CFAH

While sales volume for listed single-family homes in San Francisco fell 6% on a year-over-year basis in June, condo sales volume fell 22% (180 transactions in June 2008 versus 140 in 2009), up 27% from May and versus a 14% drop over the same period in 2008.
Combined listed single-family and condo sales volume dropped 14% YOY in June.
With respect to condos, the most pronounced drop in listed sales volume occurred in District 9, dropping 36% (from 64 sales in June of 2008 to 41 sales in June of 2009) on a 23% drop in median sales price from $769,500 to $595,000. Think (and either thank or curse) new development sales offices discounting and stealing share.
Condos and Lofts June ‘04, ‘06, ‘08, ‘09 [sanfranciscoschtuff.com]
Listed San Francisco Single-Family Home June Sales: Down 6% YOY [SocketSite]
San Francisco Listed Sales Volume In May: Down 37% YOY [SocketSite]
San Francisco Real Estate Districts: Maps And Neighborhoods [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by chuckie

    Is d9 toast? Or is it that sfr’s in d9 are immune? Or are Inner Mission and BH immune?
    Those are pretty bad d9 numbers… and imo harbingers of much more bad news for real sf.

  2. Posted by Lance

    “Is d9 toast? Or is it that sfr’s in d9 are immune? Or are Inner Mission and BH immune?”
    Uhh….I’m not exactly sure what you are saying here, but I think you are suggesting that these numbers spell bad news for D9. As the editor said above (and explained to me last month), this is LISTED volume only. There is much more volume in D9 that comes from unlisted sales in new developments. These numbers don’t say much of anything about D9 in my opinion. Total sales numbers that include unlisted inventory would be more telling.

  3. Posted by anonn

    D9, SOMA and South Beach condos is the story by and large, and it’s a matter of supply and demand. Why some of you willfully choose to not digest that fact is another story.

  4. Posted by garrett

    lance—it’s super hard to get info on unlisted inventory because there is no central database. i agree, the data would obviously be more accurate/telling, it’s just damn near impossible to do.

  5. Posted by chuckie

    So are you saying there is a mix effect there? These are yoy numbers… unlisted sales were not included last year or this year.

  6. Posted by Lance

    “So are you saying there is a mix effect there?”
    Yes, that is pretty much what I’m saying. I’m suggesting that the proporting (mix) of unlisted sales has increased dramatically since last year. My rationale is that with all of the heavy discounting in the new complexes, more people are buying new unlisted homes in D9 vs. existing listed homes. I will say that I’m not certain if this is though or what that means in terms of pricing/volume. That really can’t be determined from this dataset.

  7. Posted by Max2

    But Lance, why would you say / suggest without being certain? Another words, why assume that the trends in unlisted pricing/volume do not match the trends in listed pricing/volume?

  8. Posted by chuckie

    From following Mission casually on Redfin, my sense is that very little is selling. Prices are back to 2005 levels and falling.
    I came across this foreclosure apple that’s down 15% and not sold yet. A 3/2 listed for 890K and last sold 6/2006 for $1,060K.
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/843-S-Van-Ness-Ave-94110/unit-8/home/1924945

  9. Posted by Lance

    You could be right. Maybe, D9 does suck and nothing is selling….wouldn’t be that suprised honestly. My point is that there is a lot of unlisted inventory there, and these numbers don’t account for that, so you can’t really say for sure. If however, there are lots of new developments hawking deeply discounted condos (which there are), I suspect that there are more sales on unlisted inventory than listed. My point is that these numbers don’t really tell you much about the overall picture in D9.

  10. Posted by chuckie

    Does anyone know what to make of the following tale from the Mission?
    On 10/3/2008, Castellucci A & R Trust sells the 2-unit Mission building 417-419 Capp St. to realtor Jeffery Appenrodt for $1,100K. On Property Shark, the seller is also named as buyer #2. So maybe only a partial interest is sold to the “real estate professional”.
    http://www.propertyshark.com/mason/san_francisco/Reports2/showsection.html?propkey=30524811
    The 2-unit building is now on sale for $875K which represents a discount of $225K over the last sale (down 20%+). The listing notes, “Owner is a licensed Real Estate Broker.”
    http://www.propertyshark.com/mason/san_francisco/Reports2/showsection.html?propkey=30524811
    So is this an apple in the making and should we salute this worthy sacrifice of $225k?

  11. Anyone who buys a condo in San Francisco in the next 12 months deserves to lose everything. Not only is the overall economy impacting SF, but the tightening of standards in the mortgage market will prevent A LOT of people from getting mortgages here. Therefore no one can justify why the condo (or home prices for that matter) prices won’t continue to fall drastically. No one can refinance b/c all those condo buyers purchased with little money down. Now in order to refi, they need 25% down. Hold off for 12 months and see what happens. i think their is a SF crash around the corner.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles