2312 Gough
As a plugged-in reader notes, “the beautifully remodeled Pacific Heights Victorian home” at 2312 Gough which was returned to the bank in early January with no bidders at $2,100,000 on the courthouse steps has been listed by the bank for $2,142,000.
As plugged-in people know, the property sold for $3,000,000 in May of 2000 and then $2,600,000 in July of 2004 with 100 percent financing before being refinanced in September 2006 with a $2,630,000 note for which it would have had to appraise.
∙ Listing: 2312 Gough (4/3) 3,968 sqft – $2,142,000 [MLS]
From 100% Financing To 100% Bank-Owned For 2312 Gough [SocketSite]
Apples To Apples To Apples (And 100% Financing) For 2312 Gough [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by A.T.

    Here is another place just listed (800k) at below its 2000 sale price (844k).
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/246-2nd-St-94105/unit-1403/home/847278
    The whole country, and much of the world, had a 2003-2007 housing bubble, but SF and the greater Bay Area also had a 1997-2001 bubble before that. As has been noted, we’ve pretty much deflated that second bubble here in SF and the pertinent debate is whether, and how much, that first bubble will be deflated. If you talk in terms of real dollars, we’re already well into the dialing back of that first bubble too.
    Who knows, but perhaps the owner of the 2nd street place finally got tired of subsidizing his/her tenant on this “investment” as the HOA and taxes alone are over $1500/mo and the $3295/mo rent probably leaves the owner short by about a thousand every single month.

  2. Posted by tipster

    They tried to sell 2312 Gough all last year for around 2.6. Then the bank took it and now it’s listed for 2.1.
    I recall seeing that 40% of the listings from last year expired without a sale. That means 60 sold for every 40 that didn’t.
    If half of the expired listings from last year come back as bank owned like this place, and the pace of sales remains the same (lower prices but higher interest rates), that means that 1/3 of the sales this year will be bank owned properties.
    That’s what happened in San Diego, Sacramento and the Inland Valley. If that happens, it’s lights out for this market.
    Should be a fun spring.

  3. Posted by Denis

    Speaking of A2A: Looks like 2552 Baker closed at 16% under it’s 2005 selling price. Someone may want to double check that info though.. Including property taxes, that’s a pretty major loss on that place.

  4. Posted by A.T.

    Yeah, 2552 Baker looks like another over-half-million loss, back to the 2002 price (which is just about right for SF generally, although some places have done a bit better and some a bit worse).
    And the Feb. 2005 sale was a couple years before the peak. On the plus side, that place looks very nice and is in a great location (coming from someone who is not a huge Pac Heights fan).

  5. Posted by El Bombero

    ^ A measly “over-half-million loss”? Pssshaw. 2312 Gough would have been a bigger loss – that is, if the “owner” had been dumb enough to put any money down.
    2416 Gough on the other hand is shaping up to be a true million dollar loss – we’ll know soon when it closes.
    http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2011/01/a_24_percent_drop_at_asking_for_2416_gough_in_pacific_h.html
    Ah, sweet sweet schadenfreude. I’d have thought it would have gotten old by now, but it never does.

  6. Posted by tipster

    Bloodbaths for everyone!
    This one just sold for its exact year 2000 price.
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/SAN-FRANCISCO/1000-DANIEL-BURNHAM-CT-94109/unit-306/home/1374858
    Since 2000, the owner paid about $2100 per month after taxes for a one bedroom that would have rented for about $200 less (11 years x 12 months x 200= $26,400) and then lost 20-40K on his way out the door.
    I’ll bet his friends told him “Hold at least 10 years and you’ll be fine.”

  7. Posted by A.T.

    “I’ll bet his friends told him ‘Hold at least 10 years and you’ll be fine.'”
    If they told him “buy in SF and your property will soon double in value!” they would have been right – up until 2007. But then the bubble popped and here we are back again at 2000. That’s how bubbles work. Even in SF.
    But I think tipster is too conservative on the total loss vs. comparable rent. With $556/mo in HOAs, I’d say the 2000 buyer lost about $500-600/mo – closer to a $100,000 loss – over renting during the last decade.

  8. Posted by Jimmy (No Longer Bitter)

    Yeah, but tippy, just think how exciting it would have been in 2006 when his property value had just jumped yet another $50k and was rocketing up like a runaway freight train going to the moon!
    Seriously, that would’ve been a great feeling you never would’ve gotten from renting.

  9. Posted by eddy

    You guys are crazy! There is no way 2312 will sell for its 2000 price.

  10. Posted by A.T.

    eddy, that made me laugh!
    Here is another Baker St. Pac Heights apple – 2112 Baker just sold for 6% below its January 2005 price. Not bad, at least relatively speaking given the 500k-plus losses we’re seeing.
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/2112-Baker-St-94115/home/1643262

  11. Posted by eddy

    @AT, great comp. And a great outcome. Buying quality in SF is going to give the best returns. Buying fringe and paying premium, (e.g., funston, gough, franklin, california) is not a winning strategy and certainly not in this market.

Add a Comment

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