $1,880,877
Oct 04, 2010 Sold (MLS) $1,950,000
It looks like this was done, not on SFAR’s MLS, but another local MLS. That’s odd because it’s actually not uncommon for some Bay Area agents to cross-list on SFAR while also doing so on a local MLS, but less common the other way (although it has been done for places like 311 Marina).
“This is not the Real Sf.”
Keep telling yourself that.
Love that they’re trying to claim the sale on their websites too:
http://adamatito.com/PropertyDetails?show_address=yes&show_description=yes&show_virtual_tour=yes&pid=81003164&ls=REIL&presented_by=yes
And here’s the claim of pending in Google’s archives:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fh81_onaJf0J:saraspangrealtor.com/featured%3Fpage%3D9+2041+sacramento+san+francisco+atito&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Shame on you, Keller Williams.
The sale of 2039 Sacramento closed escrow yesterday with a reported contract price of $1,600,000 (and hopefully fully aware of the
saleforeclosure above).