February 7, 2011
No, Not In Indiana But Rather On (And Off In San Francisco)
In July of 2003 the 1,243 square foot Central Waterfront condo known as 1578 Indiana #9 sold for $439,000. Three short years later it resold for $625,000 in October 2006, a purchase which was financed with a $500,000 first mortgage and a second for $125,000.
A year later the fully leveraged buyer who had offered the most for District 9 property and established a new neighborhood comp added a third loan for an additional $150,000.
This past July a notice of default was filed on that first with just $7,589 past due and a trustee sale was scheduled for this past November. Postponed due bankruptcy, the condo is once again scheduled to hit the courthouse steps this Wednesday with a published opening bid of $520,996.
As best we can tell, the slightly larger and upgraded 1578 Indiana #8 which had been listed for $600,000 in 2008 (and a few times after) never sold.
First Published: February 7, 2011 1:00 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Now that's what I'm talkin about! Almost 200K in three years! Tipster, hurry - find out who this is - he's one of the guys I was telling you about before who might buy you dinners and cars!
Posted by: bubblesurfer at February 7, 2011 1:34 PM
Hee hee - so the guys who got foreclosed on were this smart bunch you're talking about? Okay.
Bubblesurfer, ever wonder how a pyramid scheme got its name? Hint: think about the shape of a pyramid.
Posted by: A.T. at February 7, 2011 1:45 PM
He filed for bankruptcy. I'm thinking probably not too many steak dinners and new cars in his future.
No doubt spent every dime. Three years ago the spendthrifts were in charge and there was nothing I could do to stop them: the banks kept handing them money.
Now, this guy is out of the market and probably won't be back in it for a long while, and so is everyone like him - they don't have the down payments. The people in control are the careful savers. We don't pay list price for anything.
Posted by: tipster at February 7, 2011 1:54 PM
A.T - why am I surprised you don't see it - or are you kidding.
I of course am NOT talking about the idiot who never put a dime down on this place - I'm talking about the seller in 06.
Is it that hard to face the fact that somebody probably actually made a butt load of money?
Posted by: bubblesurfer at February 7, 2011 2:04 PM
Yep, buying very early in a bubble and selling near the top does make one some money. You think the 2006 seller went ahead and bought an even more expensive place (i.e. lost it all back) or just cashed out and became a renter? If the [latter], then I've gotta hand it to him. But I'm guessing it's the [former].
Posted by: A.T. at February 7, 2011 2:08 PM
"Is it that hard to face the fact that somebody probably actually made a butt load of money?"
So then, even assuming you take this as a $186K gain (when it's not), where are these "many more" people who made a butt load of money? You were talking out of your butt, right?
I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make, but you're doing it badly.
Posted by: sfrenegade at February 7, 2011 2:09 PM
I have NEVER seen my point so strongly made:
Tipster, you only see the 06 buyer in this thread - you don't even see the guy who bout in 03 and walked away with 200k of cold cash three years later.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised - the 03 buyer offers you nothing to gloat about.
Looks like if someone has a different point of view than yours, the mud starts flying.
Posted by: bubblesurfer at February 7, 2011 2:11 PM
"You think the 2006 seller went ahead and bought an even more expensive place (i.e. lost it all back) or just cashed out and became a renter?"
Right, this is the part that bubblesurfer is missing. That's why I said many people have big gains on paper, but very few have cold hard cash. There were a few people who cashed out and became renters, but were there "many more" people who did that than are losing their shirts upon sales? I doubt it.
Posted by: sfrenegade at February 7, 2011 2:12 PM
"The people in control are the careful savers. We don't pay list price for anything"
The only thing you control is the overall tone of this website. But you are pretty good at that I gotta say.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at February 7, 2011 2:14 PM
sf renegade, tipster and ex-sf-er - I have full confidence that you will each present a compelling case that shows us the 06 seller lost his shirt.
Posted by: bubblesurfer at February 7, 2011 2:18 PM
The 2006 seller of this place took his $186K and bought a home for $1.050 with his wife or girlfriend the next month after he sold it.
Zillow says he's lost more than $200K on that purchase.
Lost every dime. No steak dinners for him either.
I'm missing the butt load of money part. Except for the realtors, that is.
Posted by: tipster at February 7, 2011 2:20 PM
"Yep, buying very early in a bubble and selling near the top does make one some money. You think the 2006 seller went ahead and bought an even more expensive place (i.e. lost it all back) or just cashed out and became a renter? If the [latter], then I've gotta hand it to him. But I'm guessing it's the [former]."
again, I have very little typing to do on this thread - my points are being made for me.
I have absolutely no doubt you're guessing it's "the [fomer]" - because in your world, nobody could have possibly made money on SF real estate because nobody else is as smart as you and tipster.
[Editor's Note: Note the comment above.]
Posted by: bubblesurfer at February 7, 2011 2:35 PM
Well, tipster did the work I was too lazy to do, and it looks like I guessed right! It was an educated guess, after all.
Posted by: A.T. at February 7, 2011 2:43 PM
So now we're accepting website-generated "Zestimates" as proxy for fact?
If he hasn't sold his new place, he not only hasn't lost every dime, he hasn't lost any of them. So I guess I'll have the New York strip.
Posted by: amused at February 7, 2011 2:51 PM
"Zillow says he's lost more than $200K on that purchase."
If he has to sell today, yes he will suffer a loss.....but what you and those like you simply cannot face....is the fact that after smart/lucky timing put 186k in his pocket, he bought a posh pad and has enjoyed living in it for 5 years, and will very likely live there another five....at which point he will be back at least even but likely ahead....and even if he has to sell today, what about the 5 years he's enjoyed his substantially upgraded digs? That 186k changed his life and changed it for the better....he participated ..... he didn't listen to the "chicken littles" back in 03 who sat on their hands waiting patiently to "stone" those who had the courage to participate - win or loose
I'm not holding my breath here until you get it - I don't much care for the color blue....
Posted by: bubblesurfer at February 7, 2011 2:57 PM
thanks amused.....how did I miss that point.
Just another example of how some posters clamber and claw to find data that seems to support the twist they're putting on posts here.
I can hear the sizzle...
Posted by: bubblesurfer at February 7, 2011 3:06 PM
He paid over a million for a house a block from the freeway. I think it's safe to say it's down at least 18% from 2006. Posh pad? Don't make me laugh. It's a block from 101.
Posted by: tipster at February 7, 2011 3:12 PM
"he bought a posh pad and has enjoyed living in it for 5 years, and will very likely live there another five....at which point he will be back at least even but likely ahead"
bubblesurfer, now you're just making things up while trolling. Again, no cold hard cash in the buyer's hand.
I don't understand your BS about "participation." You didn't participate, right? If you did, please describe your participation to show us why you think it's worthwhile to get up on a soapbox. If you didn't, why didn't you practice what you preach? Else, don't feed the trolls, nothing to see here.
Posted by: sfrenegade at February 7, 2011 3:26 PM
Hee hee, so the poster child of smart bubble money has certainly pissed away his prior $186k gain and more. And he's paying about $5000/mo net (and that excludes principal and accounts for tax breaks). A 2006 $1.05mm place is going to be quite modest - so he's probably been pissing away another $2000 over comparable rent every month on his non-rent. Another $120k gone over 5 years. Man, those bubble entrepreneurs know how to rake it in!
Posted by: A.T. at February 7, 2011 3:52 PM
"bubblesurfer, now you're just making things up while trolling. Again, no cold hard cash in the buyer's hand"
I'm sure you want to believe that 186 went up in smoke, just like tipster. And you're right, I should back up my points with Zillow.
Um, I have no doubt the sellers 06 settlement statement showed a 180k wire transfer or something close to it.
And btw, my own settlement statements have sometimes shown a number more than 4 times greater than that, so I know what I'm talking about thanks.
