As we first reported about 111 Day Street back in July:
Purchased for $900,000 in 2003 but refinanced with a $990,000 first in February 2006 and a second for $200,000 four months later, 111 Day Street was taken back by JP Morgan Chase Bank this past March with no bidders at $931,980 cash on the courthouse steps.
The single-family Victorian “in [an] unbeatable Noe Valley location” is now back on the market and listed for $915,000 with the ability to finance (and refinance) once again.
As a plugged-in reader added the next day: “795K is my bet.”
The sale of 111 Day Street closed escrow yesterday with a reported contract price of $790,000. Call it 12 percent below its sale in 2003 or 0.6 percent below our reader’s on the record bet from four months ago.
∙ From $900K In 2003 To $915K Today (And $1,190K In Debt Between) [SocketSite]
“unbeatable” dump
Kurt Brown plays Nostradamus
tea leaves fall in fall
I am so happy
that M-o-D always counts
his/her syllables.
Haiku win
Great result all around. A dumb 2003 buyer way overpaid, but redeemed himself by cashing out to the tune of 100’s of k’s in a refi. And the bears get some further proof that yes indeed prices have fallen dramatically, even for SFH’s in desirable neighborhoods. Everyone wins!
So noe valley SFHs now below 2003 prices and likely below 2001-2. Is this the “real SF”?
What, more evidence and another fact? Meaningless. Those of us “who know what is going on” know that the real story is, well, I’m not sure and I’m not going to say anything concrete that can be readily disproven, but it’s different from what one would improperly conclude by considering facts and evidence.
Yup, this conclusively proves that all SFHs in Noe Valley are now 12% below 2003 prices.
“What, more evidence and another fact? Meaningless. Those of us “who know what is going on” know that the real story is”
There’s one, dontgetit. As if AT truly thinks this zero lot line 900K 2003 buy is definitive. But I’ll leave it largely alone. You’re right, I overdid the snark yesterday.
anybody concerned with the fact that the building is physically touching the neighbor and is, I’ve heard, “over the line”?
Meanwhile 350 Valley St. sold for $230k OVER its 2003 price (no new renovation since 2002). So some houses sold for good chunk over and some sold for a good chunk under.
How can one make sense of these conflicting data?
What makes sense here is that ‘back in the day’ of ever appreciating real estate, where people were elbowing each other out of the way in open houses just to buy something in an outrageous overbid so as not to ‘lose out’………..they compromised.
Compromised what basic real estate instincts dictate…no zero lot lines, bad floor plans, marginal neighborhoods, fixer-uppers they couldn’t really afford, etc, etc.
For my own selfish reasons, I wish that all SFH in Noe had fallen this far! But the glossy ones are still selling quickly and for a lot.
I agree with Radar. Before the bubble burst, it seemed that no mistake went unrewarded. Now buyers are more careful, so places with unfixable flaws are sitting for longer. With low inventory, the few pristine places do get a lot of interest.
I will probably end up with a pretty flawed place given my price range and neighborhood preferences, but I hope to avoid the unfixable flaws.
Another Day, Another Dollar; 477 Day hit the MLS today. Sold in 2003 for 150k, re-traded in 2010 for 767k (documented in a much discussed SS thread) and now its back on market and with what appears to be a little more than just cosmetic fixes, and a $1,695,000 price tag. Any takers this time around?
“Permit: 201101218778
Form: 8 – ADDITIONS, ALTERATIONS OR REPAIRS – ‘I’ OCCUPANCY WITH NO PLANS
Filed: 1/21/2011
Address: 477 DAY ST
Existing: 1 FAMILY DWELLING
Proposed: 1 FAMILY DWELLING
Units: 1
Action: ISSUED
Action Date: 1/26/2011
Description: RE-ARRANGE 2ND LFOOR LAYOUT, KITCHEN & BATHROOM REMODELING. 1 NEW BATHROOM, 1 NEW OFFICE, 1 NEW BEDROOM AND 1 NEW FAMILY ROOM ON GROUND FLOOR
Staff: SPERDUE
Cost: $75,000.00
”
The above and some other permit talking about shoring, grading, excavation and sheer walls would appear to be more then cosmetic.
c’mon eddy, you try to pretend that you are objective and then you pull a stunt like that?
Did you really think when you hijacked the thread on a home that has fallen under its 2003 price, albeit with its own flaws, that we were really going to believe that another home just magically zoomed up in value by 100% in a year? Was that even remotely believable?
You’ll note that I question even bearish facts that don’t match reality. The other thread that initially looked like 30% of sales were falling out of contract was immediately questioned by me.
You, on the other hand will just sit there and accept the possibility that someone would be so stupid as to list a home for double its price the year before with only minor fixes? You accepted that without question and then hijacked a thread to make that point? Really?
good lord you two (Tipster and tc_sf). Eddy said “a little more than just cosmetic fixes”. Parse that language. It pretty clearly means: not cosmetic.
In fact, in my reading, it suggests a probable large scale renovation, but that’s interpreting the tone of the sentence.
But in any case, calm down!
I’m sorry you don’t see the relevance here and perceive this as thread jacking. It’s also clear that you didn’t revisit the SS thread on 447 Day (name link) that referenced the listing notes suggesting that all the home needed were “cosmetic” upgrades.
