February S&P/Case-Shiller: San Francisco MSA Decline Accelerates

That latest Case-Shiller graph is just plain scary.

To the naysayers who think San Francisco is immune from price declines, San Francisco dropped a whopping 5% in just one month alone. The highest drop of any of the 20 cities listed.
Are the Realtors going to say that now is the time to buy? I hope not. They’ve been saying that for the last year and buyers who followed that advice got burned badly.
Expect SF to have further price declines for the next 3 years.

It’s sad that we have fewer “financial engineers” here as opposed to the “Peninsula tech” workers? Ridiculous.
Charlotte can keep right on living that dream. Their biggest employer? The health care system. #2 and #3? Wachovia (20k) and Bank of America (14k). #4 and #5? Walmart and Food Lion… Thanks but no thanks.
Between Charles Schwab and Wells Fargo alone, we have more financial employees than Charlotte. Oh and then of course there’s our “sad” little tech economy (six of the top ten companies in the Bay Area by revenue).
People who are sad about the opportunities created at HP, Intel, Oracle, Google, Cisco and Apple should probably just move away from here. Soon.

Let’s see if I can resume.
Step 1 – the BA is different
Step 2 – the Real BA is different
Step 3 – SF is different
Step 4 – SF excluding Bayview is different
Step 5 – SF excluding Bayview and Excelsior and Sunset is different
Step 6 – SF excluding Bayview and Excelsior and Visitacion Valley and Sunset and Richmond and SOMA and all the new condos built all over is different
Step 7 – SF excluding Bayview and Excelsior and Visitacion Valley and Sunset and Richmond and SOMA and all the new condos built all over and the lower parts of Bernal North, South, East and maybe some streets on the West and don’t forget the Western Addition and some parts of Hayes Valley and Van Ness and “I will attach an excel spreadsheet with all the bad streets in the good neighborhoods” is different.

Ok I’ve cut back on commenting here because of all the excessive and one sided editing by Socketite. Fluj and I have had a lively back and forth for some time and the one sided editing has gone too far. None of my comments are personal and are at BEST light teasing. At the same time, I’ve had personal attacks such as “go back to Texas” even thoughh I am not from Texas. Exactly zero of these comments have been edited.
The one sided bias here is quite obvious and it has stifled commentary. And the highly pro realtor and pro builder bias of the sight is more than obvious. Cough, trying to get paid advertisign.
Too bad, this site could have been a decent source of information but the owners bias has pretty much ruined it. I am done coming here…much as others have stopped. It’s just way too boring.
[Editor’s Note: One sided and too pro industry? You have got to be kidding. And as always, all we ask is that comments try to add value (and we honestly don’t care which “side” they’re on).]

So Jules, Schwab is a poor economic indicator but Wachovia and Bank of America are good economic indicators? I believe Wachovia just had to raise $7b in capital, announced a $350m loss, and cut its dividend in half. And if you had bothered to actually read my post, I stated that those companies were in the Bay Area.
The earlier post was about the utopia of Charlotte where they “live the dream” compared to SF where all of our high paying jobs are evaporating. It was based on no facts whatsoever, just opinion. The median commute in Charlotte is 22 miles, so let’s not get all teary eyed about people walking to work or riding Segways in downtown Charlotte. It just isn’t happening.
If you don’t like it here, go away. I don’t see why that is a difficult concept to grasp. And if you don’t want to live in SF and commute to a sad tech job on the Peninsula, then don’t. There are plenty who will.

The one sided bias here is quite obvious and it has stifled commentary. And the highly pro realtor and pro builder bias of the sight is more than obvious. Cough, trying to get paid advertisign.

oh how many times have the housing cheerleaders accused SS of being biased against the market and being a site full of “bitter renters”.
One mans teasing is another man’s bullying.

