February 27, 2012

A Quintessential Noe Valley Apple Falls Into Our Cart

As we originally reported, the "quintessential renovated and expanded Noe Valley home" at 4245 23rd Street was purchased for $1,700,000 in September 2004 and returned to the market listed for $1,795,000 last month.

As we also noted at the time, based on PropertyShark’s stats, the median neighborhood price per square foot for single-family homes is up 11 percent since 2004 having increased 37 percent from 2004 to 2008 but then dropping 19 percent from 2008 to 2011, and having dropped 8 percent from 2010 to 2011.

This past Friday, the sale of 4245 23rd Street closed escrow with a reported contract price of $1,820,000, up 7 percent since 2004 on an apples-to-apples basis.

Quintessential Noe Valley (And Price Per Square Foot Trend) [SocketSite]

First Published: February 27, 2012 2:30 PM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

Good outcome for the seller but I get the distinct feeling with improved market conditions that if the seller was able to wait until April or May this house would have sold closer to 2MM.

Posted by: Willow at February 27, 2012 3:21 PM

How is this a good outcome for the seller? Didn't they lose money? Is it because they lost less than expected

Posted by: Dont get it at February 27, 2012 4:52 PM

@Willow, I'm skeptical about that. There will be more inventory in April/May, so buyers will have more choices. Perhaps this one was listed a wee bit early, but February is generally a better time to list than late Spring from my experience.

Posted by: RenterAgain at February 27, 2012 6:25 PM

I find the market to be pretty efficient. I would guess they sold too late. According to the initial post this would have sold for $2,193,806 had it sold on the exact peak day in 2008 (probably in September just prior to the market crash). Folks, these people lost exactly $373,806 by deciding to live in their home these past ~3 years. That's $10,383.5 per month. They could have rented this place in the marina for $8500/mo and still had $1883.5 left over.

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/2847156779.html

:)

Posted by: eddy at February 27, 2012 6:50 PM

"up 7 percent since 2004 on an apples-to-apples basis."

...but down >15% when accounting for inflation.

Posted by: fancy rental at February 27, 2012 7:09 PM

I think the sellers agent is to be commended for pricing it and timing it exactly right.

Posted by: tipster at February 27, 2012 7:20 PM

I was going to say the same thing about the buyers agent. :)

Posted by: eddy at February 27, 2012 7:34 PM

I think eddy is totally kidding. I hope.

Because even with a full 6% commission (unlikely), a net of $1,710,800.

If they had rented this property at $6K a month, it would have been $534,000 in rent.

Instead, they paid somewhere in the neighborhood of $140,000 in property taxes. So they live in a nice, big house for more than seven years for $1400/mo. That's the monthly rental price of a studio somewhere on the Van Ness corridor.

Bringing inflation into it is ridiculous, as is the notion that something across the street that's bigger/better could have been had for $3K a month.

Posted by: amused at February 28, 2012 5:35 AM

Yes. I'm kidding. This was obviously a complete disaster. A tragedy really.

PSA: I hope that people aren't really paying 6% to sell their $1m+ homes. Folks, please have several agents give you a quote and ask for 5% and negotiate.

Posted by: eddy at February 28, 2012 5:40 AM

amused, you were kidding too, right? You forgot about the $8500 a month in interest! And the $500 a month minimum in insurance and maintenance. Now we're at about $10,500 a month instead of that $1400 bargain.

All of a sudden that $6000 a month rent is looking pretty good, eh!

Posted by: anon at February 28, 2012 7:00 AM

There's another house on 23rd Street listed at $1,035 per square foot (3969 23rd St), which is a 31% premium to this very nice over-asking apple.

Posted by: DataDude at February 28, 2012 8:09 AM

$8500 per month in interest?

Good one.

Posted by: amused at February 28, 2012 9:26 AM

1700*0.055 (interest rate average since 2004) /12*.88 (adjustment for income tax deductions) is about $6850. Add the $1950 in property taxes and expenses and I get $8800. $2800 over renting (on average over the period).

$2800*12months* 8 years= about $250K.

Amused no one uses 6% for realtor fees, 5% is what people generally use. With transfer taxes and loan expenses, the seller probably just about broke even on the sale, but lost $250K over the life of the purchase.

Honestly, all together this loss was about as good as anyone can expect going forward over a long hold. I think a lot of people in Noe would accept a $30K per year loss over renting.

Posted by: tipster at February 28, 2012 9:49 AM

Yeah, you would've had to try to pay that much interest.. 100% financing would on a 30 year fixed would have been $8000 at most, based on rates in September 2004. And it's highly unlikely they financed 100% and never refi'd. Although I suppose possible.

I don't understand why people can't be reasonable on this site. Sure, it was more than $1400, but also, it was less then $10,500.

More reasonable is probably $7500 a month.

Posted by: R at February 28, 2012 9:52 AM

"$2800 over renting (on average over the period)."

So nice houses in Noe were renting for 6K in late 2004?

There is no chance that's true.

Why do you have to lie constantly, Tipster?

Posted by: [anon.ed] at February 28, 2012 10:07 AM

I used 6%. No way was anyone going to get a rate even that low for a jumbo loan in 2004. But you're right they could have refinanced, although there would have been several thousand in charges each time they did that which you can't ignore. And it doesn't matter how much you put down for this calculus as that is money not earning somewhere else. $7500 is a fantasy number. I don't understand why people can't be reasonable on this site. But even if you accept Mr. R's fantasy number the loss is big!

Posted by: anon at February 28, 2012 10:08 AM

Option-ARM!!!!

They would have been paying under 3% for the last few years.

Posted by: sparky-b at February 28, 2012 10:10 AM

"@Willow, I'm skeptical about that. There will be more inventory in April/May, so buyers will have more choices. Perhaps this one was listed a wee bit early, but February is generally a better time to list than late Spring from my experience."


RenterAgain: You may be right but I have a gut feeling that houses like this in Noe are poised to rebound significantly over the summer.

Don't get it: From the prism of rent versus buy the seller could have done better by renting, but honestly, anyone who thinks selling a home for $120,000 more 8 years later as a failure needs to reset their expectations. (As sparky-b mentioned also...if the sellers had an Option Arm their mortgage for the past few years would have been significantly less/reduced than during those first few years.)

Posted by: Willow at February 28, 2012 12:11 PM

OK, see where you're coming from. But i think the seller didn't actually make that $120k -- it went to costs from the two transactions

Posted by: Dont get it at February 28, 2012 1:09 PM

Post a comment


(required - will be published)


(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)


(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« Do You Gotta Have (137) Faith? | HOME | San Francisco's City Attorney Sues Short-Term Rental Scofflaws »