As it related to 111 Day, I think it is a safe assumption that whoever ponied up the 735k for this home is not puling up with the moving truck and unloading their furniture and throwing a housewarming party anytime soon. More likely is the fact that this house will go through some sort of transformation and remodel and will turn up in some state of Dwellification over the next 18 months. And here is a highly relevant soon to be comp for what a quick flip can gain.
Perhaps it wasn’t clear when I said, “a little more than just cosmetic fixes” that I was indicating that this house was somewhat extensively remodeled. But that was the intention that seems lost on you and tc_sf.
And I’ve no doubt that Adam is doing his diligence on 477 Day and a post will be forthcoming. I happen to like my “Another Day, Another Dollar” thread title. And we can debate the cost of the remodel and potential profit; and value of permits detached from the cost of work; and maybe they skipped a few permits. Maybe someone can explain the jumo from 2003 to 2010 from 135k to 767. Frankly, I’m more interested in that jump than the 2010 to 2011 change. Can’t wait.
477 Day has a back yard so we have to throw out the condo explanation for the 30% drop in value on 111. But seriously, maybe these banks should start flip renovating these homes to turn a profit. Seems like its a winning strategy.
jumo = jump (above)
And thank curmudgeonfor beating me to the clarification!
“It’s also clear that you didn’t revisit the SS thread on 447 Day (name link) that referenced the listing notes suggesting that all the home needed were “cosmetic” upgrades.”
There’s nothing in the prior thread that implies it was more then a cosmetic fixer. The Ed even called it out as perfectly livable.
For people that interpreted “a little more then just cosmetic” to mean adding 4 rooms and moving and remodeling the kitchen, there’s no harm done in confirming what they already knew.
For those interpreting “a little more” in the more conventional sense, now they’re clear on the situation.
It is remarkable that the place went from $135k to asking $1.7M in a little more then a year!
“t seriously, maybe these banks should start flip renovating these homes to turn a profit. Seems like its a winning strategy.”
I’ve often thought that, and thought that there was a market there. But it’s so very difficult to get the powers that be on the telephone in the first place. You know?
As good as eddy’s idea of banks becoming developers sounds lets remember that banks can hardly even market REOs properly let alone put together a winning development plan. Though financially savvy banks don’t really do much else aside from shifting assets around.
tc_sf…the place was 135K in 2003, not last year.
Still, it’s quite amazing, EVEN with a big renovation. 135K doesn’t seem like market value in 2003, even unrenovated. Non-arms length maybe, or a lucky probate sale. Who knows, ancient history.
In any case, if they are successful with the sale they are more than doubling their initial investment. Reno costs aren’t insubstantial, but it still leaves an ENORMOUS profit. Flippers are back.
And yes, the banks are missing out. And I’m sure we’re all crying about that.
Trollers gonna troll.
There probably are some opportunities for “banks as developers” with some of the smaller community banks. But those that held their mortgages (any?) typically wrote them with higher lending standards so there may not be as much an opportunity.
“tc_sf…the place was 135K in 2003, not last year.”
Note that I wrote ” a little more then a year” not “a year”.
Easy to see how that could be misleading though.
@Eddy, honestly, due to the capricious USG decisions that were made it is the big boys who are the ones who are left holding the assets. You are onto something with that notion man. There is an entire unexplored cottage industry there. But as I said earlier, not only is it extremely difficult to find a sympathetic ear, but as MOD noted they can’t even hire right for flat divesting purposes.
There is a difference between misinterpreting and misleading. There is also a difference between then and than.
“tc_sf…the place was 135K in 2003, not last year.”
eddy, clearly you didn’t get the joke. 🙂 But yes, there’s still a difference between then and than.
“As good as eddy’s idea of banks becoming developers sounds lets remember that banks can hardly even market REOs properly let alone put together a winning development plan. Though financially savvy banks don’t really do much else aside from shifting assets around.”
Yes, they are terrible at this. You’d think with all the financial analysts they have, they’d be able to do some…financial…analyzing…
I saw that one a mile away. Classic troll tactic. Sadly the tactic worked.
Have a good weekend all!
“clearly you didn’t get the joke. :)”
The joke is what TC gets to do on here, and why Adam lets him do it. We’ve all seen better denied for less, haven’t we? Because nearly every single post the guy makes is a troll. Every one. Come on now. “Note that then than blah blah” Note that? uh huh. OK, um, prof. Really.
^ pot calling kettle black
and this is getting old and hardly worth it
not even close, “guest”
your post was superfluous
and indeed, shady
come on you can’t expect these things from banks. that’s why we have real estate investors, to fill that void, buy these homes at auction or in short sale, do flips and improve the housing stock (while pocketing a little green).
banks are supposed to make loans that’s their job.. they weren’t too good at that either.
now private equity, that might be a where you could get this done. I’m sure the idea’s been floated. bunch of private equity guys would give boa $x billion for a big swath of their reo’s with the aim to fix and resell. but they’d probably have to get those properties for maybe 40c on the dollar or even less to have enough meat there to make it worth it.
apparently boa thinks they can do better on their own (and they don’t want to take that huge writedown).