Somebody outbid me. But it was a little expensive anyway.

A saudi oil sheik no doubt.

This type of over indulgence is exactly what infuriates most of the country. People are trying to keep their homes and working hard when this rich creep forecloses. He (or she) probably didn't pay a penny after they moved in and enjoyed the free rent until they got kicked out. San Franfreako - who would want to live there anyway - it's legal now to go anywhere you want naked - even restaurants. Just want I want to see when I take my kids out for dinner - some hairy backed naked guy at the salad bar. Is this supposed to make us wish we were this rich?

I agree that San Fan is a weird place. But what's it to you if someone has money? The real problem with this country is people who vote on their basest emotions - like jealousy. Just cause your life sucks, don't vote to screw other people over. The government should stay out of EVERYONE'S pockets.

It would appear that americancitizen has never lived in S.F., and has it in for people that can do what he can't--be successful and become wealthy. Thinks he'd be better off if the owners of that condo moved into a 1000 sq ft. bungalow. How he figures that he will benefit from everyone living like he does, whatever standard of living it is, is beyond comprehension.

the original owner, developer Victor MacFarlane

Doesn't sound like a Saudi name to me. Of course I only lived in Saudi for 5 years. What would I know?

Question: What is 6% of $28 million?

Right off the top of my head I'd say just a shade over $1.6 million.

Question: What is 6% of $28 million?

Right off the top of my head I'd say just a shade over $1.6 million.

There are no details on the buyer yet, but here's one parting thought: If the real estate agents involved earned a standard 6 percent commission on this deal, they'll pocket $2.1 million.

I guess math isn't a requirement for a journalist..... :)

(BTW I calculate 1.68 million. Miker was closer off the top of his head than then person who wrote the story by a long shot......)

pjam09

A saudi oil sheik no doubt.

It's all the billions of the taxpayers dollars our government gives to these other countries, and then they use it to buy up expensive properties here in the USA.

Funny how all these billions and trillions of taxpayers monies end up in other countries, and we the taxpayers are barely making ends meet.

RON PAUL 2012

No more foregn aide or free money. It's time to take care of America and the American people.

Cutting all foreign aid will do the following.

1. Cut the profits of US military contractors like Boeing, Colt, etc. They will respond by laying off US workers and charge our military more. Companies that military contractor use to provide there materials will lose profits and respond by laying off.

2. Most US food aid by law has to be shipped overseas on US merchant vessels. They charge a lot. 4 or 5 times more than foreign carriers. So without that business they will layoff. That means the companies they contract with will earn less and they will layoff.

3.Without that grain etc being shipped overseas there will be a large surplus in food stuffs here causing the prices to drop by a lot. So farmers will earn a lot less and spend a lot less. That lower spending will hit farm businesses like Deere, Monsanto, Tyson etc. So their profits will be lower. That means they will layoff. Farmers do a lot of banking transactions. With less money they will use less banking causing them to layoff. Less economic activity in farm communities means businesses in those communities will be hurt especially the small ones that will then go out of business. Making more people be out of work.

4. All these cascading layoffs will cause even more layoffs cascading though the economy. Add to that all the government jobs lost when those programs are shut down.

Ron Paul has no probelm with spending government tax dollars like when he earmarked $19,500,000 for a naval training ship at the Texas Maritime Academy in Galveston, followed by a $18,126,000 to provide maintenance on the Matagorda Ship Channel. According to candidate Paul isn't that up to the State of Texas?

For Fiscal Year 2010, Paul requested 54 total earmarks, adding up to $398,460,640 in pork that the former presidential candidate sought to bring home to his district. These requests were made prior to the House Republican Conference’s voluntary ban on filing earmarks.

Paul’s largest request in 2010 was $51.5 million in federal money to be spent on “Reconstruction of Bluewater Highway Hurricane Evacuation Route Between Brazoria and Galveston Counties in Texas.” He requested another $50 million to be directed to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and $46 million for deepening the Texas City channel. The majority of Paul’s requests were for projects related to various ports and channels, though other sectors of his district also received attention, such as $20 million for a hospital in Chambers County. Even smaller projects received attention from the libertarian representative, such as $2.5 million requested “to redevelop historic downtown area and to purchase trash cans, bike racks and decorative street lighting” in Baytown.

From 2008-2010, the average Texas congressman brought back $74 million in earmarks, according to an analysis of data from the Center for Responsive Politics and Taxpayers for Common Sense, as the Texas Independent previously reported. In those three years, Paul sponsored/co-sponsored 45 successful earmarks totaling nearly $120 million. That was the sixth-greatest total among U.S. House members from Texas.

