Last listed as a short sale for $410,000 following twelve price changes and relistings since March of last year, and having been purchased for $640,000 in 2007, 310 Townsend #309 is back in contract for the fifth time. The unit remains scheduled to hit the courthouse steps in two weeks with $516,043 owed on a first mortgage and $69,240 in other debt.
At the same time, 310 Townsend #408 has just hit the market listed as a short sale for $425,000 having been purchased for $665,000 in 2007 as well. From the listing: “Currently tenant occupied, the condo commands $3100 per month in rent, making it an excellent investment vehicle for cash flow.” Of course, there’s also capital preservation to consider.
∙ Listing: 310 Townsend #408 (1/1) 803 sqft – $425,000 (short sale) [MLS]
Shorter Still For 310 Townsend From The Beginning To End Of 2010? [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Mark F.

    Looks like a decent deal. Can you kick out the renter?

  2. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    With respect to capital preservation, if you think that the value simply can’t go lower, then a potential landlord should be safe from a capital loss with these units, no?
    A completed short sale at asking for the #309 unit would constitute more than a 35% reduction in market value since 2007. A completed short sale for the #408 condo would constitute a 36% reduction in a comparable time period. So the buyer asks themselves “Are we at bottom?” Time to fire up the wayback machine to 2009 and see what certain knowledgeable folks on this site said.
    From the thread on 214 Arguello: Two Years Later And Asking Twenty-Five Percent Less:

    …if u think SF prices are going to decline like LA, -30 to 40%, you’re smoking crack. This is bottom for SF, -10 to 25%, depending.
    Posted by: 45yo hipster at December 28, 2009 5:09 PM

    Now to be fair, that thread was regarding a $1.6M condo and these are mere $640k+ condos, so perhaps we can’t say that the high-end of the market says anything about the middle (assuming you accept that a $1.6M condo is “high-end” and not part of “the middle”). But as I’ve said before, stay tuned, I’m sure there’s more to come; one reason for which is so-called “super conforming loan” limits will expire at the end of next month.

  3. Posted by A.T.

    #408 looks like a not terrible deal for an investor if maintenance costs are close to zero, and if that high rent continues, and if there are not many periods of vacancies, and if condo values stop falling. Of course, it looks like a 30-year treasury is likely to net you more – even at today’s ultra-low rates.

  4. Posted by Mole Man

    The photographer deserves some kind of prize for making this unit appear bright.

  5. Posted by wuuut

    $3100 rent for a 1/1 condo? Wow.

  6. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Mole Man – It is a special top secret trick known as “choosing the right exposure”. Notice that the windows are completely blown out to white which is OK because we’re interested in what the inside of this condo looks like, not outside.
    Many automatic point and shoot cameras are fooled by bright light coming in from windows and they attempt to darken the exposure to compensate. That results in very dark looking interiors like Monday’s lame cellphone photos of that Brannan unit.
    Any pro photographer should know how to set the right exposure for interior shots like this. And even amateurs can master this with very little effort especially with digital cameras that give instant feedback.
    You can still tell that the unit is fairly dark because you can see the light splash from the fairly dim floor lamps against the wall (photo 6/17). If the unit received a lot of natural light then that sunlight would have washed out the artificial light splash.

  7. Posted by real?

    that rent is pretty insane, no parking for this unit either? wow.

  8. Posted by jackson

    $3100/m with no parking can’t be right. The Palms rents for less with parking.

Add a Comment

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