Michael, I have several friends from b-school who are in those financial jobs and I know how the payscale is tilted. I also know that there are no bars on the exits here in SF.

badlydrawnbear said “oh how many times have the housing cheerleaders accused SS of being biased against the market and being a site full of “bitter renters”.
One mans teasing is another man’s bullying.”
there probably is a lot more bitter renters here…the point is the socketside editors are biased. They edit only one side of the argument.
And sorry but me saying “oh where is person X” now is not bullying. I’ve had pro builders like fluj say “go back to texas” and much much worse and its never edited. While about 80% of my comments now are being edited out and the worst I’ve said is where is person X — That is light teasing at best. While at the same time every thing I say here.
Where was socketsite when I got slammed for saying all this was coming? they never edited any of the peopel arguing with me?
Socketsite edits like this is bloody Pravda. no point in posting if every comment I make gets edited. Why doesn’t socket site just make all the comments and have the debate it wants to read rather than editing our comments to spin what it wants to say? Save us all they babysitting. If you want to have a blog then have one and stop the ridiculous editing.
[Editor’s Note: Out of 175 of your comments, 7 have been “edited.” Almost exclusively for writing nothing more than “Where is Deflujional now?” And now back to the data…]

I may have missed it, but isn’t this data broken down by county too (instead of including alameda, marin, contra costa, etc). It seems if you had the raw data, it would be easy to make a “San Francisco county” index.
thanks!
[Editor’s Note: Unfortunately it’s only released at the MSA level (although we’d gladly publish county level statistics if any pluggged-in tipsters would care to “liberate” the raw data).]

John said:
“When the three tiers meet, that’s the bottom. (of course, some of the extreme bears would like to see the index dropping to 80)”
That was when last months data came out. The tiers seem to have met now. I don’t think he will be right, but we will see for sure next month.
FWIW I expect the lower tiers to cross the upper tier, but for them all to continue to head downwards.

Did the three tiers just meet again?
I had predicted that when the three tiers meet, that’s the bottom. However, I was expecting them to meet at about 160 (2002 level, inflation adjusted) in 2009.
So, I will have to modify my prediction – yes, I am willing to call the (near) bottom now, but the bottom will be pretty flat (“U” shape instead of “V” shape). We will see a flat (slightly declining) bottom into late 2009, hovering between 160 to 160, before it goes up.
Actually, based on this graph, I would say it is a good time to start search if you want to buy. Buying in SF is difficult due to the limited choices, so it may take one and half years to find the one you like.
I know some bears will be attacking me. It doesn’t matter. Wait for one year and let’s see how far off I am.
[Editor’s Note: February index values for the three tiers: Low – 180.7; Middle – 171.1; High – 171.3. We don’t see any signs that we’re nearing a local “bottom.”]

the rate of acceleration of the downturn is actually quite surprising.
I’m assuming (dangerous to do) that much of it has to do with tightening lending practices.
Bay Areans are simply not “rich” enough to affod RE at last year’s levels. That much was always obvious. It was also evident that financing played a major role in the ability for people to bid up prices.
the question now: what will become of the financing?
will govt have the necessary tools and be able to intercede in time to stop the halt? (they have a STRONG incentive to keep housing prices up since property taxes are based on valuation).
if the powers that be cannot find a way to open up the mortgage market, then the expensive markets will have a long way to fall.

John:
I remember when you posted your theory earlier last year.
I as just wondering about the methodology behind this prediction.
-is there a rationale behind why the downturn should stop when the 3 lines meet? or is it more that you’ve obsrved in the past/other markets that RE tends to recover when the three lines meet?
Because I see that they did all intersect at the end of the downturn of 1997, but they did not in 2001.
-is there no chance for an over-correction, or for them to be intersected but continue falling for a while?
now that they’ve met, it could be bad if they continued falling at 5% month over month for a few months. (I don’t think that will happen, I’m just asking)

Hey people! San Francisco is not even in the top ten for highest median gross income for the Bay Area…Must do something to the home prices you think?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/29/BU6J10D6J9.DTL

