1070 Sanchez Living
Purchased for $1,910,000 in July 2007, the 2,543 square foot Noe Valley condo at 1070 Sanchez returned to the market this past February asking $2,095,000, it ended up selling for $1,762,500 in August, 8% under its 2007 value (19% under February expectations).
Quickly repainted, staged, and relisted for $1,799,000 a month later, the resale of the top-floor unit with deck and views closed escrow yesterday with a reported contract price of $1,725,000, an additional drop of 2% ($37,500) in value over the past three months.
Annualized Appreciation Of 18.5 Percent At Asking For 1070 Sanchez [SocketSite]

18 thoughts on “Annualized <Strike>Appreciation</strike> Depreciation At 1070 Sanchez”
  1. wow,
    so i guess buying in a seller’s market and selling in a buyer’s market after a short hold is a bad idea. boy, i hope we can find more examples of this. someone could run a blog with such material..soo informative, so right now…

  2. @anonee:
    “buying in a seller’s market”? Really? This summer (i.e. 2010 when the seller bought) was a seller’s market? I don’t recall too many places selling for $300K under asking in a “seller’s market”.
    I don’t think anything you said matches reality in the slightest. You sound like a bull ducking for cover in the face of an 8% annualized decline, though they did repaint, so apples to apples the decline could be a bit more.
    Pretty much exactly what I said in March (over 8 months ago):
    The politically acceptable decline appears to put SF at a 6-7% drop per year. They will manage rates and programs to that level.
    When HAFA gets going this summer, there will be a further hit.
    Posted by: tipster at March 1, 2010 11:10 AM

  3. I’m sure this is yet another person who bought and then suddenly was relocated out of state, and thus their company paid all the relocation fees?
    that seems to happen in SF often for whatever reason. Very mobile people.
    this story is just plain bizarre.
    why buy a place and then list it for a paltry $36.5k more a month later? were they hoping for a bidding war? are they a RE agent and thus don’t have to pay commissions? are they criminally insane?
    I’m not sure what this whole story means except that when this comes back to market in 2 years nobody will be able to say that they “overpaid”… since we have 2 comps on this property within a few months of one another.

  4. I think this is a good comp, but man, what a weird situation / story.
    It looks like one of the former co-owners may have held a real estate broker’s license in Arizona from 1986-98. Her name matches, and on the website for the Feed and Pet Supply store it mentions that their background is from a very different industry.

  5. actually anonee a lot of readers like having actual points of data that socketsite provides. If all of the many posts on socketsite are uniquely cherrypicked, it’s an open forum where people can provide counterpoints. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been lied to or misled over the last ten years by realtors- in big and small ways. It’s great to have the internet and sites like socketsite instead of the usual misleading dribble from the Bureau of Misinformation (the NAR).

  6. the interesting buy & sell turnaround situation makes this a blog-worthy post in and of itself; it’s not necessary that the post is making a point of the market being weak, or strong, as anonee was reading it.

  7. Of course, one could also read market strength into this story by changing the headline: “Modest NV condo twice sells for over $1.7m in short order!” Granted, I am not a condo person, but I marvel that a condo, even a nice one, fetches that much in this market. (Though it is a great location; walking distance to Whole Foods on 24th.) But, yep, the 2007 buyer at $1.9 million lost big money sure enough. [Time for someone to chime in – “But not as much as she would have lost next year!”]

  8. I wouldn’t be hugely surprised if the original sale was to a bank owned LLC, thereby legitimatizing a sale price?
    The second sale comes with a feeling of price credibility.

  9. first, i’m not a fan of the ‘19% under February expectations’ note…just would prefer to stick with what it sold previously and what it sold at today, otherwise, you have to remark about something that sold ‘10% above asking!’ even though it might have been put out there at below the last price. Just stick with sold dates, imho.
    That being said, I noted this before – so we’re talking about a 10% decline in ‘peak’ price (and one could argue, 2007 was total peak) to today for this condo, right?

  10. “The politically acceptable decline appears to put SF at a 6-7% drop per year. They will manage rates and programs to that level.”
    if true, than at just 6% annualized decline this place would have sold for $1,586,400, or is my math wrong?
    I agree w/the above 6% decline on *many* SF properties but here is an example of this not happening.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *