Inventory of Active listed single-family homes, condos, and TICs in San Francisco slightly decreased (0.7%) over the past two weeks and is currently running 30% higher on a year-over-year basis.
A typical post Memorial Day bump in inventory has yet to materialize as on a year-over-year basis new listing volume is down, and in addition, sales volume is up.
Keep in mind that our listed inventory count does not include listings in any stage of contract (even those which are simply contingent) nor does it include listings for multi-family properties (unless the units are individually listed).
∙ SocketSite’s San Francisco Listed Housing Inventory Update: 6/2/08 [SocketSite]
Wow.
This must be very disheartening for the bears in the audience. I’m sure they can explain it away based on ancedotal evidence though…
I don’t think anybody needs to explain anything. listings are up significantly YOY.
that said, listings going down over the last 2 weeks is clearly good news for those people worried about drops in home prices. less inventory = less downward pressure on home prices. I wonder if perhaps sellers have gotten the message that it’s not a great time to sell right now and thus aren’t listing their properties? (again that would be bullish for home prices) The ONLY way I would see the 2 week trend as bearish would be if people are having a hard time getting financing for a move-up purchase… thus they don’t put their current home on the market. I do not think this is the case although it is possible.
Tough to make too much about a 2 week trend in and of itself, though. let’s see if the 2 week trend maintains itself. as example, it looks like 2008 broke the 2006-2007 trend of lower inventory in mid may… not sure if that means anything.
Yeah, I don’t think it’s the bears who need to explain a 30% YoY rise in inventory. I don’t think the bears need to explain falling medians. I don’t think the bears need to explain the falling CSI. I don’t think the bears need to explain falling sales volume. I don’t think the bears need to explain tightening lending standards, historic highs in foreclosures, over extended rich (like Ed McMahon) losing their homes), the rise in the 10 yr T-note, or any of the other consequences of the bursting of the biggest housing bubble in history.
In fact, I think the bears explained how and why this would all happen years ago because it was so patently obvious to anyone who looked at a few charts or how lived through the dot com bubble that the exact same thing was going to happen again, except it was going to be worse.
but enough with my Monday morning rant(/doom and gloom off)
“Yeah, I don’t think it’s the bears who need to explain a 30% YoY rise in inventory. I don’t think the bears need to explain falling medians. I don’t think the bears need to explain the falling CSI. I don’t think the bears need to explain falling sales volume. I don’t think the bears need to explain tightening lending standards, historic highs in foreclosures, over extended rich (like Ed McMahon) losing their homes), the rise in the 10 yr T-note, or any of the other consequences of the bursting of the biggest housing bubble in history”
How the bears do love them some Ed McMahon. YESS!
hhahahahah. Take a friggin chill pill, bdb. And after it takes effect please do explain something. Explain why the cataclysmic San Francisco price shift has not happened even though you predicted it ad nauseum.
this is going to be a good thread…LOL
Any calendar date related jump in inventory like the post Memorial Day bump implies that sellers have flexibility in marketing their properties. During the boom a lot of properties were brought to the market by speculators who timed the market to optimize exposure and sales price.
Now that it is a buyer’s market the level of speculators has dropped and I’m guessing that we’re seeing a much higher proportion of people who have to sell for the normal reasons (job moved, life change, etc.). Those sellers have less flexibility on timing their property’s debut on the market. They just want to get it on the market ASAP.
This immediacy to sell has the effect of smoothing out the the market timing bumps. This assumes that events like birth, death, divorce, marriage, and job change are evenly distributed throughout the calendar year.
My explanation is the same as it has always been, every bubble contract from the edges toward the center. Again, this is obvious to anyone who has done some basic research in to the effects of bubbles and manias.
Also, I have claimed time and time again that the bubble would correct through a combination of price declines, rising inflation, and rising wages. So you can easily have a home that sees little or no change in it nominal price but due to inflation and wage growth does lose value.
So with the examples of the homes in SF that have seen 1-2% price growth for the last year or two once you factor in 4-5% inflation and 2-3% wage growth those homes are losing value and the prices are in fact correcting, just not in as obvious a way as the homes in stockton (one of the leading edges of the bubble and the first to be impacted)
I don’t feel as if that explanation speaks to the projected price shifts I have read on here over and over again. They were more along the lines of 15 to 20 percent and even higher.
Secondly, I just reread your first post. You posited falling medians above. While I acknowledge that has happened in spots, in SF largely that’s untrue. The phenomenon we’ve seen over and over again is falling volume/rising medians.
and for those that think that the worst is over and that things will be getting better soon, I suggest you check (a href=”http://bubbletracking.blogspot.com/2008/06/bmit-intervention-time-with-some-help.html”> this out.
The historic highs in foreclosures we are currently seeing is due to the tsunami of subprime ARM resets (which is far from over) but, as you can see from the graph, there is another wave of ARM resets coming which will continue to pressure owners and take discretionary money out of owners pockets as the have to pay rising monthly mortgage payments, sell, or foreclose.
And fluj is at it again. Is the NAR paying for this clown? Keep up the good work man.
from the DataQuick website, SF median for April -5.1%, now that is better then the over bay area median -21.4% but you would expect this once you look at the history of busts and how the collapse (as I said above) from the edges toward the center.
Sales Volume Median Price
All homes Apr-07 Apr-08 %Chng Apr-07 Apr-08 %Chng
Alameda 1,555 1,240 -20.3% $586,500 $473,750 -19.20%
Contra Costa 1,246 1,265 1.5% $600,000 $395,000 -34.20%
Marin 313 216 -31.0% $925,000 $800,000 -13.50%
Napa 109 100 -8.3% $563,000 $499,000 -11.40%
Santa Clara 2,009 1,440 -28.3% $709,000 $615,000 -13.30%
San Francisco 568 605 6.5% $790,000 $750,000 -5.1%
San Mateo 681 573 -15.9% $810,000 $672,500 -17.00%
Solano 440 429 -2.5% $428,000 $319,500 -25.40%
Sonoma 526 442 -16.0% $519,000 $414,250 -20.20%
Bay Area 7,447 6,310 -15.3% $659,000 $518,000 -21.40%
Which phantom rising medians would those be, fluj? Because the latest SFAR info, as of May, shows that the median price in 8 out of 10 SF districts has fallen. Only D8 and D9 are up and, as we know, D9 is the one with all the new construction.
Stockton got hit because people HAD to sell.
SF has not had it’s resets, and so people don’t HAVE to sell yet. I’m surprised the number is up 30% to be honest. I see no real reason for the inventory numbers to be up as high as they are. They shouldn’t be up that high, so a slight drop is not a surprise: it should be more of a drop.
Call me next year. When people HAVE to sell in SF, prices will start to fall. Most people don’t really have to sell yet. I don’t know where the 30% came from. Inventory is much higher than I would have predicted.
tipster, i actually posted a comment regarding ARM resets and its current and continuing impact on the market but it contained a link so it’s being checked by the editors before being posted, check out the link to the reset graph, it’s interesting to say the least.
“And fluj is at it again. Is the NAR paying for this clown? Keep up the good work man.
@meananon, “Clown.” Thanks for that. Happy Monday to you too.
@bdb I view San Francisco differently than the stats you posit describe. In fact, so does everyone. Would you expect to pay the same amount for a flat in Dogpatch as you do in Pac Heights? Prices have in plain point of fact RISEN in a number of areas in SF.
ROFL!!! And this would be another facet of what fuels booms and busts, human psychology.
Who is to say that SF people cannot afford resets, number one. Look at what’s happening right now. People are buying with significant capital as down payment. These people are the friends and colleagues and neighbors of folks who financed 90%+ two years ago. Secondly, who is to say that the quote unquote SF reset victims won’t be able to re-fi into new 5/1’s ? They will. Yall need to stop giving a paper tiger such respect. Because resets are happening already too. (Please do not submit any “2010, 2011” links here)
“ROFL!!! And this would be another facet of what fuels booms and busts, human psychology. ”
No, it is you who is being disingenuous. Why don’t you roll over to (insert any number of SFneighborhoods here), checkbook in hand, and write an offer 5.1% below asking? Just for kicks. Tell us what transpires.
Isn’t it ROTFL, anyway? Glad I can be so amusing. It’s the big top. I’m a clown, you’re rolling on the floor laughing, and Ed McMahon is MCing. YESS!
fluj – see my previous post. Per the San Francisco Association of Realtors, the median SFR price in May of ’08 was DOWN from May of ’07 in 8 out of 10 districts.
I have been posting neighborhood median gains for months. Was May down a bit? Eight out of 10, really? Like “District 5” versus “District 7.” Honestly, I look at it more finely than that. The reality is neighborhoods, not districts. For people opening their checkbooks, this is the reality. Disagree if you wish.
Yeah, it the guy posting/citing data compiled by independent third parties who is being disingenuous … LMAO
“Who is to say that SF people cannot afford resets, number one. Look at what’s happening right now. People are buying with significant capital as down payment.”
Lots of people are buying with higher down payments in Stockton and CoCo county. Prices fell just the same.
Watch the resets. The lending standards got too loose and money got too cheap. Most of those people won’t be able to refi, and lots of people who can won’t want to pay 2X or 3X their option arm or I/O payments. That’s what happened in Stockton and CoCo county. If it happens here, the problems will be just the same. I see no reason why it will be any different here. Lots of jobs in those other areas, prices were low relative to rising incomes, etc. Can’t see much difference here, but I could be wrong.
Watch the resets.
No. Go to an open house. Write an offer for 5.1% over. LMFAOROTFFLEAPBJS!! (laugh my * off rolling on the * floor eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich)
OK, I wish to disagree. The median sales price was down YOY for EVERY SINGLE DISTRICT with a statistically meaningful amount of sales (>30). The only districts where price was up were D8 (2 sales this May vs. 1 sale last May) and D9 (15 this May vs. 17 last May). Check any district that had over 30 sales and tell me what you see:
District 1 May-07 May-08
Number of Sales 18 26
Median Selling Price 1,597,500 1,433,642
District 2 May-07 May-08
Number of Sales 48 51
Median Selling Price 897,000 835,000
District 3 May-07 May-08
Number of Sales 16 10
Median Selling Price 813,500 639,500
District 4 May-07 May-08
Number of Sales 36 27
Median Selling Price 1,225,000 1,087,680
District 5 May-07 May-08
Number of Sales 36 35
Median Selling Price 1,457,500 1,299,000
District 6 May-07 May-08
Number of Sales 5 3
Median Selling Price 1,725,000 979,000
District 7 May-07 May-08
Number of Sales 13 14
Median Selling Price 4,650,000 3,545,000
District 8 May-07 May-08
Number of Sales 1 2
Median Selling Price 2,750,000 3,670,000
District 9 May-07 May-08
Number of Sales 17 15
Median Selling Price 835,000 900,000
District 10 May-07 May-08
Number of Sales 43 41
Median Selling Price 722,000 570,101
Dude, this is where median fails. I’ve seen it over and over again, and have posted it over and over again, on here and elsewhere. I’ve seen $$psqft increases, and have shared the statistics with a bunch of people who roundly criticize me on a daily basis.
Here’s one. 26 Richmond sales this May versus 18 last May. Average sales price higher. Shorter time on the market. Median lower. $$psq ft lower. So which is it? Is the Richmond performing better, or worse?
Do you really think homes are 1.1 million dollars cheaper in District 7 right now?
I really don’t want to get sucked into this again. So I won’t. Truth be told I do say “median” instead of “average” occasionally, because that’s the stat I get. I’ll try not to do that in the future.
The credit situation is only getting worse. Lehman Bros (one of the top investment banks that does mortgage backed securities) is imploding right now. (they will not go BK but will likely be taken over). People are also very worried about Washington Mutual. we’ve already seen what happened to Bear Stearns and Countrywide. The private mortgage insurers are also bleeding badly.
The result? People better have downpayments because they will likely need them. it is not a stretch to imagine that 10-20% down will become the norm again. I’ve been saying that on this blog for over a year I think, BEFORE the “Credit crisis” was wideley publicized. And just like then, I contend that this will be a drawn out multi-year process.
my typical spiel: RE downturns take many years to play out. it is unlikely we will ever get a real time “eureka” moment. instead, when we look back on old data we’ll see where the downturn started and ended. And they often take 5 years or longer to play out.
I am sure that I will miss the “absolute bottom” of RE in SF. That’s ok. there’s no hurry… I see little chance that we’ll go back to 10-20% yearly RE appreciation anytime soon given the state of the economy, the inventory levels, the macroeconomic banking picture, high inflation, etc.
I may jump in when real RE prices appreciate on a YOY basis every month for a full year.
Dude,
Don’t make Craig and Fluj cry.
Their carefully constructed fake reality is extremely fragile. Fluj’s anecdotal experience in the “real San Fransisco” (Pac Heights and Noe Vally) tells him all he needs to know about statistics. He doesn’t need your lying statistics. We are all better off if we just ask the realtors what the market is like, because they know so much better. Statistics lie. Fluj and Craig don’t.
There is a HUGE rally underway in San Francisco–fluj sees the evidence every weekend. Better get in now unless you want to be priced out forever.
fluj:
I think part of the issue at hand may be selection bias.
From what I can tell, you tend to be more concentrated in the good to great neighborhoods. those neighborhoods tend to be doing pretty darn well right now.
but I feel there has beeen a change in the market. In past years (2005-6) you could throw anything on the market and it would sell immediately. Now, you really need to be in a good location with a good property. those still sell like hotcakes. (like the 3BR/2ba SFHs as example) everything else languishes more.
and on that note, I think there are neighborhoods that may NEVER fall, or fall minimally. Those would be the areas of the uber rich and the very rich. As we continue to see the spread widen (rich from middle class) we may see all the rich try to cram into the uber-neighborhoods pushing RE there to the limits, whereas everything else falls in value.
you see this pattern in a lot of areas that has high wealth inequality. (Brazil, Kenya, Dubai, etc)
IF (big if) that is the case, then Cow Hollow and True Pac Heights might not fall or fall slightly. Places like Noe I’m still not sure about… depends if it’s fully “made it” as a wealthy area or not as example. and places like SoMa could really struggle (just starting to gentrify)
No tears here. Just enjoying the rant.
“Their carefully constructed fake reality is extremely fragile. Fluj’s anecdotal experience in the “real San Fransisco” (Pac Heights and Noe Vally) tells him all he needs to know about statistics”
That’s simply not true.
I’ve been showing the same stats Dude just showed for months, amid many, many claims of “Median’s getting hosed.”
Take a long look at the May stats. What do they really show? Truly? That a person could have expected to pay 897K for a house in the Sunset last May, and that they were looking at paying 835K this past May? That the Sunset market was hotter because 51 houses sold this year as opposed to 48 last?
Look at April and March. Many of yall were crying “median collapse” then. The statistics were anything but that. And for May, by “reliable data” datasets only two Districts even have the proper numbers.
So is it finally here, then, hawkguy?
I did not say anything about a “HUGE rally” and I would appreciate it if you didn’t put words in my mouth. Especially if you’re gonna be so snide about it.
Back up. Look at this thread. I said “A cataclysmic price shift has not happened.” That’s VERY VERY MUCH NOT “a huge rally is underway.” So please. Don’t be such a dick.
@ ex-SFer
“but I feel there has beeen a change in the market”
No arguments there.
And for the record, this web site concentrates on Noe Valley and Pacific Heights/Cow Hollow. Not I.
I tend to talk about Glen Park, Bernal Heights, and Noe Valley. Places where 800K doesn’t buy much in June 2008 despite expectations to the contrary. And you know what? That’s despite my own expectations to the contrary.
Two years ago the $2M Noe Valley SFR was a rarity. Now it is almost commonplace. I don’t think Noe can backslide. Bernal and Glen Park and Potrero Hill tho? These neighborhoods will never completely gentrify because of low income housing. Noe doesn’t have projects. Bernal, GP and PH are in many ways defying logic and have been for quite some time at this point. Explain it.
This is an excellent result for SF real estate.
For those quick to post the YOY median price (suddenly median price has become VERY important to bears this month) May 07 was a bit of a one month blip and does represent the all time high.
So, yeah if you ignore the fact there may be significant amounts of noise in the monthly data, anyone who bought in May07 (only) and has to sell now may lose some money. Not great for those few people, but hardly Ragnarok.
Explain why the cataclysmic San Francisco price shift has not happened even though you predicted it ad nauseum. Posted by: fluj at June 16, 2008 9:09 AM
Property markets don’t correct themselves that way. Transaction counts go down, inventory builds up, prices stagnate, and inflation does the rest. Once real prices are below historic medians markets start increasing transaction counts and working off inventory. It takes a few years for the process to work, there are always small bounces along the way, and since prices remain high in dollar terms the results are largely invisible.
During the last big downturn from 1988-1995 there was a sharp downward move in prices that stopped around 1992, then prices didn’t appreciate normally or even significantly until 1996. At current inflation rates the market only has to go into this kind of partial stall for a few years in order to do even more damage, but it is hard to say what might happen if the whole commodities bubble implodes.
Can we get back on the chart?
The 2007 line is interesting. It didn’t really have a “spring bounce”. The inventory was pretty flat until September.
When you compare the 2008 line with the 2006, it doesn’t look that bad. Some people would say 2005 to 2006 was the peak of the (national) market.
I was certainly expecting a higher inventory level.
I’ve noticed quite a few properties were pulled from the MLS over the past few weeks having not sold during the spring. Now that school is out and the weather is bad, new listings will flatline over the summer. We won’t see another rise in inventory until fall. People simply don’t buy houses during the summer. I would watch for further price declines in current inventory over the next three or four months.
My one apples to applies district 7 case, 3347 Divisadero, where I knew the owners and heard about their remodel, is a great illustration of fluj’s point. Purchased for 1.150, and sold for 1.195 two years later. That helped the median go up. But the owners bought a dump, fixed it up for at least as much as the gain, and likely more, so the value was flat to down.
When they bought, I’m sure they had no opportunity to do an inspection or ask for anything to be fixed. The new buyers probably did. That tends to mask the true price trends.
I doubt the people from whom they bought paid their closing costs, but I’d bet they had to pay on the way out, again masking the true price trend.
If you just look at prices, things are very rosy. If you look at what’s really happening, even in the best neighborhoods, things are flat to down.
Are there buyers? Of course. There are ALWAYS buyers. But you have to look behind the stats. Those rising medians are the result of rising costs of improvements that mask a decline in the true price the way the people on Divis got more money, but in reality lost money.
If it weren’t for my own knowledge of what happened, the real estate sales people could have just pointed to the stats and said numbers don’t lie. But they can not tell the whole story.
Where are the projects in glen park? I was not aware.
I actually think glen park, bernal and even the mission SFRs are holding-up and rising due to the steady rise in Noe valley pricing. People are getting priced out of Noe but still like the weather and location enough to build roots in a close neighborhood.
Another good apple is 2197 Divisadero which sold on 10/05 for 2.875 and spent about a week on the market in June for 3.075. That’s about a 7% gain over three years, which isn’t that great if you take into consideration the realtor’s fees, property taxes, etc… although maybe it sold over asking… who knows? The point is, it was priced so the sellers would probably break even, which is about as much as one can hope for, for this sort of not-quite-high-end property.
The Glen Park projects aren’t in GP, per se. They’re slighly up the hill on the GP/Diamond Heights border.
Let’s not take a single sale anecdote and extend it outward as if it is trend. Tipster, you bemoan it when others do that in a manner conversely to yours.
I was on a conference call today with the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) CEO Jerry Howard and Chief Economist David Seiders where they were presenting the June Housing Market Index (HMI).
It was pretty bad. They were basically pleading with all news organizations and others to put pressure on the federal government to bail out the housing meltdown.
Jerry even went so far as to say that it is effecting senior citizens and it is just not right that they are losing their equity.
The NAHB reported that the index is at an all time record low of 18. Down from 19 in May. (a rating of 50 is neutral, greater than 50 means a majority of positive responses. less than 50 means a majority of negative)
David did say that he expects further declines since the current index does not reflect the recent rise in interest rates.
I really wish I could describe in words the sense of desperation that came from the call.
It seems easy to look at particular neighborhoods and say that a major downturn is not coming but I would have to agree with those whom have studied bubble and mass movement mentality. The drastic movement starts at the fringes and moves in over time.
Stockton -> Contra Costa -> Specific Districts in SF -> Top of Russian Hill
If we look back in 5 years I will be very surprised if those prime districts have not followed suit.
[Editor’s Note: It’s a common refrain and worthy of its own discussion and debate: Homebuilder Confidence Falls: From The Fringes To San Francisco?]
I can’t speak to Bernal or Potrero, but Glen Park has changed pretty dramatically over the past ten years. While there is “economic diversity” with the low income housing up the hill, the central core of the place has vastly improved since I purchased here 5 years ago. There was an empty parking lot where the Canyon Market is, the library was crammed into a shoe box and Chenery Park and La Corneta were the only non-fly-infested locales to chow down at for dinner. There’s been some great additions lately that are way more upscale in vibe than what previously existed. There’s still room for improvement though until we look like the South Side version of Sacramento Street.
I know for one that in looking for housing, I wanted easy access to transport, some sense of a town, parks close by, good schools, and a single family. I’m pretty sure I’m not alone in that hunt! We gave up hope of having easy access to awesome schools by staying in the City by choosing Glen Park, but I love it here. Only time will tell what will happen to proerty values here, but I know that our place won’t be on the market anytime soon so we won’t be adding to the “bloated” inventory.
Which to go back the point of the main post – how does this inventory number play over 5 year trends, 10 year trends, etc. I vaguely recall seeing one chart someplace that made it look like SF had far far more inventory 5 and 10 years ago.
