330 Banks
As we wrote about 330 Banks up in Bernal back in January 2008:

On the market without finding a buyer at $649,000 last fall, 330 Banks is back on the market (but not the MLS) with a list price of $599,000.

Included in the sale are approved plans to add an additional “art studio” and half-bath on first floor. And while it’s usually “showings by appointment only,” it will be open this Sunday (1/27) for just one half-hour (from 2:00 to 2:30) if you want to take a peek.

Keep in mind that this single-family Bernal Heights home was purchased two and one-half years ago for $700,000 (on 6/8/2005). And yes, the sale at $700,000 was likely used as a local comp a couple of years ago. And so on. And so forth.

This past June the bank foreclosed with $558,053 owned on its first (the 2005 sale was financed with a first for $544,000 and a second for $57,500) and the little Bernal home returned to the market asking $534,900 in September before being withdrawn from the market in December without a sale.
Today, 330 Banks returned to the MLS asking $499,900, 29 percent under its 2005 comp setting price and without any allusion to those plans.
∙ Listing: 330 Banks (1/1) – $499,900 [MLS]
Back On The Market (But Not The MLS) In Bernal Heights: 330 Banks [SocketSite]
Six Of Sixty-Five Bank-Owned In Bernal Including Two On Banks [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Willow

    Location is reasonable but this place is tiny.
    Also, I’m all for greenery but looking at the MLS Photo, what’s that growing in front of the house? The weeds are taking over! It would cost $100 to clean it up and plant some new shrubs to make the outside far more appealing.
    With another bedroom and an additional 200 square feet this would probably sell in the mid 600’s but the market for 1/1’s is pretty small so I expect this is going to sit for awhile.

  2. Posted by SFHawkguy

    This is actually coming much closer to rental parity.
    Here’s a rental comp asking $2,500/month: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/2218099564.html
    (fmv for the rental is probably closer to $2,300 imo though)
    I calculate that buying rather than renting, using FHA financing, and putting only 3.5% down, would lead to a monthly cost of ownership of $2,539/month (payments would be $2,734). I assume only a 15% tax savings. If it is a 25% tax savings, then the monthly cost of ownership is $2,276. [I'm assuming a 5.5 % rate on a 30 year loan.]
    So, we’re close to rental parity here. Only problem is that to get the FHA financing the owners would have to make $130,000 a year to qualify on the front end DTI (and not taking any other debt obligations into account–the back end DTI). This seems like a pretty small and humble abode for people making north of $130,000.
    Plus, the other problem is that the price could easily go sideways or down, creating more risk for a buyer. I’m also only assuming a .25% maintenance and replacement reserve ($104/month) and this house looks like that is overly optimistic and it could use a lot of work.
    I predict current fair market value at something closer to $435,000 (and trending down, imho).

  3. Posted by jose

    ..and, what $599K will buy you in other places:
    http://tours.vht.com/Viewer/PhotoGallery.aspx?ListingID=1230826&Style=kwx
    (sorry off-topic but couldn’t resist)

  4. Posted by SFHawkguy

    And just to give an idea of the risk one would be taking on by buying this house, let’s assume the new owners buy this house for $499,000 and live in this house for 5 years and then want to move. Assuming the loan details listed above, they would still owe $434,000 in 5 years.
    Therefore, they would need to sell for above ~$460,000 to pay off the loan and pay the realtor to sell the house. A further 10% decline in prices would mean the buyers would be writing a check at closing or letting the home go to foreclosure (or they can stay in the house and ride it out).
    Plus, I imagine any buyer is going to want to put some money into a new kitchen, landscaping, or a new deck, among other desired (or needed) improvements.
    And looking at this recent sale comp at $389,000 tells me my estimate of the fmv is not too far off, and maybe high: http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3745-Folsom-St-San-Francisco-CA-94110/15162242_zpid/

  5. Posted by SFHawkguy

    Jose,
    That is some beautiful woodwork. It is quite shocking to see how highly priced San Francisco is compared to other regions . . . jeez, the street value of that wood alone . . .
    But I wonder what it costs to heat?

  6. Posted by Jimmy (No Longer Bitter)

    @Jose: U know that’s on the South Side of Chicago right? Really bad neighborhood. I’m sure you could find something comparable in East Oakland.

  7. Posted by EH

    yeah, the first thing that came to mind with that chicago place is that it’d probably be a wash between SF HOAs and Chicago heating costs.

  8. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    sure it’s cute enough place, but isn’t it on the wrong side of Bernal for most?
    A place like this really should be more like 350k at least then you it starts to make sense to a single tech worker looking for a starter home.

  9. Posted by Robb

    SFHawkGuy: That comp you posted is a near teardown, definitely not livable in it’s existing state, so not really comparable.

  10. Posted by SFHawkguy

    Okay Robb, how about this comp a couple of blocks away that just sold for $440,000:
    http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3746-Folsom-St-San-Francisco-CA-94110/15162258_zpid/
    Or this much larger comp also a couple of blocks away that is asking $499,000 (and with awesome staging): http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/433-Nevada-St-94110/home/1743260
    Or this one also two blocks away and similarly chasing the market down: http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/271-Nevada-St-San-Francisco-CA-94110/15162925_zpid/
    Bought for $790,000 on 7/3/07 and listed in 2/10 for $749,000 and now listed for $549,000.

  11. Posted by sfrenegade

    I’m guessing 433 Nevada probably isn’t a comp to anything just for this reason:
    “Currently Tenant Occupied for $250/month.”
    Ouch! The foreclosure price was $531,250, but the bank got screwed on that one with a tenant with a sweetheart deal. I also question how you can get a 4/2 (per tax records!) into 976 sqft.

  12. Posted by Samuel

    3746 Folsom, from the description, sounds like it’s a SFH that was illegally converted into three separate units, each a 1/1. Didn’t say if there is any tenant.
    That should knock the price down because an illegal three-unit building should fetch less per sq ft than a SFH.

  13. Posted by R

    3746 Folsom (the only actual sold comp from your list, other than the aforementioned teardown.. from the listing): “Great opportunity to own this 3-UNIT Edwardian in desirable Bernal Heights (Per Tax Record Property is a 1 bed/1 bath, SFR). Sold AS-IS. Legality of construction/permits is unknown. PROPERTY NEEDS TLC!”
    433 Nevada (from the listing): “Currently Tenant Occupied for $250/month”
    271 Nevada: went contingent in December at $549, dropped out, back on, then off. Who knows what the owner is thinking, but I’d say $500 is probably the number for that.

Add a Comment

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