CFAH

Sales volume for listed single-family homes in San Francisco gained a nominal 2% on a year-over-year basis in July (218 transactions in 2008 versus 223 in 2009), up 9% versus June and versus flat from June to July in 2008 according to San Francisco Schtuff.
The most significant gain in listed single-family home sales volume occurred in District 5, up 41% on a year-over-year basis (from 32 in 2008 to 45 in 2009) but on a 21% drop in median sales price (a 26% drop in average).
On the other hand, listed single-family home sales volume in District 4 fell 42% on a year-over-year basis (from 33 in 2008 to 19 in 2009) on almost no change in median sales price but a 12% drop in average.
Single Family Homes July ‘04, ‘06, ‘08, ‘09 [sanfranciscoschtuff.com]
Listed San Francisco Single-Family Home June Sales: Down 6% YOY [SocketSite]
San Francisco Real Estate Districts: Maps And Neighborhoods [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by sanfrantim

    A 20% price drop in Noe seems about right to me based on my informal looking around. Drop the price and the inventory will move — Magic! People still want to live here long term.

  2. Posted by REpornaddict

    Interesting data – some quick observations..
    median pricing for all districts except d10 at or above 2004 levels.
    d5 sales were basically at 04 levels.
    d7 median sales price was $5.2m!
    SF currently has lower inventory (12% or so) and higher sales than a year ago for SFHs – not sure when the last time that was true…

  3. Posted by Trip

    And our (new) buddy, Avram, has some more July sales info, including condos/TICs — but not broken out by district.
    http://www.sfresidence.com/market.htm
    At a glance, it looks like declines for low-end SFRs are slowing, although prices continue to fall, and everything else is getting hit harder in turns of price and sales declines. Of course this is just one, narrow data point that has to be taken into account along with many, many other pieces of the puzzle.
    And as I’ve noted, I suspect that when the cheap money, low-down FHA loans, and tax credits tail off, declines will again accelerate at all levels. Continuing high unemployment, lower incomes, and looming recasts will only add to it. I only hope buyers keep coming out and snapping these falling knives up to take at least some of this mess off the taxpayers’ hands.
    [Editor’s Note: That’s not an Avram Goldman report (nor site).]

  4. Posted by anonn

    You’ve noted that you suspect?
    Suspect, indeed. Typical.

  5. Posted by curmudgeon

    Isn’t this the first year on year sales (#) gain in some time? That alone would be significant.

  6. Posted by sleepiguy

    Last month I guessed there would be a YOY increase in D7 sales and median price, but the sample size is so small there was a massive 50% leap in the median – which looks pretty funny. Next month, expect a 60% drop due in part to seasonality.

  7. Posted by Trip

    Not an Avram site. Oh, I see that now. That’s just the site where his letter was posted.

  8. Posted by REpornaddict

    Isn’t this the first year on year sales (#) gain in some time? That alone would be significant.
    Couples with a YOY drop in the invesntory, I think the two combined are significant, yes.

  9. Posted by obro

    bottom!

  10. Posted by anon

    Quaere: Can prices rise absent any increase in demand? If so, what is the cause?

  11. Posted by sleepiguy

    I didn’t phrase my previous post quite right… I meant, month to month jump in median, not YOY…

  12. Posted by Robert

    Prices can’t rise in an absence of demand in this case. What you are seeing in San Francisco — if these figures are true — is hope.
    People who bought houses for 7x their incomes are managing to unload them at a loss, let’s assume a 20% loss — the actual number doesn’t matter — to people who are then buying houses for 5.6x income. At some point, that will revert to 4x income, and maybe eventually 3x income or so. In between, there will be enough price bumps to allow the over-consumers to justify their actions, at least to themselves.
    It’s a long process — quite possibly over several decades — and unless there is hope, all the loss will need to be absorbed by the original 7x buyers. Seeing as how they have taken all they can — it is very generous of the next group of buyers to step in and help them out. As was pointed out, it’s either the hopeful, or the taxpayers/banks, so be glad for the hope.
    But where does this hope come from? Not from rising incomes, that’s for sure! People come up with all sorts of things to give them hope — chart reading, GDP figures, second derivative of GDP, warmer weather, etc.
    It’s an amazing thing, that as incomes continue to fall, demand can rise. But lets wait at least a year to see how much demand has risen. All this focus on changes of 2% is indicative that the actual data is not what is driving the hope. The hope came first, and is looking for data to justify it.

  13. Posted by REpornaddict

    — if these figures are true —
    Do you have any evidence to suggest they are not?!

  14. Posted by REpornaddict

    Also, not everyone is selling for a 20% loss – in fact a fairly small percentage I would guess.
    Many are still selling for a nice gain, I am sure.
    It’s a socketsite urban legend that everyone bought their home on May 23rd 2007 at 3.45pm, the peak of the market.