“Let’s not take a single sale anecdote and extend it outward as if it is trend. Tipster, you bemoan it when others do that in a manner conversely to yours.”
I wasn’t pointing it out as a trend. I was merely pointing it out as an example of the sale price going up but the owners losing money (before consideration of fees, etc) because the reason the price went up was not because the values were going up, but because they had invested more than that much in a remodel.
I see a lot of those real high end remodels going on in Noe. That drives medians up, but it masks the real apples to apples trends. It also drives up the average price per square foot.
If prices or $/sq foot go up, are medians up? Definitely. But does that mean that people aren’t losing money on their homes? Nope. So your endless pointings out that $/sq foot are going up in some neighborhoods doesn’t really mean anything when people are pouring money into those homes.
And by the way, I hate to be the one to point this out, but if some nabes are going up as you have stated up above, and yet the medians in the districts are heading down, that means other nabes in the districts are positively crashing, as they would have to to make the total medians for the districts work out. When some districts are crashing, that’s not an encouraging sign. *I* would never have guessed such a thing: again, I see no real NEED for people to sell at this point, so having you tell me, by implication, that in just about every district, some neighborhoods are absolutely crashing isn’t giving me a whole lot of confidence. I thought pretty much most districts were sinking just a little bit by little bit.
And what about all the new condos in Soma – are they included in this number? Are pocket listings?
I have to admit I was very surprised to see the medians fall.
I wasn’t expecting medians to fall anywhere in the city until next year at the earliest.
let’s see if that data holds up or if it just a blip.
“I see a lot of those real high end remodels going on in Noe.”
Maybe so. But three years ago very few of those high end remodels cost $2M when they hit the market. Nowadays they all do. Again, please remember that remodeling has been going on since well before the days of HGTV and Flip this House. SF is called “Carpenter’s Paradise” for a reason. The reason is that a really good carpenter can make 100K in this town and has been able to do so for quite some time. Why? Lots of work. Lots of high end residential work.
As to the May medians, well, doggone it if I didn’t post detailed YoY statistics, April statisictics, and March statistics on here in threads you participated in actively. If you want to take May as gospel and forget everything else you’ve seen, then fine. It looks to me like only district 10 has enough numbers to be considered as both indicative and “crashing.” And we’ve all been saying that for quite some time.
“Back up. Look at this thread. I said “A cataclysmic price shift has not happened.”
I like how fluj uses carefully selected strawmans.
I don’t believe I have heard “cataclysmic price shift” and Real Estate used in a sentence before.
It is common knowlegde that RE moves slowly. The price increases didn’t happen overnight or even with in a year. It has taken 6-7 years to see the current rise in prices.
Why would the downturn have to be “cataclysmic” for it to be meaningful? It can’t unless something really bad happens that changes the game immediately. There is no reason this won’t be a long drawn out down turn.
Fluj being a Realtor knows this but is just being disingenuous. Couple that with selection bias and you have the entirety of Fluj’s argument. Ask for something that can not happen as proof that it hasn’t happened.
@ akrosdabay,
Do you really mean to come on here and say that dozens of these bears weren’t calling for cataclysm?
please.
Actually, I think remodeling was a bigger factor back in 2005. It seemed only fixer and remodeled were on the market. Flipping as a national pass-time.
Today, there is much less flipping. Occasionally, you will get a niced remodeled home, but most of them were remodeled by the owner to live in.
You can see that by just looking at Home Depot. Their revenue rought tracks the remodeling activities.
@ akrosdabay,
“The price increases didn’t happen overnight or even with in a year.”
Wrong. A tremendous spike occurred in late 2004 early 2005. Around here anyway, it was rather sudden.
“Do you really mean to come on here and say that dozens of these bears weren’t calling for cataclysm?
please.”
Cataclysmic implies a sudden violent change. I would love to see you show me which bears implied such a thing.
The bears are predicting a return to fundamentals. Which from where we are today could be considered a calamity of epic proportions.
Bear Sterns collapsing was Cataclysmic.
Look at late 2004. You will see a sudden, and violent upward change in San Francisco real estate values.
“Wrong. A tremendous spike occurred in late 2004 early 2005. Around here anyway, it was rather sudden.”
By how much? Point to some data.