Oh wait… those numbers are for the entire state..hmmmm…

SF-er, my theory was that the top tier was “less” overpriced at the first place, and eventually, all three tiers will go back to their fair value.
And I believe the fair value is the 2002 price level (inflation adjusted).
I was predicting that it will take a little bit time to reach the bottom (2009). Add a little bit of inflation, I figured the fair level at 2009 is about 160 to 165.
The real question is whether the market will over-correct. That’s a real possibility, due to the over-building over the last two to three years.
The home builders are holding back right now. So, by 2009, the over-building between 2005 to 2007 will be canceled out by the under-building between 2007 to 2009.
My prediction was not really about cause-and-effect. My real point is at the end of 2009, the index will be at 160 to 165, and the three tiers will be at the same level.
The three tiers meet a little bit earlier than I thought.

what is interesting is that LA still has the bottom tier index way above that of the other two – they have almost converged for the SF MSA.
the SF tiers are likely to meet next month – clearly they wont stop declining then, the question is whether they rates of decline will converge at all – personally I dont think so and in 6 months or so the upper tier will be the highest by some degree.
Also bear in mind the County of SF is represented in this index by I guess 10-15% – so not really a barometer of what is happening here. (Sales in SF are 15% of the total MSA composite areas, but the Case Shiller exlcuded condos, of which there will be significantly more in SF)

@Noevalleyjim,
Case-Shiller looks at what the same house is selling for, while DQ just tells you the median amount people are spending. When volumes are down, there’s a difference.
@John,
There doesn’t appear to be any basis for your prediction. To most of us, the graphs converging appears to be that the higher end just held on longer and is now catching up. Care to share the basis of your theory?
To put a positive voice on this,we are transitioning from an economy in which the most careless spenders had the best lifestyle, to one in which the most productive will have the best lifedtyle. Although it may be negative for housing, it will be better for everyone.
You can’t sustain an economy where the least educated, least hard working people have the highest standard of living. Those charts are reflective of the correction. That will be good for everyone.

thanks for the info John…

ex SF-er,
Another factor is the credit market. That’s another force to cause the market to over-correct. The banks are shying away from mortgage loans right now, making buying more difficult.
Actually, for people who has to borrow money, it is more expensive to buy (in SF) right now, than mid-2007, despite the price drop.
My original timeline is that the credit market will get back to normal early to mid 2009. Add the Presidential election (The Dems are more likely to increase taxes, thus making buying more attractive), I have no doubt we will see the market picking up again in 2010. What happens between now and then is how we have some fun in predictions.

Fronzi,
You routinely say things that are patently false. I don’t want to get into a now patented name calling round any more. It seems like we have find a way to politely disagree of late. But jeez, man, your enumerated step routine was really forced.
Just keep it areas 10 and like two parts of areas 3. That’s where SF has taken its lumps. February attests, so did March, and I’ve been showing you all April updates all month. Saying otherwise is going out on a limb. It doesn’t have any basis in fact, and it is indeed the type of misinformation that has real buyers and sellers scratching their heads in the marketplace.

@ Fronzi,
So we take it you have no interest whatsoever in retracting your false statements vis a vis the Sunset and Richmond, and other areas?

fluj,
I think a lot of people appreciate your comments and insights. Your facts are never wrong. I suspect that for every snide commenter, there are ten who really appreciate your postings.
Please keep them coming, no matter what kind of grief you get over them.
For what it’s worth, to those of you who mention him, he usually just points out areas that are doing better than the rest. There will ALWAYS be such areas. He just points them out, without trying to pretend they are representative of the market as a whole. No harm in that.
He says SFRs are still doing pretty well. Guess what, he’s right. He admits condos are not doing so well and aren’t likely to do well soon. He’s right. He doesn’t state that SFRs will always do well, just that they are doing well right now. I just don’t see why people attack the messenger when the messenger is correct.
I’ve countered that there is still some pent up demand for SFRs, and not many have been built, as the likely reason why SFRs are still doing well, but will start to drop once that demand has been worked through. But I don’t attack him as a permabull. My take on it is he isn’t a permabull. Every now and then he heads in that direction, but pretty quickly pulls back.
The attacks on fluj are misplaced. Reread his posts: 99% are very accurate.

