January 19, 2011
From "Sold" To Actually Sold To Facing Foreclosure At 3208 Pierce
As plugged-in people might recall, while the Marina development at 3208 Pierce hit the market in 2007 with printed marketing materials touting "SOLD" for unit #407, the unit quietly hit the MLS listed for $1,279,000 once the rest of the building was in contract.
The two-bedroom condo ended up selling for $1,249,000 that October by way of a first mortgage for $999,200. A month later a second for $80,000 was added and a third for $124,000 the month after that. Call it a 96 percent Loan to Value ratio for the property within two months of purchase and at the end of 2007.
So why do we mention it now? Well, while the original notice of default was filed in November 2009, and the notice of trustee sale was finally filed a year later, the December 2010 auction being postponed due to the million dollar condo buyer's bankruptcy but the property is currently scheduled to hit the courthouse steps again in a week.
∙ 3208 Pierce: New Website And Photo Gallery [SocketSite]
∙ Another Chance To Buy In The "Sold Out" 3208 Pierce [SocketSite]
First Published: January 19, 2011 9:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Or you can walk across the street and buy a 2b/2ba at 3190 Scott for 849,000
Posted by: Mike at January 19, 2011 10:11 AM
oh censorship. so anyway, someone thought $800/sq.ft was good value in '07. they were wrong then and yet they still are confident enough to make daily predictions. "how does he do it?"
[Editor’s Note: Not quite. But if you’re going to go after someone for what they wrote, a practice with which we have no problem, you might want to work on your reading comprehension and accuracy rather than wasting everyone’s time.
From your referenced reader with respect to this project in 2007: "Views from the third floor look good, and aside from the top floor, I can't imagine why anyone would pay anything over $600 psf at that location. Whether anyone will continue to pay $1000 per square foot for a location, location, location on the highway, highway, highway, is anyone's guess."]
Posted by: anonee at January 19, 2011 10:35 AM
"96 percent Loan to Value ratio for the property within two months of purchase"
congratulations, sir. nicely played.
and nope, no stretching to buy there.
Posted by: Your equity will be assimilated. at January 19, 2011 10:53 AM
the banks overpaid. it happens
Posted by: anon.edu at January 19, 2011 10:56 AM
Heck, a 96% LTV after two add-on loans was conservative for that era! Banks must have been tightening by late 2007! I had a (former) partner buy a house in Noe for $1.6mm in 2006 with nothing down (80/20) then tack on another half million in additional loans over the next 18 months. Bragged about it to anyone who would listen.
Posted by: A.T. at January 19, 2011 11:14 AM
Looks like there was a decent shill presence on SocketSite back in the day too, but that makes sense with the volume of condos being listed then. The acoustics information was helpful, but the listing of businesses was as useless as it is when there are photos of said businesses in the listing.
Posted by: sfrenegade at January 19, 2011 11:15 AM
Interesting, it appears that the foreclosed former owner (or someone with the same name who dropped her middle initial) employed a similar strategy at The Palms. Unit 510 at 555 Fourth St. was purchased for $495k in Nov. 2006. A month later it looks like a second was recorded. It then was foreclosed by the bank in March of 2010 for $351k and resold for $280k in August 2010. Two units of inventory taken off the market by one person. Boom, boom, boom, BOOM...
Posted by: EBGuy at January 19, 2011 11:27 AM
Yes, anonee, it looks like I was dead on.
Over 400 people showed up to the open house, and there were reports that 11 reserved right away, and yet, in spite of all that overwhelming interest, there I was, saying these would never resell for anything near what people were actually happy to be paying. It was early 2007, the boom in SF was obviously still in full swing, and yet there I was saying it wouldn't last. That was an amazing prediction for January of 2007.
The owner of the subject property of this thread is the former sales manager of a mortgage broker, and yet I was able to out-predict even her on a market she should have known cold. How DO I do it?
Those who didn't listen to me 4 years ago are now filing for bankruptcy. Some of the people who ignore what I am saying now will share the same fate.
This illustrates what the biggest current problem is: there are lots and lots of people hanging on by the skin of their teeth who could never buy under the lending standards today. There aren't enough buyers to replace them at the current prices.
The tax credits at the beginning of the year masked that problem for awhile and got the market to stabilize as people thought prices wouldn't fall any longer and bid accordingly. But it never solved the real problem: they built too many homes for the amount of real buyers. That's why bubbles pop.
1996 pricing. Count on it.
Posted by: tipster at January 19, 2011 12:14 PM
"tipster" don't hurt your arm when you clapping your self on the back
Posted by: Mike at January 19, 2011 12:54 PM
That initial 2007 thread is classic! Tipster well done.
Posted by: lolcat_94123 at January 19, 2011 2:08 PM
yes tipster, well deserved kudos. especially considering that you made your comments 3 years ago almost to the day. and the realtors and flippers are still trying to spin it all away.
"1996 pricing. Count on it."
Ouch! I bought my house in 1996 :( While I don't doubt that prices will roll back to 1996 in inflation adjusted dollars, it will probably take much longer than 3 years for your this projection to come true. A year or two more of nominal declines and a decade or more of price stagnation and we'll be partying like it's ninteen ninety six.
Kudos too to the editor for a sharp eye and quick fingers! That's what makes this site such a pleasure.
Your equity will be assimilated!
Posted by: Reading comprehension and accuracy at January 20, 2011 10:34 AM
Here comes the next one. A 1/1 offered for a $100,000+ loss, but that's only if it sells at the asking price of $928 psft.
Posted by: tipster at February 11, 2011 10:56 AM
How is 779K minus 685K equal to 100+K?
Posted by: Steve Kilmer at March 4, 2011 11:02 AM
Typically the seller pays commissions and fees out of his/her end. So a 685k sale price would net ~640-650 to the seller.
Posted by: tc_sf at March 4, 2011 11:11 AM