March 4, 2011
Price Per Square Foot Out Of Whack?
Reduce Remove It…
A plugged-in tipster moving to San Francisco and searching for a house reports:
On February 28, 716 Sanchez Street hit the market with a list of $2.45M for the 2100 sqft house. That comes to a whopping $1187/sqft which is way out of whack with both comps and listing in the neighborhood.
When I checked back on March 2, the listing had been "updated". The only change was that the number of square feet was removed! I suppose that's one way to make the place look more reasonably priced.
The fully renovated 716 Sanchez had first been listed for sale in 2008 asking $2,650,000 ($1,262 per square foot) having been purchased for $1,175,000 in 2003 as a much less modern 1,250 square foot home.
First Published: March 4, 2011 6:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Did anyone notice that 775 Sanchez (on the next block), which was not even on the market, closed at 3.8 million the other day?
Posted by: 94114 at March 4, 2011 7:50 AM
spin me baby, spin me...
and 775 sanchez was like $1,300/ft²; wild.
Posted by: Geo at March 4, 2011 8:39 AM
Alex, if that is true about 775 Sanchez closing at 1300/ft please remove these comments; these are not the sort of apples we are looking for here, thanks.
Posted by: unwarrantedinlaw at March 4, 2011 8:45 AM
And 849 Sanchez (on the next block) was listed for 3.4 and went into escrow after only a week or so on the market. I'm assuming that means it will sell for pretty close to asking. I think the usual price per square foot analysis does not apply to this micro "miracle mile" of Dolores Heights.
Posted by: 94114 at March 4, 2011 8:55 AM
Dang it, this thread was meant to be bearish. You people stop your 775 and 849 Sanchez comments immediately.
Posted by: unwarrantedinlaw at March 4, 2011 8:59 AM
Yes these comments are not in line with SocketSite's standards so please refrain in the future from informing of us the whole picture. Thanks.
Posted by: Potrero at March 4, 2011 9:09 AM
Yes, the market is hot! We found one (maybe) apple where the 2006 buyers are only out $90,000 w/ selling costs after a 5-year hold! Those who bought at the bubble peak are in the money!
Look at this nearby sale a couple months ago:
And look at this Pac Heights example:
okay, maybe not.
Posted by: A.T. at March 4, 2011 9:10 AM
775 & 849 are gorgeous buildings, and if i had google options to cash, wtf, why not.
716, however, is simply just plain fugly to me at least. why pay the premium for this one??
it will be interesting to see where 849 closes.
Posted by: Geo at March 4, 2011 9:14 AM
A block can make a big difference in this town, especially when there is a steep hill involved. Can someone who knows the area tell me which is the more desirable lot, better neighbors, better view, etc. - 716, 775 or 849? I just looked up 775, it looks gorgeous in the pictures for the most part.
Posted by: kthnxybe at March 4, 2011 10:18 AM
"Alex, if that is true about 775 Sanchez closing at 1300/ft please remove these comments; these are not the sort of apples we are looking for here, thanks."
No need. These comments will come in handy upon 775's subsequent sale 3-5 years from now at a lower price. Looking forward to the same people stating the current owners "overpaid."
Posted by: Mikey at March 4, 2011 10:36 AM
With a name like Schooner View, Ltd., you know the owner's pockets are deep. Still, there is the matter of a WaMu mortgage from 2005 (don't worry, Schooner is current).
Posted by: EBGuy at March 4, 2011 10:49 AM
Do you mean the owner is current, or that no notice of default has been filed against him. There is about a 1.5 - 2 year difference.
Posted by: tipster at March 4, 2011 11:03 AM
tipster, It's comments like that that cause people to doubt your sanity. I have to admit, though, it did bring a smile to my face. How's business these days?
Posted by: EBGuy at March 4, 2011 11:10 AM
Comments like what? The people I know going through foreclosure stopped paying in late 2008. NOD was mid 2010.
Business is flat from last year. We're seeing almost no new business formation. Business from larger companies seem to be up about 10% over last year, but that's only a small fraction of our business and it has only served to balance the lack of new business.
Posted by: tipster at March 4, 2011 11:20 AM
Don't know about the timing of NOD vs NOTS, but the latest LPS report showed this
"Foreclosure timelines continue to extend – the average loan in foreclosure has not made a payment in over 500 days."
