DataQuick will likely release their numbers later this week, but according to the San Francisco Association of Realtors, and via the SFCondoMap Blog, October sales volume for listed single family homes in San Francisco was down 20.5% on a year-over-year basis (198 transactions in 2007 versus 249 transactions in 2006).
At the same time, the sales volume for single family homes in San Francisco was up 27.7% as compared to the month prior (155 transactions in September 2007). And the question remains, did the mortgage meltdown in August simply delay purchases/closings (which would have pushed September volume into October), or is sales activity in San Francisco actually picking up? And of course, what’s going on with condominiums?
Editor’s Note: We’re still on the hunt for the October sales volume for San Francisco condominiums and prematurely published the total sales volume this morning. Appologies for any confusion (and please let us know if you have the official condo stats).
∙ Single Family Homes Sales By District: October ’06 vs. October ’07 (pdf) [realtownblogs]
I don’t know, but the So Cal DQ numbers are pretty grim
the socal numbers are grim, but that entire region was on fire, literally, for a better part of that time period.
Yeah, plus I heard they were making more land down there.
Year-over-year prices increased in 7/10 districts. 2008 is just over 6 weeks away and we are that much closer to the end of this down cycle. Remind me when is this collapse supposed to be coming?
Jan 2009 when the Alt-A and Option ARMs start resetting in earnest. But you’ll get an appetizer in 2008 watching the closing at ORH.
Anon: Still drinking the kool-aid that somehow San Francisco will be the only city in the country to escape falling prices and foreclosures, huh?
The numbers out of SoCal, as pointed out here, are pretty grim.
I won’t go into all the infirmities of trying to derive anything from data on median prices since that has all been hashed out here many times. But for those who insist on focusing on this data point, don’t compound the flaws by additionally comparing only a single month (10/07) to a single other month (10/06). The trend even in median prices for SFRs since June ’07 has been steadily downward across SF, most substantially in Ds 3-7.
Trip, I have not seen data to support your conclusion. Do you have a magical data fairy that no one else has access to?
Try here — http://www.rereport.com/sf/
Can’t vouch for its accuracy, but it looks valid.
For Trip and the Tommy Boy fans in the audience:
Tommy: Let’s think about this for a sec, Ted, why would somebody put a guarantee on a box? Hmmm, very interesting.
Ted Nelson, Customer: Go on, I’m listening.
Tommy: Here’s the way I see it, Ted. Guy puts a fancy guarantee on a box ’cause he wants you to fell all warm and toasty inside.
Ted Nelson, Customer: Yeah, makes a man feel good.
Tommy: ‘Course it does. Why shouldn’t it? Ya figure you put that little box under your pillow at night, the Guarantee Fairy might come by and leave a quarter, am I right, Ted?
[chuckles until he sees that Ted is not laughing too]
Ted Nelson, Customer: [impatiently] What’s your point?
Tommy: The point is, how do you know the fairy isn’t a crazy glue sniffer? “Building model airplanes” says the little fairy; well, we’re not buying it. He sneaks into your house once, that’s all it takes. The next thing you know, there’s money missing off the dresser, and your daughter’s knocked up. I seen it a hundred times.
Ted Nelson, Customer: But why do they put a guarantee on the box?
Tommy: Because they know all they sold ya was a guaranteed piece of shit. That’s all it is, isn’t it? Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time. But for now, for your customer’s sake, for your daughter’s sake, ya might wanna think about buying a quality product from me.
try Here: Single Family Sales 10/06 vs. 10/07
Trip,
I really want to put stock in the numbers on the website you posted, and they certainly look plausible with regards to the big picture, but as a math fan, I have some big questions about what I’m looking at when we dig a little deeper.
For instance in SFH District 8 we see that there were two sales. But the median is listed as $701,500, and the average is listed as $1,350,000. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but in a set containing only two numbers the average and the median should be exactly the same, no?
Along the same lines, looking at D4 in twin peaks, we see that with only 3 sales the median is listed as $985,000 and the average is $433,333.
OK, we know the middle number is $985,000, so even if the higher number is also $985,000 and the lower number is zero (i.e. completely free) we still have an average of $656,666. How on earth, with only three sales, did the average get all the way down to $433,333?
Until this is explained to me, I regretfully have to discount the entire thing.
I’ve not heard of this tactic before:
Home Builders Mothball Homes to Avoid Selling at a Loss
Lennar Corp., for one, has joined the “not to sell” camp at its development in Orange County, Calif. The Miami company plans to finish building 259 homes — the first phase of a 1,100-unit development in Irvine — but it has decided not to sell any of them until the constrained mortgage market and swollen housing inventory improves.
…
Mr. Haddad says Lennar will monitor the Orange County market on a monthly basis, but “this might be put on hold for the whole year of 2008.”Lennar also is halting development of a large community planned near Angel Stadium of Anaheim, despite preparing the land to support the project.
…
http://www.realestatejournal.com/buysell/markettrends/20071114-corkery.html
That’s a lot of mothballs, glad I’m not downwind.
garrett – what’s the point of providing a link to the exact same data that was presented in the original post?
the original link was broken
Hey, the whole point of my posts was that you can’t draw any meaningful conclusions by looking at median price data, and one only compounds the problem by comparing median data for a single month to median data for a single other month.
I have no idea where the referenced site gets the data it reports — it’s the only comprehensive site I’ve found purporting to list detailed historical SF data (I said I can’t vouch for its accuracy). But missionite, can you point me to exactly where you’re looking? I don’t see the numbers you’re referring to.
For a number of these districts, the sales totals are too low to really come away with a meaningful analysis. The sample size is not large enough.
But as I start posting these every month, you will be able to see larger trends within the various districts.
Also, a sale of a brand new 4,000sqft house can greatly move the averages/medians up when there are only 4 sales!
Anyone can email me to get specific district sales information at anytime. scott@sfcahomes.com
anon2–i posted it because all the links in the original post were down when i posted my comment. i tried 3 times over a 30 minute period and none of the post links were active, i thought i’d supply the data, presented almost identically.
Hi Trip
This isn’t an issue of sample size, or “interpretation”. This is plain and simple ordinary math, like 2+2=4.
If you go here: http://www.rereport.com/sf/
and scroll down, you will see two tables with “October Sales Statistics” as the header.
Under the first table (“Single family homes”) you will see… and hey they changed the numbers! And they still don’t make sense! Weird.
Ok sorry, back on track, under district 8 you will see 1 sale was recorded. The median is listed at $777,500 and the average is listed as $5,939,000. And that’s an issue, because if there is only one sale, then the average and the median should be exactly the same. Unless the median and the average are pulling from other sets or previous sales, or lord knows what, there is no way to reconcile this.
D6 also doesn’t make sense, and on the table below that D2 doesn’t make any sense.
I’m going to ping the guy with an email and see what he says…
Missionite, I understand the math (and appreciate your ability to explain it in plain English) — I just did not see where you were pulling the numbers for your example. Yep, I agree with you that the math on this site appears to be screwy. I’m interested to see if you get a response from the guy who runs it.
Socketsite — http://www.rereport.com/sf/ is now posting numbers for 10/07 condos as well as SFRs. The SFR raw numbers appears to match what was posted yesterday (different by 1 here and there), but as Missionite points out, the calculations of averages and medians are questionable.
I got an email back and he said there is a software glitch which will be fixed shortly.
And checking now, it appears the glitch is fixed.
Yay!
Great — math does look better now. Glad to see it because this is about the only place where I’ve been able to find current and historic SF data by district.