@BDB,
I’d ask that you take a step back and really look at this thread. I showed up like 30 posts or 2 and a half hours in. In my absence, my name had been mentioned how many times?
Further, consider the source of this chart. Shiller is a self-avowed uber bear.

Shiller maybe an “uber-bear” but that didn’t STANDARD AND POOR’S from publishing the CASE/Shiller Index showing record appreciation and price rises.
Accusing Shiller of manipulating the data (that is published by Standard and Poor’s based on a methodology developed by two seperate economists) is a poor attempt to discredit these numbers.

Whew, I was worried for a minute. I feel so much better now that I know that Shiller has no credibility, the monthly Data quick reports are meaningless, the market is strong, the budget is balanced, and Bush didn’t win the last election.

I didn’t say Shiller has no credibility. I said he is alligned in one direction primarily. That’s what “uber bear” means to me. There was even an item last week where he chuckled about it at some conference or another. I’m paraphrasing but it was like, “yeah, you got me. I’m pretty much always that guy.”
And you know what, I actually do feel as if including CoCo is manipulating this data. Perhaps one of you could explain to me how Contra Costa is particularly relevant here.
No. Contra Costa belongs in its own region with Yolo, Solano, Sacrmaento and San Joaquin counties. They all share the Sacramento river Delta and Suisun marsh characteristics. It has far more in common with those counties in every way than it does with Alameda, Marin, or any Peninsula areas.

I thought we had agreed to graph this data in log scale.
Whenever you want to chart data that’s been compounding/deflating over a long time series, it’s best paractice to do it in log scale. It’s impossible to draw trend lines otherwise.
As is, it makes it look like the good old days were lackadaisical pastures without volatility and modern times are volcanic eruptions of apocalyptic meltdowns or bubbles.
I’ll hold off on asking you to put the data into “real numbers” adjusted for CPI (or your own preferred inflator/deflator) but I would give you mad props if you went that far.
Please refresh the graphs.

let’s keep in mind the S&P puts the numbers together (I believe there is a committee) based on a methodology developed by two economists, NOT Shiller himself.
Also, the Index was developed in the late 80’s and not in response to the recent runup in prices.
And as far as included Contra Costa in the index, I didn’t hear housing bulls complaining about including these regions as the lead the market eve higher, which we can clearly see was the case by the tier break out, so to be complaining about it now is just disingenuous (IMHO).

Had I been following this site three years ago I would have questioned what CoCo is doing in this MSA back then too. Some of those towns aren’t the Bay Area. They’re Delta.

Have any of you folks actually tried making an offer on a half decent, fairly priced property in District 5 or 7 lately ?
That is the reality of the market.

Lurker,
And the CSI validates that. The SFH homes in the upper 1/3rd have barely declined remaining virtually flat for the last few years and only recently experiencing a decline.

The methodology behind the Case Shiller index was created by Robert Shiller and Karl Case in the 1980’s.
it was sold to Fireserv in 2002.
Standard and Poors publishes the data.
Contra Costa is counted in the MSA, because this is the way that the SF Bay Area MSA is defined by the United States Office of Management and Budget. It is the 9th most populous county in California. It is considered one of the counties of the “Bay Area”. Nobody considers it part of Sacramento area.
there is no conspiracy (unless Shiller was a genius and decided to do this more than 2 decades ago)
Contra Costa is no less relevant to SF than some of the far flung suburbs that are part of the other MSA’s. almost all the MSA’s have far flung components to them. as example: NYC’s MSA includes places in Connecticut, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
in fact, contra costa county is only 30 miles from SF. (it’s like 70 to Sacramento)
that said, there is truth behind the idea that some of the MSA’s are pretty large and there are significant differences between cities within each MSA. one must just understand that when interpreting the data.
however, the important thing IMO is that the data is gathered CONSISTENTLY. Thus, RE skyrocketed in the SF MSA with Contra Costa, and now is falling with Contra Costa. It is most likely that SF MSA appreciation the last few years had less to do with SF county than the other counties… and now less to do with SF on the drop too…
Case Shiller Faq, warning pdf