I'm having fun here - if you're not having a good time, then I suggest you take the advice you're giving me and move along.
Posted by: bubblesurfer at February 7, 2011 3:57 PM
I can relate to both sides of this coin. I sold in 05 on an investment property after a 5 year hold and kept the cash. (It was several hundred thousand dollars and so much more than I could ever imagine to make at my day job.) I sold again in 06 after a 4 year hold on a different property but (regrettably) decided to go with a 1031 exchange. My "new" property is underwater to the tune of probably 25-30% but I have good tenants that are paying market rents and will be able to get some tax benefits from the loss. Not ideal but I will end up being far better off financially than if I sat on the sidelines.
Tipster/sfrenegade/A.T: I don't agree entirely with bubblesurfer's perspective but there are many people who made obscenely large amounts of money by buying and selling property during the boom. Dumb luck, perhaps? But not everyone lost.
Posted by: Willow at February 7, 2011 4:22 PM
Willow, I wholeheartedly agree. The key was getting out in time. My only real point was that the numbers who "struck gold" by timing things just right and then exiting the casino are not huge, while the numbers who have gotten creamed are huge.
I think I've mentioned here before that I actually tried (not vehemently) to get my wife to agree to sell our place in 2007 but she did not want to have to move twice. C'est la vie. Fortunately we're a long way from underwater even by my bear perspective. But we could have cashed out for a couple hundred thousand more than we could get today.
Posted by: A.T. at February 7, 2011 4:39 PM
well, seems the editor finds it necessary to "edit out" some of my comments - apparently not what he/she is looking for - feels a bit creepy - I've never had an opportunity to visit China, or North Korea, or....well a number of other countries, but I suddenly find it easy to imagine myself in one of those places at this very moment....
Posted by: bubblesurfer at February 7, 2011 4:40 PM
Out of curiousity I did a title search using the guy's name and there were no results. So lending believability to Tipster's ravings + Zillow, he says, is a bizarre choice I think. But even just ascribing anything sight unseen to any given property based off Zillow is not a worthwhile thing to do.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at February 7, 2011 4:42 PM
"but there are many people who made obscenely large amounts of money by buying and selling property during the boom. Dumb luck, perhaps? But not everyone lost."
Willow, no doubt, there are plenty of people who made money from the bubble, and I said that before. There are winners and there are losers. bubblesurfer seems to think the winners disproportionately outweigh the losers, and I respectfully disagree, but other than that, he/she is mostly just trolling tipster. I shouldn't buy the bait.
Posted by: sfrenegade at February 7, 2011 4:50 PM
Other people seem to have better skills at digging into a specific case then I, so while I don't know what this one person did with their 2006 profit, it does illustrate the problem of taking gains and "trading up".
Note how from 439k to 625k is a 42% gain, but when rolled over into a $1M property it only takes a 20% decline to pull you back to break-even. When price/rent is unfavorable, such as in 2006, carrying costs probably push the break-even point to an even smaller decline.
Posted by: tc_sf at February 7, 2011 4:52 PM
Actually, with transaction costs I think that would make the break-even about a 10% decline on the $1M property.
Posted by: tc_sf at February 7, 2011 4:58 PM
My mother in-law loves to focus on the darker aspects of life: illness, failure, natural disasters, and human tragedy of all kinds. While telling me of the latest relative who has fallen ill or the most recent produce recall, she always has the same facial expression, makes the same gestures.
With pursed lips and a self-satisfied look, she shakes her head and says "painful lessons, painful lessons."
This is someone who fears leaving the house. Life isn't about opportunity nor experiences. It's all about avoiding pain. She's told me time and time again not to travel because it's dangerous. Life is something to fear. It's better to just sit still and stay safe.
For whatever reason, she always comes to mind while reading the comments in this blog.
Yeah, some people had terrible timing and lost a lot of money. It's too bad. I'm not going to call these people fools. Nor am I going to assume they were all greedy. Some people just want a home to call their own. Pointing at them over and over again isn't going to help anything.
At some point, you have to look away from the car-wreck and start living your life.
Posted by: lurker at February 7, 2011 5:16 PM
bubblesurfer has a right to his/her opinions and should be able to state them on this blog with out being called a troll. Otherwise we would have to point out that at least 50% of what tipster posts is "trolling" as the hyperbole and outright fact bending is almost ever-present.
In any case, yes, lots of people made money, both cash and on paper, during the bubble. As to numbers or percentage of owners that won or lost over the last 10 years, who knows? I'd like to see a study or some data otherwise you are just guessing. You are also just guessing when trying to estimate an ROI on an single property as you can't know all the relevant info such as the tax situation, etc.
Finally, what most continue to forget is that the home you live in is not an "investment", it is consumption. Trading up allows you to enjoy better living.
Posted by: Skirunman at February 7, 2011 5:22 PM
"At some point, you have to look away from the car-wreck and start living your life."
But a Panglossian view is equally dangerous.
My wife and I and baby daughter are in the market to move to a bigger place.
And the cars continue to pile up as we speak in this car wreck. Just look at the last week's bumper crop of "apples."
It would be foolish and expensive for us to pretend there simply is no car wreck at this moment for the sake of experiencing life and smiling.
And there are many out there in the RE industry who continue to insist "there was only a fender-bender and it is over now so please put your money on the line so I can make money off of you."
Hence, I continue to keep my eyes open to keep a sense of reality and also of balance.
Posted by: A.T. at February 7, 2011 5:26 PM
+100 to lurker.
Posted by: amused at February 7, 2011 5:46 PM
@lurker -- As with bubblesurfer, you are perhaps not making the point you think you are. Your story about your MIL makes her seem like someone who has let her emotions short circuit any attempt at rational decision making. i.e. The risks and rewards of various activities.
Many of the poster's here would appear to be encouraging the very same triumph of emotionality over rationality. i.e. having "nerve", "savvy" or being willing to "participate" and not be a fence sitter. The only difference is that your MIL's response to this short circuit was to stay indoors whereas some of these posters appear to be using emotion to lead people to purchase a house.
I would argue that being able and willing to prioritize, analyze and actively make decisions is the essence of living ones life.
If you want a good read about how emotion can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory here's a NYT link about a family that burned through a $14M windfall: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/business/26fall.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=business
Consider this not a look at the dark side of life, but in the context of this quote:
"Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other."
Posted by: tc_sf at February 7, 2011 5:57 PM
"I would argue that being able and willing to prioritize, analyze and actively make decisions is the essence of living ones life."
tc_sf makes a good point. There's a big difference between looking to "participate" in 2003 before a lot of the run-up, and looking to "participate" in 2006 or 2007 after much of the run-up had already happened. It could be quite easy to "participate" in 2003 while making an appropriate analysis and being in the right situation, but deciding to stay away in 2007 after much irrational exuberance.
Lurker and bubblesurfer appear to be saying "damn your analysis, you just have to participate!" The mother-in-law argument doesn't work because it instead says "damn your analysis, don't participate!" Either one seems pretty wrongheaded to me.
The main thing I tend to discourage people from is the "starter home" concept. This concept is brilliant marketing from CAR/NAR, in a blatent attempt to convince people to buy subpar homes "just to buy something" and in the meantime pay hefty fees to realtors again in a few years when they want to move to their "real house." However, if I lived in flyover country, it's entirely possible the starter home would have a lower mortgage than equivalent rent, and the decision to buy might be a no-brainer. Not so in SF.
Posted by: sfrenegade at February 7, 2011 6:15 PM
You guys just spout platitudes, and when we rip them apart, it's all "look away from the wreck".
This was a great example: you essentially said, "OK, the 2006 buyer may be filing for bankruptcy over this, but the 2006 seller made out like a *bandit* on SF real estate. Woo hoo, SF real estate makes people rich, rich I tell ya!"
