San Francisco Listed Housing Inventory: 5/10/10 (www.SocketSite.com)
Inventory of Active listed single-family homes, condos, and TICs in San Francisco rose 3.3% over the past two weeks versus an average of 4.2% for the same two weeks over the past four years.
Current inventory levels are down 4% on a year-over-year basis but up 16% versus the average of the past four years (up 22% if you exclude 2009) and up 39% as compared to 2006/2007. Inventory of single-family homes in San Francisco is up 4% on a year-over-year basis, up 1% versus 2008 and up 33% versus 2007.
32% of active listings in San Francisco have undergone at least one price reduction (almost double what others are reporting) with the percentage of active listings that are either already bank owned (67) or seeking a short sale (150) up to 14% over the past two weeks (up 11% in the absolute).
The standard SocketSite Listed Inventory footnote: 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: 4/26/10 [SocketSite.com]
Will Pent-Up Demand Outstrip Pent-Up Supply? [SocketSite] 

13 thoughts on “SocketSite’s San Francisco Listed Housing Inventory: 5/10/10”
  1. “already bank owned (67) or seeking a short sale (150)”
    Well, that’s an interesting stat. That’s more than 13% of inventory and very significant. I know there has been a lot of quibbling about what constitutes “pent-up inventory” but we’re seeing some of that inventory come to the market, it seems.

  2. It is a weird market. Here are April’s sales:
    http://www.rereport.com/sf/index.html
    Down from March — significantly so in the case of condos/TICs. Is that normal? I wouldn’t think so. Most surprisingly, April condo/TIC sales volume was below April 2009 when everything froze. SFRs are up quite a bit from 2009.
    Sales volume is pretty low, continuing the trend begun in 2008. This lack of demand is, of course, putting downward pressure on prices. And we can see from the above that inventory is high and climbing (perhaps due to a sales slow-down). But we still do see a few places going fast and for high prices. And we see some well-priced gems just sitting there. Pretty odd.

  3. AT, could it be that we’ve burnt through the new condo inventory by now? Wasn’t last spring when there were lots of sales at the Infinity, for instance? I don’t quite remember the timing of that.
    BDB, wondering the same about tic financing. On my walkabout this weekend I saw a 12 unit TIC building that some developers were trying to peddle, and I immediately wondered about the ability to finance something like that…forever. Would seem like a huge struggle to sell without a very hefty discount.

  4. I still have my doubts about whether urbanization trends can maintain current prices (in fact, they probably exacerbated the bubble), but without a doubt, it’s becoming clear that we are looking at something I used to call The Shift.
    “A new image of urban America is in the making,” said William H. Frey, a demographer at Brookings who co-wrote the report. “What used to be white flight to the suburbs is turning into ‘bright flight’ to cities that have become magnets for aspiring young adults who see access to knowledge-based jobs, public transportation and a new city ambiance as an attraction.” … Other white gains were seen in New York, San Francisco, Boston and cities in another seven of the nation’s 100 largest metro areas.

  5. rereport’s April numbers look completely wrong to me. i assume they use the MLS. if so I have April ’09 Condo/unit sales at 149 sales with an avg price of $777,026 with and April ’10 at 181 sales with an avg of $782,867.
    so volume is up as you would expect, and price is slightly higher.
    i don’t know anything about rereport’s track record – but from this one look it appears they are way off

  6. Those numbers do sound more of what one would expect. What were the medians? Your numbers still show April sales volume lower than March? That is what I first found odd.

  7. I’m with hangemhi on the numbers. Rereport is bogus.
    Curmudgeon- in previous post I asked if u still owe rental units in SF, never got a response.

  8. 45 yo..I think you are confusing me with someone else. (you refered to another website). I have never owned rental units in SF. I have owned my own home, but currently rent.

  9. And don’t forget the 11.2 Million properties with negative equity …
    “Negative equity continues to be concentrated in five states: Nevada, which had the highest percentage negative equity with 70 percent of all of its mortgaged properties underwater, followed by Arizona (51 percent), Florida (48 percent), Michigan (39 percent) and California (34 percent). Las Vegas remains the top ranked CBSA with 75% of mortgaged properties being underwater, followed by Stockton (65%), Modesto (62%), Vallejo-Fairfield (60%) and Phoenix (58%). Phoenix had more than 550,000 underwater borrowers, the most households of any metropolitan market in the country. Riverside (463,000), Los Angeles (406,000) Atlanta (399,000) and Chicago (365,000) round out the top five markets.”
    full post here http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/05/report-112-million-us-properties-with.html
    Charts here …
    Negative Equity by State Q1 2010
    http://calculatedriskimages.blogspot.com/2010/05/negative-equity-by-state-q1-2010.html
    Distribution of Negative Equity Q1, 2010
    http://calculatedriskimages.blogspot.com/2010/05/distribution-of-negative-equity-q1-2010.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *