“Over Asking” at The Ritz (But at a Real Big Loss)
As we outlined earlier this year:
Purchased as new for $1.53 million, or roughly $1,284 per square foot, in early 2008, right as the Great Recession was picking up steam, the two-bedroom Ritz-Carlton Residences unit #1702 at 690 Market Street returned to the market in early 2015 priced at $1.75 million.
Reduced to $1.65 million and then withdrawn from the market after being offered for rent at $8,500 a month, the condo was listed anew in 2017 with a $1.6 million price tag.
Reduced to $1.5 million [in July of last year] and then to $1.4 million in November, the list price for 690 Market Street #1702 has just been reduced again to $1.3 million (which is roughly $1,091 per square foot and 15 percent below the price which was paid for the unit in the first quarter of 2008, not accounting for the value of the all furnishings which are now included in the sale price as well).
And yes, having been financed in 2008 with 30 percent down and a loan for $1,065,540, the loan is now a little over $100,000 past due with a remaining balance of $1,015,514 and a foreclosure auction looming. Or in listing speak: “The timing is right!”
As we added in July:
Withdrawn from the MLS and then relisted anew at the end of June, with the unit having since been emptied of its aforementioned furnishings, a trustee deed having newly been granted to HSBC Bank and a new $1.2 million price tag, the list price for 690 Market Street #1702 has just been reduced another 5 percent to $1.14 million, or roughly $956 per square foot, a sale at which would now represent a 25.5 percent drop in value for the unit since the first quarter of 2008 (with some ups and downs between).
The price for the two-bedroom was reduced another 5 percent at the end of August. And having been virtually staged and further reduced to $1,028,850, the resale of 690 Market Street #1702 has just closed escrow with a contract price of $1,035,200.
And while that’s officially “over asking” according to all industry stats and reports, it’s also 32.3 percent below the unit’s 2008-era purchase price on an apples-to-apples basis and 40.8 percent below its 2015-era list/expectations.