Akrosdabay,
Dude. I don’t feel like it. Ask Foolio. He asked me to look at yoyoyoyoyoy values for him a little while ago. I posted it on here. A real sea change occurred in every neighborhood I looked at in 2004. Belive it or not I gives a you know what. The way you came at me today doesn’t exactly spur me into action …
@fluj
May be you can explain why I don’t see it in this chart.
http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/San_Francisco-California/#stats_n_trends
@fluj
“Dude. I don’t feel like it. …….A real sea change occurred in every neighborhood I looked at in 2004. Belive it or not I gives a you know what. The way you came at me today doesn’t exactly spur me into action …”
Dude. I don’t give a you know what about what gets you into action.
You claimed I was wrong, the onus is on you to prove it. I have posted my data.
All you are doing is reinforcing what I said earlier. That’s fine by me.
@ akrosdaphoneticspelling, I posted the data on this site already. Many saw it. Sorry you missed it. “Yer built too low, son. The fast ones keep flyin over yer head!” — Foghorn Leghorn
Even CS index will show you that.
(Now I am wondering when the next CS index update will be)
CS updates on the last Tuesday of every month, so expect the next update on 6/24, week from tomorrow. On that note, DQ numbers for the southland came out today and boy, are they ugly. Medians down by over 20% in every single county in SoCal.
http://dqnews.com/News/California/Southern-CA/RRSCA080616.aspx
And their analysts are now predicting the high end is next, since sellers still refuse to lower prices so little is moving there. Sound familiar? Bay area numbers are usually out a day or two after SoCal.
Here’s what’s funny…for all the supposed “things are rosy” mesages from fluj and others…
I’ve been out of the market for about 6 months now, and every month or so I get calls from agents telling me how “things have changed” and “it’s a seller’s market now,” with “good deals to be had.”
Perhaps the message just depends on what they think you want to hear…LOL
err…I meant buyer’s market. Duh.
“”things are rosy” mesages from fluj and others…”
et tu, foolio?
You really paraphrase what I’m saying as “things are rosy” ????
How many times do I have to say that yes, things have changed? Things have changed. But if you think things are cheap, or even cheaper (aside from SOMA condos) you’re not in the market.
Man. I wish it was a buyer’s market. Maybe it will become one. Maybe that will happen soon. In the meantime I have a bunch of would-be buyers who would like to spend 600-800K for a house in Bernal or Potrero or a “total fixer” in Noe. And they really don’t have a chance.
Fluj-
Tell them to wait 6-12 months. They will get their opportunity in Bernal. Maybe not Noe, but then again, you never know.
Fluj, what is up with 141 27th St? This place seems like a steal, why has no one snapped it up yet? Is it just too close to San Jose?
@ Treeman,
I love it when people predict timing on here! Thanks for that.
@ NVJ The 27th street property is a partition sale with a set bidding process and the date isn’t until a week or more from now. But yes, it is also located in what conventional wisdom used to hold as one of the least desirable Noe blocks.
Fluj-
Anytime. That is why I gave a range. Tell them to wait.
Yeah, no harm in waiting. I already told the 600-800K buyers they need to wait or else think condo. Of course, many on this site were also saying “wait 6 to 12 months” last year.
fluj – there are currently 26 SFRs in Bernal under $800K, including 8 under $600K. Increasing amount of short sales and REOs as well.
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/rfs/715354380.html
Dude,
Man, I know exactly what is on the market in Bernal Heights. In Bernal, you need to put a very fine point on it. There is a laundry list of parameters that make up a good Bernal location. Of those properties maybe two are worthwhile.
If something costs 579K, but it needs 350K to be liveable or it lacks a garage, or it’s in a bad location how much does it really cost?
Just shooting me a list like that? That’s why most people need realtors.
Noe Valley Jim
The offer date for 141 27st street is not until June 25. I anticipate this will go for at least 850K Any one else care to speculate?
“That’s why most people need realtors.”
To determine if they like a house, or if it’s in a good location? Or to point out that it lacks a garage? Not sure I follow you.
Fluj,
“Bernal, GP and PH are in many ways defying logic and have been for quite some time at this point.
Posted by: fluj at June 16, 2008 10:51 AM”
Let me be clear about this. Are you saying that you believe prices in Bernal, GP and PH are currently too high?
@fluj:
Yeah, I don’t see a huge difference between “things are rosy,” “things aren’t getting cheaper (aside from SOMA condos), and “your dollar buys less today in GP, BH, and NV, despite expectations to the contrary.”
But maybe there’s a nuance I’m missing (honestly asking, not being facetious)?
Regardless, I think it is interesting that the public/private tenor of things that I’m getting from RE agents is very different (admittedly from different people, but still).