It turned out it wasn't true. If the mention of the 2006 seller hadn't been made, no one would have ever looked into it. We're doing this to counter your lies, of which there appears to be an endless stream of new ideas to try to play up real estate so you can make your commissions and flip profits.
I'm not looking at train wrecks, I'm exposing the motivations of people who are saying anything to get people to buy when they shouldn't, while other people's lives are being ruined because they bought.
The 2006 seller has lost money on SF real estate. The 2006 buyer filed for bankruptcy and he's days away from being thrown out on the street.
Posted by: tipster at February 7, 2011 6:19 PM
interesting that bubblesurfer continues to lump me in with tipster.
although at one time we may have had similar conclusions (although the path we used to get there was quite different) I'm not sure that my views are necessarily in line with Tipster's at this point. For instance, I've stated many times that there is a possibility (although small) that the emerging echo bubble in stocks/commodities will filter through to RE. I have not heard Tipster espouse such an opinion.
I've said for 4 years now that nominal housing pressure would continue until Dec 2011. I also stated many times that the Govt interference would lead to a short term bounce in housing. I also started saying last year during the "rah rah SF is up 18% YOY" time period that SF would hit another rocky patch in Fall 2010 that would possibly hit negative YOY around Jan 2011.
I have a hard time seeing where my predictions have been overly wrong. In fact, I can point you to a few years ago where I specifically said that all forecasting ability is broken because we no longer have a housing market, we have a centrally controlled and centrally planned housing/finance set up now...
as for the rest:
Skirunman: you are a thoughtful fellow. Do you honestly believe in bubblesurfer's claim that for every ONE person who lost their shirt in RE over the last few years there are MANY people who struck it rich? Really?
as I stated on the last thread, if way more people were striking it rich in RE than losing their shirts than I would anticipate that
1) aggregate RE valuations would be up since the recent peak
2) aggregate household wealth would be up since the last peak.
neither is true.
Where is all this money and wealth that was created by the awesome RE bust? it must be somewhere if there are countless "winners" for every "loser". why do we call a scenario where many people "win" for every "loser" a bust in the first place?
Is it because I am one of the mental recessionistas??? I only THINK there was tremendous loss of household wealth over the last 3 years? Really the US economy did awesome? (of course, I'm not alone... every political leader and economist was also fooled by this mental recession... but I digress).
no... there is a reason why we had the so called Great Recession, and much of it was due to household wealth destruction due to the collapse of the housing market.
we are still nowhere near the levels of "wealth" seen in the 2007 time period despite the recent echo bubble in stocks and commodities
the assertion that the housing collapse was GOOD for us because so many people profited handsomely is just silly.
I have stated many times that there were obviously a few very big winners due to the collapse.. I know it well because I was one of them. But I hardly think that I am the norm...
Posted by: ex SF-er at February 7, 2011 6:25 PM
he didn't listen to the "chicken littles" back in 03 who sat on their hands waiting patiently to "stone" those who had the courage to participate - win or loose
this is just dumb. at least in regards to me. You will need to refine your argument.
I don't recall "throwing stones" or gloating at anybody's misfortune. (correct me if I'm wrong). I have little time or interest in schadenfreude as it doesn't further my goals (retirement by age 45). my loathing is more toward our political leaders and the powerful interests that have captured them.
I'm a chicken little?
As I've said many times
-I am a homeowner (coincidentally I bought my latest home in 2003, the year you like to use so much in your posts).
-I just finished putting around $80k into my house including all new siding, windows, doors, electrical, air conditioning, landscaping. (my house is 102 years old, so everything is custom).
-this year I will likely spend $60-100k on a new kitchen, basement, basement bathroom.
also: as has been obvious from my posts for some time, I have dabbled in stocks, commodities, and other financial tools. from going long oil and gold to shorting financial companies to going long food commodities, I've gotten out there (against my will).