And some graphs show that CA is increasing the foreclosure timeline much faster then other states.
Posted by: tc_sf at March 4, 2011 12:08 PM
Looking at 775, it also appears to my primitive eye looking at the permits that they added a deck and bathroom.
Some permits & Redfin show 777 as well as 775 so not sure if this is a mistake or this lot has two address.
Posted by: tc_sf at March 4, 2011 1:08 PM
Nice place. Dressing area/closet with full sunlight... bad idea. Not good for your clothes, unless you like the faded look. Not sure if UV protection on the windows solves the problem.
Posted by: BobN at March 4, 2011 1:48 PM
A few years from now all these "modern" anti-sceptic buildings will be selling like the "mid-century" houses are selling today.
"Have fun playing in the yard kids - don't fall into the hottub!"
Posted by: halpern at March 4, 2011 3:03 PM
Also, I don't quite get the Noe Valley appeal. While you can convert the old working class homes to something newer the neighborhood has never been designed to be upscale - virtually no set backs, no trees or anything green. And on top you get the whiff of Mission's gang wars.
Posted by: halpern` at March 4, 2011 3:06 PM
halpern makes a good point about noe proximity to the mission which is a pretty crappy neighborhood.
before you get your panties in a bunch about how great the mission is: the mission has gangs which means drugs which means guns which means homicides.
gangs +drugs+guns+ murder = crappy
Posted by: meep at March 4, 2011 3:31 PM
have you two ever even been to san francisco? your comments about nv's proximity to the mission and "gang wars" is loltastic. even more ridiculous is to connect it with the area where this property is.
Posted by: EH at March 4, 2011 3:37 PM
While people on SS have told some whoppers about the area next to SF general being "The new Noe", the dogpatch having "arrived" and a literal drug house a few blocks from the terrible Potrero Hill projects being unaffected by criminal activity, you'd be going too far in the other direction to link Noe to the Mission's gang wars.
You certainly don't get any feel of gang activity walking around the mission (Unless it's the Norteños who are backing up traffic to the Whole Foods) And most everything I've read about gang murders has been in the actual Mission.
Like these latest ones:
Posted by: tc_sf at March 4, 2011 3:44 PM
^ Or parts of Bernal
Posted by: tc_sf at March 4, 2011 3:45 PM
This is not Noe Valley.
Posted by: 94114 at March 4, 2011 3:54 PM
Did anyone notice that 775 Sanchez (on the next block), which was not even on the market, closed at 3.8 million the other day?
I personally think it would be nice to put a post up about this house! (do we have confirmation that it sold? arms length transaction, etc?)
it sold for $3.7M in Jan 2006, so about 2.7% total appreciation in 5 years, or 0.523% annual appreciation (so essentially flat).
not bad given the gyrations in the market.
after transaction fees, the previous owners probably only lost $100k (not including upkeep etc)... which is pretty good. they would have paid much more than that in rent
I think it's a strong showing... pricing around 2006 levels.
Posted by: ex SF-er at March 4, 2011 3:55 PM
^Note that there were some permits pulled which might not make it an apple. But unless they put in a golden toilet, probably still a better the average result.
Posted by: tc_sf at March 4, 2011 3:58 PM
If 849 Sanchez sold at asking ($3.4M) then those owners also did relatively well.
it was bought at $3.4M in 2008.
$1.025M in 2000. (wonder if stuff was done to it between 2000 and 2008...)
Of course the only problem with being flat is that these owners would have wasted so much money on interest (unless they bought outright), tax, and insurance payments over the years
if they bought outright, then they only lost out on opportunity cost of $3.7M and $3.4M. which may or may not be substantial depending on their investment accumen.
(I am personally VERY conservative when I calculate opportunity cost, and usually use Treasury rates... can't go safer than that...
10 year treasury rates were around 4.8% in 2006 and 3.66% in 2008)
thus opportunity cost of around $14,000/mo if they paid all cash.
still probably more expensive to own these 2 places then renting... depending on how you "count", they likely paid $7.5-20k/month to live here over those years...
(cost them $3500/mo to $4k/mo just in taxes!)
but very arguably "worth it".
Posted by: ex SF-er at March 4, 2011 4:07 PM
opportunity cost on 2008 purchase only about $10k/mo.
Posted by: ex SF-er at March 4, 2011 4:09 PM
Am I the only one driven crazy by all of the retail style "Banana Republic" store ceiling lights? Very 1989. Are these lights really necessary in a closet? Did they get all 500 of these ceiling lights in a "going out of business sale" at a construction supply store? And, finally, as long as I am ranting, these lights are real energy users and not at all in keeping with current design or green guidelines.
Posted by: anonarch at March 4, 2011 5:10 PM
"modern" anti-sceptic buildings
Are these buildings which house people who are orthodox believers? Are older buildings those which house sceptics? What kind of house is appropriate for people who are not just sceptics but agnostic?
Posted by: conifer at March 4, 2011 6:34 PM
You people do realize this is one of the most fab neighborhoods in The City: views, nice weather, quiet streets, clean, lots of green.
Worth every penny.
Posted by: noearch at March 4, 2011 6:38 PM
I hope they find some dutch kids to plug the holes in the garden dyke
Posted by: wifey at March 4, 2011 8:04 PM
Some permits & Redfin show 777 as well as 775 so not sure if this is a mistake or this lot has two address.
Don't know about permits, but when it was on the market last year it was 775/777 Sanchez, $4.8 Mil, and iirc 3800 sqft (probably both units combined). That puts the sale at around 1k/ft. It's a really nice house on a really nice double lot at the top of the hill with great views and two garage spots and room for two more in the drive and in a very desirable hood.
If that's what it takes to pull 1k/ft these days...
849? Helluva realtor. Nice work. They found that "One Person".
Don't get me wrong. Nice enough place, but 3.4? Wow.
Posted by: justme at March 4, 2011 8:53 PM
I'm very familiar with the area and seen all three homes several times.
Liberty heights has always been a different market, and these are the prime blocks.
775 Sanchez is in a different category, it's a double lot with awesome views, BUT it's a bit dated, probably done in the 90s, certainly turn key but not new. It was on the market last year for north of $4M and it still sold for $100K over 2006 price enough to pay Lamisse http://www.droubiteam.com/listing.php?l=136
849 I don't get, the floor plan isn't great, views are good but not super usable, size is OK, little yard. On the plus side it's a corner lot so it's bright and the interiors are very modern and high quality. Didn't understand how it sold for that much before and was shocked to see closing so quickly, I wonder if they got the asking price, maybe a tad lower
The subject property here is much lower class in many ways, over priced but there are nuts with $$$ out there and a lot of activity lately over $2.5M (a house half a block down on Hill st) and 3664 22nd street closed
Posted by: someone at March 5, 2011 12:24 AM
I've been inside this one. It has some nice touches, but other parts are odd. Witness, for example:
1. the massive, beautiful garage door opening into a spot slightly larger than a mini
2. the backyard similarly is just large enough to hold a hotub most people would use 1x / every 3 mos -- at most.
3. the master bed closet has a better view than the living space.
It's an odd design that can only be appreciated by a few... and it is small. For this reason, yes, it is overpriced.
Having said that, "liberty hill" or "dolores heights" or whatever you call that neighborhood really is nice. Well-maintained homes and gardens, nice views, convenient location ...
... And while the mission is close by (and, BTW, let's appreciate the many benefits that brings: restaurants, clubs, culture, etc.), it's an imposing climb up a steep hill for troublemakers.
Posted by: Skc54 at March 6, 2011 2:11 PM
sorry, antiseptic - forgive the dyslexia
Posted by: halpern at March 7, 2011 12:34 PM
I have been in 716 Sanchez as well as all the other homes sold in Dolores Heights, and 716 is one of few homes in Dolores Heights that has unobstructed views of the city from the living room as well as the master bedroom. To say the Master bedroom closet has a view is absurd. This person has not been in the house. Yes it has a lovely view of the garden, but the gorgeous view of the city are from the master bedroom and living/dining room. The finishes are of the highest quality. The garage is large enough for a large SUV, plus an abundance of storage.
If a person does not care for the design, thats a fair remark to make, but to post falsehoods is sad, and unprofessional. There have been recent sales in the neighborhood of homes selling well over 1000 sq. foot. See the house in person before judging. The price per square foot for this house is not "out of wack" This posting should be immediately removed. Take a look at the facts below.
849 Sanchez St. Under Agreement List Price 3,400,000
3664 22nd St. Under Agreement List Price 2,795,000
775-777 Sanchez St. SOLD 3,800,000
332 Hill Street Pending 2,795,000
378 Cumberland SOLD 3,300,000
3715 22nd Street SOLD 2,500,000
3616 21st Street SOLD 1,795,000
Posted by: truth at March 8, 2011 1:17 AM
A few corrections here for the realtor of 716 Sanchez:
3616 21st was $929/sqft.
3715 22nd was $672/sqft.
3664 22nd was listed at $865/sqft.
775-777 is a double lot.
Was 332 Hill foreclosed or is that a data error? I'm guessing the price is no longer $2.795M if it was.
Did 378 Cumberland have another off-market sale? It has been detailed on SS before:
If 849 Sanchez sells for near asking, that's a legit one to point out. Still think the buyer is insane on that one if it's anywhere near asking.
I'm not seeing how this house is in the same league as 849 Sanchez, 378 Cumberland, or 775-777 Sanchez, but I'm willing to have someone explain it to me.
Posted by: sfrenegade at March 8, 2011 12:08 PM
Was 332 Hill foreclosed or is that a data error?
Yes indeed, the recorder shows a trustee deed on Feb. 15, 2011. An individual was the mortgagee, so it appears he may have turned it around for sale rather quickly after foreclosing. Residential Energy certification happened two days later.
Posted by: EBGuy at March 8, 2011 2:29 PM
A few corrections for you sfrenegade
I'm not the realtor of 716 Sanchez
I did not say every home listed in my post was above $1000 sq. foot. I said there have been recent sales in the neighborhood exceeding $1000 sq. foot, and yes 378 Cumberland did sell off market at $1300 sq. foot. 775-777 even though its a double lot, had its own challenges since it is a legal two unit that was somewhat converted to a SFH with some weird space. Now with 849 Sanchez under agreement my point is made.
The other properties listed are a clear reflection of the neighborhood and the solid value the properties hold. Yes 716 Sanchez is at the top end of the price per sq. foot, but with good reason. Its practically a new house with high end finishes and a View that is unbeatable. ?
Posted by: truth at March 8, 2011 5:11 PM
My opinion is that if you have a top-end PPSF, you should be selling a top-end house. I'm not seeing that in 716 Sanchez and neither are several of the other commenters here. Even at a lofty $1000/sqft, you'd have to chop off $350K.
I don't understand how you can dismiss 775-777 so readily. A double lot is a double lot and land in prime SF is typically worth more than the houses that are built on it.
Posted by: sfrenegade at March 8, 2011 5:42 PM
"The price per square foot for this house is not "out of wack""
Then why did the realtor remove it? Because he was getting too many calls? Because it looked too good to be true?
Posted by: SFSal at March 9, 2011 3:31 PM
I was at the Tour Tuesday, and it was spectacular. Many changes and upgrades since the last time I saw it.
It is my understanding that price per square foot could not be confirmed. We all know the legality issue that could arise out of incorrect square footage. When you have tax records with a lower total, architect with a higher total, and another provided by the owner. Whats a broker to do?
However, the fact is the neighborhood justifies anything between 800 sq. foot to 1300 sq. foot in my opinion. So NO the price per square foot is not out of Wack!
Posted by: truth at March 10, 2011 11:23 AM
This house was on the market in the Fall of 2008 and did not sell. Does anyone know what the list price was at that time?
Posted by: 94114 at March 10, 2011 11:27 AM
It would be easy enough to say "square footage per tax records" in the property description. Not putting anything is hiding the ball, usually for a reason, as it seems to be in this case, where the PPSF is higher than warranted.
The liability canard is way overblown. As long as things are disclosed properly, liability isn't much of an issue.
Posted by: sfrenegade at March 10, 2011 11:28 AM
94114, did you read the post?
"The fully renovated 716 Sanchez had first been listed for sale in 2008 asking $2,650,000 ($1,262 per square foot)..."
Posted by: sfrenegade at March 10, 2011 11:29 AM
Sorry, thanks. My eyes glazed over the first few paragraphs.
Posted by: 94114 at March 10, 2011 11:32 AM
"When you have tax records with a lower total, architect with a higher total, and another provided by the owner. Whats a broker to do?"
tape measure, pencil, pad of paper, calculator. Thirty minutes later : viola ! accurate square footage !
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at March 10, 2011 1:48 PM
"tape measure, pencil, pad of paper, calculator. Thirty minutes later : viola ! accurate square footage !"
Per the Milkshake of Despair always? In that case yes, problem solved.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at March 10, 2011 2:04 PM
With ~$150k commission on the line it hardly seems too much to ask to get an accurate sq ft number
Posted by: tc_sf at March 10, 2011 2:10 PM
More than that might be on the line, and that is precisely why the brokerage's do not want to be responsible for the quote.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at March 10, 2011 2:38 PM
More than that might be on the line. And that is precisely why brokerages do not want to be responsible for the quote. It is the owners responsibility to claim it, purely and simply. If they do not wish to claim it, it will often remain unclaimed.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at March 10, 2011 2:39 PM
If it was a matter of liability they wouldn't have quoted it in the first place and then removed it, no? They quoted it at 2100 on zillow, still there.
Posted by: CH at March 10, 2011 2:46 PM
Who quoted it, precisely?
Is anyone who is wondering about this particular deal taking into account the backstory? That somebody, whether partner, builder, hard money lender, whoever the person in 1st position was, foreclosed?
Of course it's a liability issue.
Posted by: [anon.ed' at March 10, 2011 2:51 PM
I understand the liability issue. That's easily addressed with a combination of sound practice and insurance. Or why not just outsource it like an appraisal?
With clear cut rules and a basic knowledge of math, anyone ought to be able to quickly compute square footage with sub 1% accuracy.
Obtaining an accurate number that avoids liability exposure isn't the reason why square footage numbers go unreported.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at March 10, 2011 3:21 PM
"Obtaining an accurate number that avoids liability exposure isn't the reason why square footage numbers go unreported."
You realize that's saying about four things at once, right?
Posted by: [anon.ed] at March 10, 2011 3:25 PM
Huh? I thought that statement was pretty clear.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at March 10, 2011 3:37 PM
Yeah well you're a novice on a blog. Who is doing the measuring? Does the person measuring know city code regarding calcing staircases and other not wall to wall measured areas? Who is claiming the measurement? Who owns the, let's call it .75% error potentiality? .75 X 2.45M = $18,375, plus the eventuality of lawyer fees in a dispute? It's all very easy to sit around on a blog and pretend that people don't often sue other people. And of course, like some did, slam realtors while doing so without even considering the backstory. The one party foreclosed on the owner, who likely hired the architect. Not a lot of trust flying around most likely. Stick to the photoshop critiquing that is your bread and butter, dude.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at March 10, 2011 4:13 PM
"Does the person measuring know city code regarding calcing staircases and other not wall to wall measured areas?"
"With clear cut rules..."
"Who owns the, let's call it .75% error potentiality?"
"That's easily addressed with a combination of sound practice and insurance."
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at March 10, 2011 4:23 PM
Saying "2100 sqft per the architect, please measure yourself" or "2100 sqft per tax records" is adequate disclosure sufficient not to get sued. As mentioned before, the liability issue doesn't appear to be why it was removed for 716 Sanchez, because it was posted before.
Schooner View Ltd. also owns 3615 20th St, Unit: 1. The owner of Schooner View Ltd. appears to be a merchant mariner captain who has been featured in the Chronicle. He also spends part of the year in Martha's Vineyard, and Schooner View sold a what appears to be a B&B in Vineyard Haven around the time the company bought 716 Sanchez.
Posted by: sfrenegade at March 10, 2011 5:20 PM
Whose insurance? How often does it get utilized annually? How much does it cost the brokerage, per agent? Again it's easy for a non-actor to sit around and pie in the sky take broadswipes. "I've imagined this commission structure, and this is how it should be." "Square footage should be handled this way" etc etc. Meanwhile sytems are in place, things cost a lot of money, and people sue other people daily.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at March 10, 2011 5:20 PM
If you post accurate sf info (which is easy to calculate), and you accompany it with disclosures as to the source, there is no real litigation risk.