Po Hill Jeff, don’t be so excited about taking that train and doing the SF->Valley tech commute. I did it for over 5 years and honestly I can say, I hated it. Even when the “bullet” trains came into effect, it was terrible. The Bay Area is the only place I’ve lived where taking the train takes longer than driving. Caltrain is just plain messed up.
Even if they make things faster, you still have to get to and from the train station and budget enough time to buy a ticket, get on board, etc. That 40 mins each way figure just turned to an hour easily.
Once I realized that I was losing two hours of my life every day to commuting, I got a job that paid less inside SF. Now I have a 10 minute commute, and I’m much happier even if I took a paycut. The problem is that there aren’t enough tech jobs in SF to go around. SF truly is a bedroom/tourist community.

The simple fact is that a well informed real estate purchaser in San Francisco has to understand there is significant downside risk right now. That doesn’t mean you’re an idiot to buy. You just need to be willing to accept that risk. Perhaps you’ve always dreamed of living on a certain street and something’s available. Who cares if it drops 5% if you can afford it?

I second vox’s request for a log scale. I do love the drama of the “volcanic eruptions and apocalyptic meltdowns”. But I’d also like to see a usable comparison with previous peaks and valleys.

“Coco to SF is like Inland Empire to LA.”
yeah, but that doesn’t erase its validity.
Pittsburg is only 40 miles to Embarcadero.
Google Headquarters are about 37 miles to Embarcadero. Yahoo 41 miles.
it takes 53 minutes by Bart from Pittsburg to Embarcadero… hardly a killer commute by SF standards.
so if one argues that Contra Costa is not relevant to SF then one should argue that Google/Yahoo/Silicon Valley are also not relevant
that said, obviously further eastern Contra Costa county is further away (like Brentwood)…
but people who live in Contra Costa county in general work in Contra Costa County or the Inner Bay Area Counties. (SF, Alameda, etc)

“Forget about the Richmond. That market has actually gotten even more expensive. There are no good deals anywhere central right now, not even for fixers in the Sunset.”
Here comes fluj with the non sequiturs and baseless generalizations again. Remember how you were once adamant there was nothing for sale in Sunset for under $750K, until I posted about 20 addresses to the contrary? Want me to find some places in Richmond or Sunset selling for less than last sale?

@ Dude.
Baseless generalization? No. I posted YoY numbers for the Richmond? What’s baseless is you only reading part of this thread and saying stuff like that to me.
In this thread someone actually said the opposite about the Richmond district. Using the Case Shiller as a jumpoff to try to make some sort of sweeping statement, and I challenged that.
So yeah, do find some Richmond properties that have sold for less. I’m curious to see whether you can or not. I keep showing YoY gains for that area.

Thank you, editor!
On log scale, it’s interesting to see how the gap between haves and havenots widened and then contracted (amongst owners let alone bitter renters). Most of the late volatility is in the category of the havenots-but-have-a mortgage.
The other categories seem to be trading flat– no pun intended.

Very nice log graph, thanks. I know this is asking for a bit much, but can you add a “least-squares” fit to it? It looks like we are back to the long term trend but the eyeball is notoriously inaccurate at this sort of thing.

