Recorded home sales volume in San Francisco rose 9.9% on a year-over-year basis last month (586 recorded sales in June 2012 versus 533 sales in June 2011), up 1.9% as compared to the month prior and versus an average May to June increase of 3.4% over the past seven years. An average of 664 San Francisco homes have sold in June since 2004 when recorded sales volume hit at 938.
San Francisco’s median sales price in June was $713,500, up 7.3% on a year-over-year basis, up 1.9% as compared to May in which the median was up 6.2% year-over-year.
For the greater Bay Area, recorded sales volume in June was up 7.2% on a year-over-year basis, up 11.8% from the month prior (8,577 recorded sales in June ’12 versus 7,998 in June ’11 and 8,810 in April ’12) on a recorded median sales price which was up 10.4% year-over-year, up 6.9% month-over-month.
Although they’ve increased over the past year, Bay Area sales levels are still below their long-term norm. Since 1988, when DataQuick’s statistics start, June sales have varied from 7,118 in 1993 to 15,735 in 2004. Last month’s sales count was 14.8 percent below the 10,067 average for the month of June.
Some of today’s stats are similar to what we saw in the thick of the housing downturn back in 2009, only in reverse: Instead of foreclosure resales soaring they’re waning, and instead of high-end sales slumping they’re posting some of the larger sales gains. This is one of the main reasons that various price measures are pointing higher – a so-called change in market mix.
While last month’s jump in the median sale price might to some extent reflect prices edging a bit higher in certain markets, mostly it’s a reflection of the change in market mix. Fewer discounted distressed properties changing hands, more normal sales in the move-up range…
Last month distressed property sales – the combination of foreclosure resales and “short sales” – made up 36.1 percent of the resale market. That was down from 39.0 percent in May and down from 44.3 percent in June a year ago.
At the extremes, Sonoma recorded a 25.2% increase in sales volume (a gain of 134 transactions) as the median sale price increased 6.4% while Solano recorded a 12.2% decrease in sales (a loss of 86 transactions) with a 12.7% increase in median price. The median sales price fell 1.7% in San Mateo while sales increased 13.9%. Contra Costa recorded a 17.7% gain in median sale price on a 0.7% increase in volume.
As always, keep in mind that DataQuick reports recorded sales which not only includes activity in new developments, but contracts that were signed (“sold”) many months or even years prior and are just now closing escrow (or being recorded).
∙ Bay Area Home Sales Up, Median Highest Since Summer 2008 [DQNews]
∙ San Francisco Home Sales Up 14.8% Year-Over-Year In May [SocketSite]
It used to be “prices have gone down to 200n levels. Now it’s “prices are going up to 200n” levels.
With sustained volume, pretty positive numbers.
The bottom was reached around january 2009 at 562,000. We’re 27% over that value, fwiw. Mix has a big impact on both sides of the equation.
with the summer slowdown turning into a back-half blowup, i’m not holding my breath that this trend continues.
Funny that just a few months ago there was a discussion about when was bottom, and even if we were still at bottom. I also said then that bottom was late 08/early 09 and becoming clearer now.
Also incredible sales are doing so well given the inventory levels. I remember the editor saying that an inventory update was in the pipeline…is that arriving soon?
I’m sure that sales expressed as months of inventory would be at really low levels right now.
I’m calling bottom!
Posted by: sparky-c at March 16, 2009 5:09 PM
Let me know if anyone needs any other prognostication.
[Editor’s Note: Keep in mind that sales volume in San Francisco was lower in 2010 versus 2009, and lower still in 2011 versus 2010. And if you’re measuring based on “median” (which you shouldn’t) the moving average bottomed in 2011.]
Sparky,
you and Hank Plante were on the money!!
[Editor’s Note: Or at least within a couple of years (see note above).]
“I’m sure that sales expressed as months of inventory would be at really low levels right now”
Huh, I posted a link to a months supply inventory chart (website not affiliated with me in any way) and that post seems to have disappeared.
Anyway, MSI is at crazy low levels (in the 1-2 month range).
re: the Ed’s admonishment of Sparky’s ’09 call – that is so lame. “the moving avg”… really? Who buys moving averages? LOL
And sales volume???? We’re talking price here.
Has anyone ever seen Tipster and the Editor in the same room????
Although it looks to me like the Editor just called the bottom (now) which tipster obviously won’t agree with since he “knows” it is still coming
[Editor’s Note: As we’ve explained, nobody should be calling a “bottom” based on the median, but if you’re going to use a seasonal number, you might want to use a moving average such as we chart above.
And if you’re not going to use an apples-to-apples based index, at least use price per square foot trends which fell from 2009 to 2010 and through to 2011 in San Francisco, give or take depending upon the neighborhood.]
I’m not quite ready to don a flight suit and hang up the “Mission Accomplished” banner just yet, but I’ve said repeatedly on here for the past two years that March ’09 looked like bottom. Here’s a good quote: “Interesting indeed. It looks like SF MSA is up 15% since what is increasingly looking like the bottom, which was March of ’09.”-(by Lance in April 2010)
I also think you’ll see the CS numbers, which are a lagging indicator that takes into account seasonal fluctuations, start trending positive too. It’s just too bad that CS doesn’t have a San Francisco specific index, as I’m willing to bet money it would back up my claim of Spring ’09 being bottom. I may ultimately eat these words, but for now – I again am calling bottom at Mar/Apr ’09.
It is not possible to reach the bottom while interest rates are effectively at zero. Markets just don’t work that way.
^^that’s pretty vague….what do you mean?
Before you answer, there is obviously a difference between “not possible” and unlikely. Either way, I’m not really sure where you are going with this.
I’m with Lance that calling bottom is just a red herring and, although I don’t think interest rates are headed back to north of 6% anytime sone, interest rates are low and there are lots of problems / risks in the economy overall. It’s still generally a bad idea to buy a house for less than 5 years no matter the situation. Except for maybe 45 Lake (Editor: Why No Post on this Obvious Apple? 🙂
In terms of putting money where your mouth is — I know of only one long time commenter on here that “called bottom” and purchased a home based on a sound assessment of their individual situation. I’ve long contended that SF is not the worst place put your real estate dollars if you have long term plans. But there is risk in everything and the risks on multi million $ real estate are pretty large as many have realized over the past few years.
For whatever reason, and links to inventory data published by a certain firm consistently get deleted.
“I know of only one long time commenter on here that “called bottom” and purchased a home based on a sound assessment of their individual situation”
Me?
“I’m with Lance that calling bottom is just a red herring”
Depends what you are doing. If you bought a fixer in the the ’09 bottom it is sold already so the rates were better when you sold than when you bought. Buying a fixer development project now for top dollar may not work out depending on lots of stuff.
My perceived bottom was late-2010, when some sellers really gave up. It was a very close second to early 2009 I think. That’s when I bought. Not that I know anything about what will happen next. But so far so good.
when was the last time the sf market was truly in equilibrium? 1996?? bubble after bubble after bubble since then.
maybe 16 years of bubbles means bubbles are the new normal.
i just don’t know what’s going to inflate once this current bubble bursts.
right now it’s looking like usa, china, and europe crashing simultaneously…. despite every central bank cranking the presses 24/7.
should be fun 2013!
lol is who I was thinking. I tend to agree the best time to buy was in 2010 over the last few years. I was speaking of traditional buyers and not developers. N
To be true, I think there were still decent deals to be had in 2011. Then deals didn’t stay long enough to be negotiated. Then they simply vanished.
I was used to the previous downturn that lasted 5+ years and thought I could take my time again for my shopping spree. Nope.
Looks like SF is underperforming vis-a-vis the other counties that make up the Case Shiller bay area index. I guess SF is “different.” So let’s see what those numbers show, then discount them a bit for SF proper.
Oh, or maybe the rising median simply reflects the fact that foreclosures stalled in SF and nationwide with all the legal actions . . . Nah, must be that Conta Costa County is HOT! from, like, tech or something.
curious to know the monthly mortgage payment in 2009(using 30yr fixed June 2009 rates@20% down) compared to the monthly payment in 2012(using June 2012 rates) for a median priced SF house.
i suspect the dramatic drop in rates over the last 3 years would show payments haven’t changed much despite the increase in median price (2009 price $635,000 @ 5.42% vs 2012 price $713,500 @ 3.68%).
i would do the math myself, but i have a chronic case of laziness.