There is a time for RE, and a time to avoid RE. IMO now is not the time for RE for MOST people, unless you are buying RE as a long term housing option (15-30+ years) with very low leverage and a huge cash cushion, or unless you are a professional with very high leverage and the ability to walk. at this time it is high risk and low probability of significant return.
instead, right now is the time to delever if you are a regular joe, or ride the Fed encouraged/engineered bubbles if you have the time and the interest and are equal parts ballsy and dumb.
As I've said for some time, perhaps the Fed can re-engineer a bubble in housing, or perhaps we can get back to true economic growth...
but that is the future.
Right now it's all about Momentum trades and getting out in front of the bubbles. in other words, I am a classic "bubblesurfer" and perhaps more deserving of the name than you are.
Housing is about as hot as beanie babies and AOL right now.
will that change? yep.
anytime soon? who knows.
my guess (stated SEVERAL times now) is that the current liquidity induced echo bubble in stocks and commodities will continue unimpeded until springtime... perhaps May. Then we MIGHT (difficult to time these things) hit the next so-called "Seldon Crisis" (one of my fave books, "Foundation" by Isaac Asimov not by Ayn Rand)
a Seldon Crisis is a point in time where a decision will have major ramifications. It is NOT when everything collapses... it is when the next phase will start. In this case, will we see a collapse in "real" economies across the globe causing phase II of a credit crisis? or will we see QE3 with a secondary change in monetary velocity and the so called ka-POOM theory that I've discussed here since 2007?
or will the Fed/Govt actually be able to withdraw all the various programs (Fannie/Freddie/FHA support, tax incentives, 0% interest rates, QE2, POMO, and so on) slowly allowing the general economy to gently chug along?
I have no idea. but times are interesting.
as for RE:
eventually the cash sloshing all over the place will hit RE. the problem is that the transfer mechanism from Fed/Govt to housing is broken (due to zombie banking system). Thus, it is not clear to me if the liquidity echo bubble will hit RE before the commodity bubble breaks the real economy's back.
it's a high stakes gamble the Fed is playing. they might do it. I don't know... I am not smart enough to know... I've seen crazier. But it's a big gamble.
Typical Disclosure: please don't read my posts and try to go out and invest based on my posts. They are incomplete thoughts and it takes time and energy to keep track of what I'm doing. Despite that I sometimes get my butt handed to me, like a few years ago when I went the wrong way on an oil trade (as I discussed here at the time...)
Posted by: ex SF-er at February 7, 2011 6:54 PM
Man my posts always get pulled down.
[Editor's Note: Only the off topic ones...]
Posted by: sparky-b at February 7, 2011 7:36 PM
It sounds like the 2006 buyer was the smart one here. Nothing down, cashed out at the peak thru a regi, then stopped paying and let it all wash over him. The bk filing was smart, too - more free rent....
The 2006 seller was lucky to find a sucker bank willing to finance a sucker purchase, but as many have noted, he probably just turned around and sunk his windfall into a bubble-dog of a "home"....
Posted by: El Bombero at February 7, 2011 7:46 PM
I don't know, we bought in 2003 and right off the bat, PITI - rental income from the bottom flat was less than rent. One of the things that I did not expect as a first time homeowner was how much maintenance would be. But even figuring that in it was about a wash.
And since then, every year I am paying toward principle a larger and larger portion of my mortgage payment, rents go up a bit and in general the equivalent rent has gone up as well. So each year it is a better and better deal.
We sunk about $100k into remodels, so I should include the opportunity cost of that, but even throwing that and the downpayment in there, we are paying about half of what rent would be, including all costs and perquisites.
I am not even considering appreciation, which according to a recent appraisal, is about 40% over sales price, or 20% over sales + remodel cost. Sure we would have walked away with more by selling at the peak, but my wife want not interested. I definitely tried to talk her into it in both 2006 and 2007.
When and if we ever sell, I will update you with the final results, but so far it looks to have been a pretty good deal. 2003 was about the last year you could probably do all right even with a two unit building though, prices really want off the rails soon after that. SFH really didn't make any sense on a buy vs. rent calculation before even then. I am not sure they ever have in San Francisco.
And we paid 60% more than the guy who bought it in 1998. Maybe he is the one who really made off. I guess time will tell.
Posted by: NoeValleyJim at February 7, 2011 9:32 PM
Ex-SFer - You're one of my favorite posters and it pains me to see you so frequently defensive. There's no need. You've frankly put your ideas and theories up for examination. That takes guts and conviction.
You seek the straight and honest truth. You're humble and open to dissenting views. Your positive vibes enrich.
Cheers and thanks for sharing your thoughts and insight.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at February 7, 2011 10:12 PM
There are Tipster, Sfrenegade, AT, tc_SF, and I'm actually somewhat sorry to say it but it's come to this after the what, 5,000 [bracketed] comments to bulls versus all of probably 4 to bulls cinched it, the Editor. (Including today's blind acceptance of a Tipster rant.) If you see those names you know what you're gonna get. And that's pretty much a steady stream of SFRE bashing. Ex-SFer and MOD aren't really in that mold. Ex-Sfer in particular has a lot of interesting things to say. MOD has a lot to say about Photoshop, staging, and generally various other critiques that are largely internet-only and never brick and mortar in nature. But in fairness MOD comes through with some good ones every now and than. (tc_sfer, just checking to see if you're paying attention. Than and then are not synonyms.)
Posted by: [anon.ed] at February 7, 2011 11:00 PM
Yeah you rock ex-SFer. You know I think that.
Posted by: NoeValleyJim at February 7, 2011 11:00 PM
"Do you honestly believe in bubblesurfer's claim that for every ONE person who lost their shirt in RE over the last few years there are MANY people who struck it rich? Really?"
No I don't, but I don't have hard data either way. If you bought in 2002 or earlier, barring outliers, you are good. If you bought in 2003/2004 you are probably OK, 2005-2008 probably not so good, and 2009/2010 you are going to likely take a loss because of short hold time anyway. The average hold time in SF for SFR, from data I have, is 10 years, but is lumpy. If you don't have to sell and your monthly outlay is manageable and you like where you live and you are not underwater more than 20% and you have some good "investments" then hold on for another 5 years and things may look quite differently.
Posted by: Skirunman at February 8, 2011 12:32 AM
Out of curiousity I did a title search using the guy's name and there were no results. So lending believability to Tipster's ravings + Zillow, he says, is a bizarre choice I think.
You might want to try that search again as my white pages search (plus SF Recorders site) verified what he said. Tipster is talking about the seller who pocketed $186k (cough, cough, minus transaction costs) from the sale in 2006. He took his winnings and doubled down in Potrero Hill. Zillow says: thanks for playing, cue croupier sweeping the chips off the table. I hope he and his pardner continue to pay both mortgages; the banks don't need any more deadbeats.
Posted by: EBGuy at February 8, 2011 3:02 AM
although I wasn't really looking for support or a pat on the back, I do nonetheless appreciate the support.
at some point it does get irritating to see what (you believe) are your views being misinterpreted or mischaracterized.
breaking us into "bear" or "bull" camps works only to a point. There are few uber bears (tipster I guess) and uber bulls (currently bubblesurfer) these days but most of us don't fit neatly into a category. For instance where do you put LOL? Skirunman? NVJ? clearly not uber bulls or uber bears.
and people obviously change over time. I'd say many bulls have become cautious, as have some bears (this downturn is getting long in the tooth for many people).
thus, thought I'd just put out my thoughts for those that are interested, especially because my thought process HAS changed considerably since 2010. Unlike in 2007 when I was 100% certain of the direction of nominal pricing in SF RE, I am now not sure.
as I've said for some time, to know the direction of nominal SF RE prices one must know the minds of a few select politicians and foreign creditors. (Obama, Geithner, Benrnake, Hu, etc). Their next set of decisions will occur this spring so we'll see.