Sellers leave off the sf data because - as in this case - it makes it easier to see how much $/sf they are really asking.
Posted by: A.T. at March 10, 2011 8:51 PM
The simplest protection against litigation would be to qualify any numbers with an error band : "square footage accurate to within +-2%"
I don't understand why anon.ed is annoyed with industry outsiders proposing solutions. There's a lot of good ideas here that would provide buyers with better information while still protecting agents.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at March 10, 2011 11:05 PM
I wasn't particularly annoyed but when you bolded "insurance" so pedantically it was somewhat annoying.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at March 11, 2011 9:12 AM
$/SF is the most overrated metric when used to justify purchase price on a single property IMO. It is somewhat useful when trying to track trends in the market when averaged, but it does have high error rate IMO because of lack of data on many properties and there is no accepted industry standard on how to actually measure SF. If you are buying and concerned about SF then measure it yourself of better yet hire a surveyor.
Posted by: Skirunman at March 11, 2011 12:35 PM
You might be right, Skirunman, but it's helpful information nonetheless and allows you to determine what's, pardon the phrase, out of whack or not.
Posted by: sfrenegade at March 11, 2011 12:47 PM
I don't weight $/sq.ft. very highly either. Despite its flaws it is still a useful metric. To fill the void created by a lack of industry standards I made my own which accounts for most of what I think is important. I break space down into categories and apply different weights with higher value on heated living space with high ceilings all the way down to cramped unfinished storage space.
A metric need not be anywhere perfect to be useful. In my field we use a bunch of imperfect metrics. Despite their flaws they do light the way towards the right direction.
This house is an interesting case because it looks like they started marketing it with an apparently useful 2100 sq.ft. but then decided to drop that info. So the omission of the size metric wasn't driven by lack of standards, lack of ability, or fear of litigation. The editor's assertion was that info was dropped because it made it obvious that this property was asking for a four digit per sq.ft. number : unusual these days even in this nice neighborhood.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at March 11, 2011 1:37 PM
For comparison, nearby apple 557 Hill just came on the market at $2.485, or 831 psf. Purchased april 05 for 2.275. New soon-to-be data points to inform this debate...
Posted by: sanfrantim at March 12, 2011 10:37 AM
The list price for 716 Sanchez has just been reduced $175,000, now asking $2,275,000.
Posted by: SocketSite at March 30, 2011 11:32 AM
Good to see them have to cut.
Despite the protestestations to the contrary by a vociferous poster or two above, it looks like the price per square foot was in fact "out of whack".
Posted by: El Bombero at March 30, 2011 12:16 PM
The listing says "Huge price reduction".
In $$$ terms, yes, 175K is huge. But in relative, this is a 7% drop. If they could not find buyers at 2.45M, I am not sure this kind of reduction will make fence sitters rush over themselves.
But I think they're close to fair price for this neighborhood. My bet would be in the range of 1.85 to 1.95M.
Posted by: lol at March 30, 2011 12:25 PM
Thanks for the comp, sanfrantim. 716 Sanchez at $831/sqft would be $1.745M. The initial listing price of 716 Sanchez at $2.65M in 2008 was 52% higher per sqft than 557 Hill's current listing price (which is now pending) and insane. I don't see why this house would get a higher PPSF than 557 Hill.
Btw, it looks like 332 Hill went for $2.6M a couple weeks ago according to MLS. That was a quick flip by the mortgagee, per what EBGuy said.
The website for 716 Sanchez still has the old price. Given that there are only 9 pictures on MLS (although several more on its website), it makes me wonder if this one has been phoned in already.
Posted by: sfrenegade at March 30, 2011 12:46 PM
But I thought the "Truth" told me the price was not out of whack...alas.
Posted by: Geo at March 30, 2011 3:38 PM
Well, you have some of the best views in the city from this house, which I saw today. Pretty good location, one block from the J and Dolores Park. Close to the Castro, Noe Valley and the Mission. Nice quiet block. I think this sells for $2.1 M. Sort of small, but cozy.
Posted by: Mark F. at April 24, 2011 5:47 PM
Reduced: Now $2.150
Posted by: curmudgeon at May 12, 2011 9:51 AM
Now reduced to $1.99M
Posted by: Mark F. at June 28, 2011 3:46 PM