“The simple fact is that a well informed real estate purchaser in San Francisco has to understand there is significant downside risk right now. That doesn’t mean you’re an idiot to buy. You just need to be willing to accept that risk…”
Well put noseeum. I am sure that at least some buyers are putting their hard earned cash down with the expectation that short term appreciation may not materialize and that they should expect to hold for 5-10 years if they want any ROI.
But then I wonder about the other not so analytical buyers. Those who may be putting a lot of energy towards selecting their dream home but are not doing careful analysis of the RE market future. Are buyer’s agents counseling their clients not to count on short term appreciation and only make an offer if they can afford their loan through a potential extended down cycle ?
Are there any buyers or buyer’s agents out there who can comment on their experience with receiving /giving advice during these last 10 months or so ? What sort of hold periods are you recommending to reach positive ROI ?
I was a buyer until I found a comfy spot on the fence. During the time I was actively making offers the market was appreciating rapidly. I had many conversations with my agent where I had expressed concern that the gains were not sustainable. So there was no real opening for my agent to counsel me (though my agent did respect my opinion and didn’t try to convince me otherwise aside from the reports of how much over asking certain properties sold for)

@ John – Why don’t you drive at noon and then tell me how long it takes to Kensington. It takes 20 minutes, I do it all the time. My car is not that amazing. There are virtually no suburbs geographically closer to downtown SF than Kensington. You have no point, except that there is traffic heading into the city during rush hour. We all know that, why don’t we just say Berkeley and Oakland also are not really in the Bay Area or SF MSA because it takes 30 minutes to cross the bridge at 8AM.

Bunk, who wants to drive Kensington at noon?
What’s your point? Did I even mention MSA? I just said “Coco to SF is like Inland Empire to LA”. It has nothing to do with MSA or what bay area is. Go read my posts…I had zero reference to MSA. I don’t care how they set the boundary. It is just a comment about geography.
It is more a reflection about yourself.

It takes 20 minutes, I do it all the time.
No, it does not. For one thing, it is 17 miles, according to Google maps. Are you telling me you average 50 miles/hour, even including the part on Kensington and San Francisco streets.
Automobile drivers are notoriously bad at estimating their commutes. Next time you do it, look at your watch when you leave your house and again when you enter your destination and tell us what your real door-to-door commute is.

@ fluj at 12:00PM:
Just saw your earlier comment. I really don’t want to turn this into another “battle of the anecdotes.” Every time some clown makes a “Sunset is HOT!!” comment, I post stats showing ordinary Sunset homes that have recently sold at or below their ’06 prices. Then somebody counters with some stats on a renovated or unique property selling for more. Someone proclaims mix, someone else denies mix, and the cycle repeats.
In Richmond, there are currently 23 NODs, 3 foreclosures, and 2 recently auctioned properties. Same stats for Sunset yield 25, 6, and 9, respectively. Same stats for 94123 are immaterial. My summary point: Sunset is not hot. Richmond is faring better, but I don’t think it’s rising outside the “beauty pageant” mix effects we’ve all talked about. Flat at best. Pac Heights/Marina seem to remain relatively immune, but who knows how long.
If you want to decry the Shiller numbers as being too macro, that’s fine. But don’t make sweeping generalizations like “There are no good deals anywhere central right now, not even for fixers in the Sunset.” Because we both know there are.

^ that’s actually a very interesting point. as the economic base widens for workers and technology enables more to virtually commute from where they chose to live/buy you could argue that the surrounding counties are now more relevant with regard to the local housing market rather than less.

“There are no good deals anywhere central right now, not even for fixers in the Sunset.” Because we both know there are”
No, I don’t know that. What’s a good deal to you? ~575 to 650 a foot is not a very good Sunset deal to me. And that is pretty much what they all cost right now. It’s more expensive than it was two years ago. Now, granted they aren’t all selling. I do take your point there. The Sunset has seen a lot of properties languish.
But the properties that actually do sell — typically the better ones or the ones with untapped potential — are very pricy. This for an area with what I believe are very thin margins for potential improvement and appreciation, even over a long period of time. So “good deal” ? Maybe you can get a worse house for slightly less than you could a few years ago. Not so with anything worthwhile.
As for the Richmond it is across the board outperforming last year’s sales data. From 11/1/6 to today’s date last year there were 84 sales. They listed for $601 a foot and sold for 610. They took 46 days to sell and sold for $1.411M avg.
Compare to this year 11/1/7 to today:
94 sales. Selling for $1.594M avg. 41 DOM. Listing for 676 a foot and selling for 685 a foot.