Clearly what candidate Paul says is not what Congressmen Paul does.

Ron Paul is simply looking out for his district. He puts in for their cut of the graft and then votes against the entire package. He's not doing this on the sly; he openly acknowledges why he behaves that way. It's difficult to be a moral person who is part of an immoral system.

Did anyone else note that BofA assumed the deed instead of foreclosing? Guess the rich guy that defaulted had a friend on the inside. BofA also sold the property for a massive loss. I've known a few people who had their bids refused on a short sale property, and they were offering a heckuva lot closer to asking price than what BofA accepted on this home.

Spoken like a clueless liberal; "Real estate commissions are obscene." Thats like saying you shouldnt earn a paycheck-living. If you only knew how hard agetns work and what is involved in putting a transaction together...

MDrew,

gizmowiz's senseless comment has nothing to do with being or not being liberal. Your senseless comment, however, does.

My mother in law was a RE agent for years. She literally had to get on her hands and knees to service clients. It was a sticky situation. At the end she had to clean up the mess and move on to a different career.

Unlikely that the banks pay 6% or 7% real estate commissions. Most homeowners can negotiate for less than that now. The banks probably cover the prep costs plus something - the photo caption says the agents spent $500,000 staging the property. That is possible, considering the decorators, renovators, and rental-moving costs for all the expensive furnishings that make the place look nice.

What was her next career Rob?

so are college tuitions/doctors visits/operations/healthcare/cars/houses- whats your point

@Shellie, ignorance is bliss isn't it? If it was that easy they would be paid $8.25/hr and be paid on a W-2 every year.

Corporate sale so branch CEO will get a bonus and agent will get chump change.. Bet they declare a net loss and get a tax break or write off money from taxpayers as well..

If you don't like the 5-6% commission, don't use an agent, I don't. It's not hard to sell a house if it's been taking care off, not in a crappy 'hood, or if it's price right and not trying to get more than it's really worth.

Regarding whether real estate agents' commissions are obsene or not, it all depends on the agent. When I bought my house, my agent busted her ass showing me houses. When we found the house I wanted (and eventually got), we had trouble getting ahold of the agent listed for it, so my agent took care of it. She also took care of getting me a mortgage and guiding me through all the closing. She had to split her commission with the original listing agent, who didn't do squat. And, we're talking about a house that cost under 100K, so the commission to begin with wasn't very high.

gizmowiz:

You are 100% correct & the statement on the article about the agent spending 500K to stage condo is 100% B S. The individual net worth & income disparity in our country is obscene but nothing new.

True putting a deal together is not easy work for a realtor but why dont they state how many hours they put in to make deal work, so we can figure out the many thousands of $$ per hour this agent will make?

Hard to say what the agents will net but it's certainly not typical for the industry. It's more like winning the lottery.

In the real world the numbers look considerably different. Here's how it typically plays out.

First off the listing Agents, not their sponsoring Broker, pay for all advertizing, staging, and open house costs. These are "up front" costs before they make anything.

Say the sales price is $200,000. The total commission at 6% would be $12,000, of which $6,000 is retained by the listing brokerage and $6,000 goes to the buyer's brokerage. From that $6,000, each agent is paid on a split, which on average is around 60%.

This means the agents would each gross $3,600. After deducting federal and state taxes and (since they are independent contractors) paying both sides on social security, the agent would net about $2,520.

The listing agent also pays overhead and expenses, which could eat up another 10% of the gross, resulting in a net income of $2,268.

The national median average earnings for a real estate agent are $37,000 which means it would take 18 sales a year.

By the way, if they fail to find a buyer and complete the sale, the listing agent doesn't get reimbursed any of the "up front" costs.

I bet you wouldn't say that if it was you that ladi out $500,000 to stage that penthouse and spent thousands of dollars advertising, promoting, and not even to mention the time invested to sell that sucker... Truly another libtard who doesn't know what it's like to actually have to EARN what you put in the bank...

I work on a commission, and I can work a hundred hours a week, but if I don't sell something, I don't eat. I deserve every dollar I make because I work for it, I don't punch a clock and get paid by the hour. I get paid for RESULTS.

Seriously, if I were still working commission, I would get as much for each job as I could, it is a very hard life. And what about politicians, who lie, cheat, and steal from all of those they can? Wouldn't it be great if they only got paid for results?

notaliberal-525264,

I'm not a liberal either, but I can state my case without childish name calling. It incenses me when a conservative, or a liberal has to attempt to demean another by hurling names. No matter WHO is calling names, it's disrespectful and sophomoric. We are AMERICANS first, regardless of our party affiliations. Until we ALL get that message and start working together, nothing in this country will change.

I don't see why the realtor would be expected to pay the $500,000 to stage the condo. I'm sure the owner (the bank, in this case) would be responsible for that expense.

Miker::: McFarlane is not a Saudi name-- and he is NOT the buyer. He was the developer and original owner. It's too much for my blood-- even my double-wide mobile home has gotten too big for me and my cat.

Danno-350553

Didn't know that all real estate agents were female. Who knew?

I don't think that's true - there are some gay men in the business.

Women Broker/Broker Associates in US 50%

Women agents working 40+ hours a week in US 58%

Women agents working under 40 hours per week in US 66%.

www realtor org/library/library/fg109 since they wouldn't let me post the website where I got the info...

G_reaper you are confusing them with the interior decorators..

All work isn't equal. Ever work in a steel mill? I would rather work 70 hours a week in real estate than 30 in a steel mill. If you ever wondered why there are so many realtors it's because they feel the same way.
"Load 16 tons and what do you get?"

The industry 'standard' presently is 6%. At one time it was 5%, etc. It can be negotiated with the agent who can negotiate their portion down.

To say the comment was misleading - no it wasn't.

The seller has the right to negotiate the commission rate with the broker. However, the broker/agent agreement has standard in compensation, typically, of a 60/40 commission split. Higher producers or more experienced agents may have 50/50 commission splits.

Of course, if they all charge 6%, and they all refuse to negotiate the commission (which is what I've found), then you're pretty much stuck.

No, it was Newt's lovenest for rendevous with his mistress.

Naw, Newt uses the East Coast, not the West Coast.

no it is not pelosi it is romney

No, Kerry. He has more than all of them put together.

Just like Larry Craig, I think Newt uses the mens rooms at SFO for his, er, "needs". And yes, it is a target-rich environment.

Your house is more than twice the size as mine. What do you do with all that room? Do you know somethng about the economy that we don't?

Good question. Wonder why they didn't even mention who actually bought the most expensive repo in America. . .

Some Silicon Valley software tycoon, would be my guess.

OMG, if you really think you can see perverted sex acts happening randomly in public all around San Francisco, then you've probably only seen it on Bill O'Reilly's show. Things like that happen maybe twice a year, in very specific isolated areas. Yes, there ARE lots of perverted sex acts going on behind closed doors, but not in public. The public face of the city is like any big city -- high end shopping and dining, symphony, ballet, museums, parks, boutiques -- and much of the city is extremely stylish and upscale. Fringe elements are the exception, not the rule.

Probably a Giant or 49er; that is all that can afford it these days.

Seems like "Earthquake Central" shifted to the Eastern part of the US now a days UDunnoBro...

Mid US is also highly at risk from earthquakes. Because the underlying rock formations are mostly intact (unlike SF where the rocks has been shattered by numerous quakes) the effects of large earthquakes in the mid US are far more destructive, and they do happen.

From my experience, RE agents are much more like crooked used car salesmen than architects.

Yeah right. They put $49,350,000 down, took out the maximum FNMA loan of $650,000 and then gave it back to the bank.

The developer defaulted... The unit never had an individual mortgage. It was a construction loan, so it doesn't go through FNMA or FDMC. The builder expected to sell it within 18 months of building it (that's when the balloon payment came due) and when he did not, the bank reposessed.

The entire thing was probably a custom job for a specific customer who put down the downpayment to cover part of the construction costs. The rest was financed. Probably cost about 7-10M to build. Buyer probably put down about 4.5M (10%) and then went bust himself, leaving the developer dangling.

Nice try, Tom. But it is NOT true that everything is the fault of FNMA or FDMC. Sometimes, it's just plain bad business. The developer took a gamble and lost. The bank took a gamble and lost. That's how business works.

It's just the usual dribble from the clueless OWS crowd at the BSDNC. After all if it was so lucrative everybody would have their license.

Funny how you seem to know everything about me. I'm not part of the "OWS crowd". The point was that, yes, you can make money in real estate, but you will have to work your butt off and be in an area where houses are pricey. I don't consider myself "clueless" as you stated; I just think that your comment did justify my original statement about the hate on the comments.

Whoa back off....I was answering your question and agreeing with you. Try reading my comment again. I have actually sold real estate. Quit when the market got tough. Very few make a decent living at it.

Sorry I didn't get your first comment. The "it's" referred to the previous posts, not mine. Hope you have found another profession you enjoy.