Publicly, it’s good luck with that under-asking bid, your dollar buys less now than it did before because the Real SF is the land of milk and honey (and $$) and good places still sell, and sell fast. Privately, the story I hear is very different.
@ Dude
You know what? The one on top of Peralta has potential. The problem is that it requires probably a couple 100K and then is it worth $1M? No, it isn’t. But for people wishing to stay longterm that aint bad.
@ foolio,
I qualify nearly everything I say. “Certain areas are performing well” is not “Everything is rosy.” It just isn’t.
You really hear that good places don’t still sell, and sell fast? I don’t believe that. Unless they’re way out in front of the $Psqft curve, good places in good areas still sell, and sell fast.
@ logscaler, “Let me be clear about this. Are you saying that you believe prices in Bernal, GP and PH are currently too high?”
That’s not what I meant, no. What I meant was that I really thought the southernmost expensive neighborhoods would be the first to show decreasing prices. It still has not happened.
@fluj:
“I qualify nearly everything I say. ‘Certain areas are performing well’ is not ‘Everything is rosy.’ It just isn’t.”
Fair point, except that my understanding is that, for you, when you say “certain areas” you mean the Marina, Cow Hollow, Pacific Heights, Nove Valley, Bernal, Glen Park, the Sunset, the Richmond, etc., etc.
Other than SOMA condos (and I take it you would even distinguish there between SOMA and “South Beach,” although maybe I’m wrong) what else is not in the “certain areas” for you? Bayview, Hunter’s Point, and VV, presumably. Anything else?
Honestly, that’s not fair. First of all the Richmond and the Sunset together take up nearly half the city’s geography! So, Richmond, Sunset, Noe, Bernal, Glen Park, Potrero, the Mission, the Western Addition, and just about everywhere north of Market. All of these areas are still just as expensive as they were last year. That you would call over 3/5 of the city cherrypicking on my part is pretty amusing. The opposite is really true. The bears are seizing on smaller geography.
Fluj,
@ logscaler, “Let me be clear about this. Are you saying that you believe prices in Bernal, GP and PH are currently too high?”
“That’s not what I meant, no. What I meant was that I really thought the southernmost expensive neighborhoods would be the first to show decreasing prices. It still has not happened.”
Oh thank God for that! For a minute there I thought you had given up. This site wouldn’t be much fun without your optimism. I would have had to find something useful to do with my time.
When I post YoY stats for like, Bernal,
1/1-6/17 2007 : 60 sales 627 a foot
1/1-6/17/2008 : 42 sales 652 a foot
showing how this year is just as spendy if not more, this is called “optimism.” It isn’t just, “Huh. Prices actually are just as much so far this year in Bernal Heights.”
Nope. It’s that ole optimistic fluj at it again.
Fluj – I’ve seen a lot of dilapidated outdated properties on Bernal being developed into Class-A nearly new buildings. Could that affect the per square foot YOY statistics ?
Same goes for many other neighborhoods.
Again, remodeling is an ongoing phenomenon in San Francisco. Sure, super nice finished product is going to affect mix. But then again, so is the rundown decrepit house across the street somebody else buys — to sell a year from now.
At the end of the day there are a lot of small lots with small houses in this city. This whole, “remodels artificially inflate price” thing is baloney. Where were you in 2000? San Francisco, um, had remodels back then too. It has always been going on.
“Publicly, it’s good luck with that under-asking bid, your dollar buys less now than it did before because the Real SF is the land of milk and honey (and $$) and good places still sell, and sell fast. Privately, the story I hear is very different.”
Posted by: Foolio at June 17, 2008 12:43 PM
please, share.
@fluj:
Sorry, I think something got lost in translation in my last post. I wasn’t accusing you of cherry-picking. My point, which I think you agreed with, was that the areas that you say are still performing well are essentially most of the city (outside of Hunter’s Point, etc.).
I’m not saying that is true or isn’t true. Frankly, opinions obviously differ about that, which is fine. My only point all along has been that I see different public messages (e.g., things are rosy, which to me is the same as saying that everywhere except Hunter’s Point, etc. is performing well) are different than private ones.
@paco: Not much to “share” except that the private communications I have had with agents over the last few months have all focused on how “great” this market is and what a wonderful buying opportunity it is, because the market has “softened substantially.”
Very different from the public message.
ahah. No apology necessary, but now I see. You have agents soliciting you for your business with claims of market softness. I thought you meant that in private conversation agents or realtors you happen to know personally were saying how crap the market is. Big difference.