….sigh….let the pissing contest begin. I swear this is the last time I’m doing this.
“~575 to 650 a foot is not a very good Sunset deal to me. And that is pretty much what they all cost right now.”
1719 9th Ave. Listed at $628K, or $483 psf.
1283 34th Ave. Listed at $749K, or $499 psf.
1722 45th Ave. Listed at $799K, or $500 psf.
1747 33rd Ave. Listed at $799K, or $513 psf.
1491 43rd Ave. Currently listed at $720K, or $501 psf. This was the only one that sold near the bubble peak, from what I could find. Last sold in May of ’05 for $875K. Currently listed for $155K less, or 18%, than last sale.
So they don’t all cost $575-650 psf, do they? And I wouldn’t say prices are up over 2005, either, because I remember looking at that time and $750K was pretty much the minimum to get into this area. You can now find places for under $700K, and the outskirts are flirting with high 5s. Give it a few more months. And these are all in 2 C, E, and F. I didn’t even look in Parkside.
Although I will agree these still aren’t good deals – or I’d actually buy one. Count me in at around $350-400 psf out here because, as you pointed out, there’s limited upside potential. Especially when I can buy a similar house in Daly City for $200K less and a shorter commute via BART.
Regarding Richmond, I admit I don’t track it as closely as Sunset so can’t provide addresses, but I’d wager there are similar patterns unfolding out there, albeit more slowly.

I looked quickly at bayareasoldhomes.com and searched for all homes sold in 94122 year to date. Know what the average $ psf was? $514. Not $575, and certainly not $650. Please feel free to check my numbers.
Last comment for today, this one actually on-topic for a change: the Shiller data does not include foreclosures. So for those of you calling this uberbear info, the fact is the precipitous drop in prices in the MSA is likely understated given the amount of REOs in CoCo.

Dude, you made me look.
Did you calculate the data yourself, or was it somewhere on that site?
One example surely included in your calculation:
1460 6th Avenue
Closing Price: $350,000
SqFt: 2,300
Year Built: 1911
Date: 01/27/2008
City: San Francisco
Zip Code: 94122
$350K for 2300 sqft. The RE market definitely crashed.
(Sarcasm intended)
When it comes to concrete data, fluj has it nailed. There is no point of trying to find this or that website to debate him. The fun part is the intepretion and prediction.
Sunset is very stubborn. Many houses are not selling, but the sellers won’t blink, despite the longer and longer DOM.
Maybe it has something to do with the Asian population?

From what I can discern from Altos’ MLS stats, the average listing price for SFRs in 92122 right now is $512/sf. And the most expensive quartile is at $496/sf.
Citywide, we’ve seen a steady drop since last spring from over $600/sf to $523/sf today for SFRs (the lowest in at least two years).

Why not the SFARMLS? Why a ZIP code when it’s only half the area? Why not look at what things sell for, not list for? I gave you guys the numbers.

TOTAL LIE
These graphs are not for San Francisco home prices.
From page 8 of the S&P/Case Schiller Home Price Indices Index Methodology available on the S&P web site, what this article refers to as the SF MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) is more accurately known as the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont MSA and in addition the the lovely cities of Oakland and Fremont, includes the price performance of all the cites in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Mateo, and San Francisco counties.
This website should make more of an effort to let that be known.
[Editor’s Note: Not only do we note “MSA” throughout the article (and even headline), we include a standard SocketSite footnote with every Case-Shiller release which includes the MSA breakdown along with a few other data constraints worth considering (see above).]

must be a lot of homeless people in heaven…..