Well, don't count out the price just yet. It is the top two floors of a very lavish hotel in SF. If you go by the windows 44 rooms were converted into one penthouse home.

It most likely comes with all ammenities of a typical hotel (room service if wanted, housekeeping, conceirge, package and mail delivery by bellhops) etc...

Unfortunately, this price doesn't seem at all far-fetched to those of us living in California. San Francisco is one of the most expensive cities in America, and trophy properties like this will fetch that sort of money. Even run of the mill condos in the better buildings will run about $1000 a square foot, so that you're paying $1 mil for 1000 sf 2 Bedroom condo in a nice building. The St Regis residences are one of the premier addresses in SF, and this place sounds enormous, so you're probably looking at $5000 a square foot, which is totally believable. Now add the monthly dues to that, which are possibly as high as $10K a month for a place like that, and you're head will really spin!

At $10k/month monthly "dues," the place will probably be back on the block within a year. . .

At $10k/month monthly "dues," the place will probably be back on the block within a year. . .

You really don't know how the 1% lives, do you? For someone who brings in over 10M per year in income, as the average CEO does, spending 120K per year on dues is not difficult, especially if you hold parties in that penthouse mansion.

I'm amazed, sometimes, at the difference between the perception of "rich" and what the real 1% makes. Most Americans would be outraged at the pick-pocketing of the middle class.

If the productivity of your company goes up 20%, should the income of it's workers go up at least 10%? That would be reasonable, right? But that isn't the case. Productivity has gone through the roof in the past 30 years, but average worker income has not. Productivity is in the hands of the people doing the work, but the executives are taking the difference. They are picking the pockets of their workers.

There is class warfare going on here... it has been going on since the early '80s. It is an all-out-war against the Middle class. The rich are winning. Over half the population is falling into poverty.

I have nothing against paying top people more money. I just don't see how "leadership" should be worth $5,000 per hour, while "highly-educated white-coller effort" is worth $50 per hour. What accounts for the 100-fold increase in pay? We are talking about the same level of education. CEOs are not smarter. (Look at Herman Cain). CEOs are not always leaders (if they were, all our presidents would be former CEOs). CEOs are ordinary people, who work a normal work week, making important decisions. $250 per hour, or even $500 per hour, makes some sense.

The only way that $5,000 per hour pencils out, on the balance sheet, is if each executive can snatch $100 per week from every worker and put it in their pocket. (Most corporations have plenty of executives). What would YOU do with that extra $200 per week that they are stealing from you?

A recent poll shows that most Americans think that "rich" means making $150K per year. But the 1% don't make $150K. They START at $500K and go up from there. (Note: Don't use the IRS "Adjusted Gross Income" as a way of figuring out actual income. AGI doesn't include all income.) (See quote below)

So don't assume it will be back on the market. The rich are a LOT richer than you think... mostly because they have been taking the benefits of your productivity gains and pocketing it. If you are not angry about this, it is because you've believed their lies.

The Tax Policy Center in Washington, D.C., a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, runs an economic simulation model that shows the top 1 percent of earners in 2009 made $503,086. TPC projects $516,633 as the cutoff for the top earners in 2010 and $532,613 for 2011.

Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, says his group's income figures are larger [than the IRS] because it "takes a much broader, more comprehensive look at income. We look at income regardless of the source, not just adjusted gross income."

Steel skyscrapers are the safest places to be in earthquakes. Japan gets quakes of huge magnitudes pretty often, and their buildings don't fall down. Those skyscrapers sway, so you'll probably lose most of your windows, and you better have content insurance, because everything will fly off the shelves, but the structure will remain intact.

who gives a crap if the structure stays intact if it is burned out

Exactly. Or, if you get tossed out of one of those broken windows while the building sways all over the place? No thanks!

Don't worry, all the shattered glass falling from those 20-foot tall windows would probably kill you before you actually got tossed out of the swaying building.

You're telling us Barney Frank bought the place?? ;-)

Would that be still in the closet two ton Michael Moore?

Dan-da-douchbag talking out his ass again

Exactly; where is all the comments about the previous home owner being a wreck-less, lazy, irresponsible sap for buying a house he couldn't afford and leaving the citizens to foot the bill because he walked out on his personal responsibility to pay his mortgage.

Oohh Wait I forgot that this only applies to the poor and middle class. You think about it, this 1 foreclosure is probably equivalent to the cost of foreclosing on about 500 average family homes.

Nah, Pelosi already has two like it, one in D.C. and the other near Wall Street.