30yr fixed rates: http://www.freddiemac.com/pmms/pmms30.htm
found an online calculator to run some numbers: http://www.mortgagecalculator.org/
2009 payment: 2,858.92
2012 payment: 2,620.84
the 2012 payment is 92% of the 2009 payment.
lower by 8%.
^^ Those numbers seem reasonable to me, but it still doesn’t erase the fact that nominal prices are up since ’09. I believe that’s the case whether you look at it adjusting for mix or not, but there is frankly really no good way to tell. As the economy improves and rates start going up (which could be a while), mortgage payments should follow. The best deals are still probably going to people purchased around ’09 and then refinanced using today’s rates. If you do that math, payments should be even lower than the $2,621 above.
anon,
CC dropped much more than SF. It is expected that it would perform better on the way up.
The reason:
Financing is ruled by 2 essential elements: cash and mortgage. Duh.
CC is more dependent on mortgages than SF. CC has local rules that make the pool of homes to buy seriously constrained, and the only ones who can purchase are the top incomes who incidentally happen to be the ones with most cash on hand. Every region that was overwhelmingly dependent on mortgage financing rose higher than the rest during the debt bubble, crashed deeper, and is rebounding faster. A simple reason for the deeper crash: with 5% down a 10+% decrease crushes your chances at a favorable refi. If you have a cash flow problem, you’re very likely to default.
Regions that relied more on cash (to some extent) rose a bit less high, crashed less, and rebound a bit less from a higher trough. If you have 30% in equity and prices fall by 10% defaulting is not in your interest, especially if you have sufficient savings to sustain any negative event in your life.
Of course, it’s not all white and black. There were/are buyers with all cash in SF, just like there were/are some with 90% mortgage financing. It’s just that on average the SF buyer has a higher net worth.
In short: the poor are more vulnerable. The rich are less. Duh.
I meant “SF has local rules that make the pool of homes to buy seriously constrained,”
LOL, I agree, but I stopped feeding the troll a while back. It’s not that different than feeding pigeons really….just keep coming back more frequently and crapping for no discernible reason.
My comment on 2010 being the best time to buy is based on the fact that buyers didn’t have much competition and someone that was ready to get in the market had a little more time to do so without the pressure of someone else coming in and taking the place.
Take, oh for example, 45 Lake! Hit the market in April of 2010 for $2.3M after a major renovation, sat around for a few weeks and went into “Escrow” a few weeks later and in June 2010 is closed “under asking” -6% at $2.15M. Note, the home never went into “In-Escrow FIRM” so buyer/seller could, in theory, have walked at almost any time.
Now, in 2012, the same home hits the market on July 13th for $2.35M and jumps directly into “Escrow FIRM” 4 days later.
2010 was the only period of time where this was really the situation. Maybe late 09 as well to some extent.
FYI: I think that there have been very good homes that could have been purchased all throughout the past 5 years but it would take a very savvy and quick thinking / acting buyer.
eddy,
Very true. My 2010 purchase was done by playing with the seller’s nerves a bit and trying to be patient (tough when your mind is really set and wifey absolutely wants that walk-in closet).
But I know people who made out like bandits doing last minute plays with sellers who didn’t NEED to sell, but thought they were missing out on a last chance buyer. They’re probably kicking themselves silly today.
I bought stuff in early ’09, late ’10, late ’11 and early ’12. I was shopping for houses and keeping an eye on the market throughout. I stick by my call that early ’09 was the bottom.
I wasn’t a “traditional buyer” during that time since I have my house, but I was looking within the context of what that buyer would want.
Medians and averages and rolling numbers for the whole city say something else but for what I was looking at (and areas SS posts about) that is how I see it.
LOL, re “CC dropped much more than SF. It is expected that it would perform better on the way up.”
Fair enough. But my point is that when the case shiller repeat-sale numbers come out, and they show flat to minimal gains YOY, we just need to remember that CCC skews those numbers higher, so SF proper would be lower than the case shiller overall numbers.
Your words continue to be very far away from what anybody even tangentially involved in SFRE perceives. Increasingly, that would include the editor of this website. Funny that your summations of future numbers and made up percentages and the like don’t garner editorial comments, yet people whose knowledge bases are real and seasoned do get that pushback. Well, “funny.” heh. Not really. Typical.
45 Lake closes @ $2.51m and 360k over its 2010 sale price. Apple to Apple.