Posted by: ex SF-er at February 8, 2011 4:42 AM
You might want to try that search again as my white pages search (plus SF Recorders site) verified what he said. Tipster is talking about the seller who pocketed $186k (cough, cough, minus transaction costs) from the sale in 2006.
I understood the point. I was both curious and dubious because the source has been known to exaggerate (to say the least). So I used my a title company's Premiere service, which pulls city records. Nothing. If you say it's there, oh gentlest of stalkers, then fine. Perhaps there's a misspelling somewhere. So now it's down to crowing about something sight unseen based off Zillow. And of course that still fails.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at February 8, 2011 9:11 AM
You only think I exaggerate. Any time you say that, if someone actually checks, they confirm what I said.
And you don't think a property purchased in 2006 for 1.050 a block from the freeway in that area is down by 15%? Who is exaggerating now?
Posted by: tipster at February 8, 2011 9:28 AM
BTW, good work EBGuy, that one was a tough find and you did it.
Posted by: tipster at February 8, 2011 9:32 AM
And you don't think a property purchased in 2006 for 1.050 a block from the freeway in that area is down by 15%? Who is exaggerating now
I'm certainly not exaggerating when I say I've wasted time in clicking on links you've misrepresented more than a few times, some quite recently, for all to see. As for down 15% unilaterally, I would be more measured. You are assuming it's an apple and not improved since 2006. You're assuming the freeway noise is persistent and a factor. You discount the gentrification which has taken hold there, Whole Foods going in, etc. Sight unseen you cannot call it. And Zillow has shown time and time again exactly why it is so flawed in a place like SF.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at February 8, 2011 9:51 AM
the competing "sleuthing" among tipster, anon.ed and EBGuy is interesting, but unnecessary. Was the 2006 seller smart and take his gains off the table? No way. Anyone paying $400k+ for that place in 2003 by definition is not smart enough to have walked away from the table with his gains. He doubled down at the "peak", and now the gains are all gone. Case closed.
Posted by: El Bombero at February 8, 2011 1:53 PM
"Anyone paying $400k+ for that place in 2003 by definition is not smart enough to have walked away from the table with his gains."
He took his gains and got a bigger, nicer pad - would he have been "smart" if he had put his money in t bills and lived in a cardboard box up until now?
Posted by: bubblesurfer at February 9, 2011 10:03 AM
I think that there are other shelter options than home ownership or living in a cardboard box.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at February 9, 2011 10:39 AM
"You discount the gentrification which has taken hold there, Whole Foods going in, etc."
Here's a unit in the building that houses whole foods: can't get any closer. Has parking. Nowhere near the freeway.
Sold for 30% under its 2007 price. Wanna try telling me again that a place a block from the freeway is not down at least 15% from 2006?
Posted by: tipster at February 9, 2011 1:18 PM
When the subject is SFR and you respond condo, as you, AT and some of the other overtalkers very often do, I will never engage. Know that.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at February 9, 2011 2:04 PM
"Nowhere near the freeway"??? Kansas at 17th. C'mon. The photo of your own link shows it right there.
Posted by: sparky-b at February 9, 2011 2:15 PM
Right. Kansas and 20th = 3+ blocks and not particularly near the freeway. Kansas @ Mariposa = freeway right there. Man. Know a thing or else don't talk about it. It's very simple.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at February 9, 2011 2:25 PM
OK, you win on the freeway. But it's down 30%, you want to tell me places even nearer to the freeway aren't down at least 15%.
Posted by: tipster at February 9, 2011 2:38 PM
Two blocks from the freeway in Potrero? No noise to worry about there anyway ;)
at least it's not close to the big projects ;) ;)
Posted by: A.T. at February 9, 2011 3:12 PM
The farthest you can be from a freeway in Potrero hill is 6 blocks. So I'm not sure that it is a worthwhile discussion for that hood, except if you are less than 1 block from the freeway (I guess).
Posted by: sparky-b at February 9, 2011 6:11 PM