  15. Posted by garrett

    –if these figures are true–
    the data came directly from the MLS, so, assuming the MLS is correct, these figures are true.
    @REpornaddict: may 23rd at 3:45pm, eh. hahahaha, love it! i bought my place JUST before we hit peak 😉

  16. Posted by Robert

    Do you have any evidence to suggest they are not?!
    Evidence? You are talking about a delta of 2% inferred from 223 transactions. That’s 5 extra transactions. How do you know that this increase of is indicative of a larger trend and not noise? I could just as well say that 5 districts saw an increase in transactions, and 5 saw a decline. Or, I could say that “on-average” those districts in which prices increased saw a decline in transactions, and those in which prices decreased saw an increase. Either way, it is a bit foolish to focus on 5 transactions as a harbinger. Now, if transactions increase in a significant and sustained way, then you can start making inferences about fools and their money.
    in fact a fairly small percentage I would guess.
    Heh — keep guessing. But the amount of the loss doesn’t matter, as I pointed out. If it makes you happy, then those who bought for 7x incomes sold to buyers at 6.2X incomes, which will in turn sell to buyers at 5.6x incomes, etc..
    Smaller losses just mean it will take more steps/more time to reach a level sustained by incomes. Larger losses means it will happen quicker.
    It’s too early to tell exactly what the losses are at this point, and I’m not sure why you would care, one way or another. If you care about where prices are going, rather than arguing the cloudy statistics of where they are now, then you should be focusing on incomes, income growth rates, and mortgage rates. This would be much more productive than getting all excited that D7 sold 9 houses in July ’09, and only 6 houses in July ’08.

  17. Posted by REpornaddict

    Ummmm..
    “Evidence? You are talking about a delta of 2% inferred from 223 transactions. That’s 5 extra transactions. How do you know that this increase of is indicative of a larger trend and not noise?”
    Where did I say that it was indicitive of a larger trend?
    You were clearly doubting the accuracy/truth of the figures – not its indications as to larger trends.
    As for where prices are going, yes, incomes, growth rates, mortgage rates all have an impact.
    But, as do the interaction of sales and inventory – this is something we are told pretty quickly here when (as earlier in the year) SFH inventory was up YOY and sales were down YOY. But now inventory is down YOY and sales are up YOY. So suddenly that piece of information isn’t quite so important anymore…

  18. Posted by Robert

    Ahh, I should have said “meaningful” rather than “true” — that was my intention.
    It was certainly the point I’ve been making. As to your other points, I doubt you will be able to find a lot of chart reading advice in my r.e. posts. I can’t account for what others told you, except to use your judgement. Today two news items came out: incomes declined and 5 more transactions occurred than last year in S.F.
    Well, I think the income declines is a more important data point to focus on, and is more statistically significant.
    Prices will most likely not reach a sustainable level monotonically. There will be rallies. We may not reach it quickly — I am not good at timing these things. And we may even overshoot the sustainable level due to pessimism — who knows?
    My model, and I believe I have been consistent in this regard — is to view prices as meandering around “value”. They always over and undershoot due to the supply/demand issues that you point out. However, things like ability to pay always bring things back down to earth, eventually.
    Moreover, I believe that my valuation approach is more accurate in terms of describing people’s actual expected returns, because they will tend to roll proceeds from sales into new purchases, even if they time the market right. So those who sell at the top will also end up buying at the top, and at the end of the day, they will receive only the equivalent rental value in exchange for their payment stream. So it’s better to focus on value rather than speculating on the next price wiggle.

  19. Posted by REpornaddict

    Today two news items came out: incomes declined and 5 more transactions occurred than last year in S.F.
    I think the income declines is a more important data point to focus on, and is more statistically significant.
    was the income decline broken down into State or even county/city level?
    If not, then I would argue that something as local as a rise in home sales specifically in SF alone would be a more important data item to focus on.
    And there was a third item you neglected to mention, the rise in pending home sales.

  20. Posted by Trip

    SFH inventory was up YOY and sales were down YOY. But now inventory is down YOY and sales are up YOY. So suddenly that piece of information isn’t quite so important anymore…
    REp, one point to remember is that the declining price trend does not reverse just because the supply-sale numbers reverse (let’s assume it’s not just seasonal or due to the market-juicing factors I’ve noted). As an extreme example, if there are 1000 homes for sale but only 5 buyers, you’re obviously going to have serious price competition — i.e. declining prices. If it’s suddenly “the bottom” and next month you have only 500 homes for sale and 10 buyers — a huge swing — you’re still going to have serious price competition and further lowering of prices. It’s only when the supply/demand numbers swing so far as to move past the “equilibrium” point (say, 4 months of inventory) that you start seeing prices actually rise. That’s why real estate price declines continue for years after a recession ends. ou’re coming off a deep bottom.
    With these July ’09 numbers, we are still at supply levels that are substantially higher than in the recent past and sales levels that are even more substantially lower.

  21. Posted by anonn

    Recent past? Huh. And here I thought YOY shows recent past. You mean from 2007’s peak? (Which you doubted was peak at the time?) Or, YOY, prior to September’s sea change?
    Wow.
    And Sanfrantim, sorry but did you look at a single piece of data? “A 20 percent price drop in Noe” doesn’t belong in this thread.

  22. Posted by Robert

    was the income decline broken down into State or even county/city level?
    Local data will be released Aug 6, but so far california has tracked the nation, and the SF MSA, beginning in June ’08, has underperformed. Generally speaking, the SF MSA is more volatile, so it will tend to reflect greater income contraction during a recession. I guess this requires some background knowledge.
    And there was a third item you neglected to mention, the rise in pending home sales.
    I believe you neglected to mention that pending home sales were unchanged for the West — they only rose for the nation as a whole. Actually, only the non-seasonally adjusted sales were unchanged YoY. For some (odd) reason, the seasonally adjusted sales in the west fell by 0.2% YoY — again the data is noisy.
    But seriously, you must admit that a y-o-y increase in sales of 5 houses means nothing. Actually, due to short sales and foreclosures, it most likely has negative implications for the market. Therefore unless you believe that the income release had negative informational value, the two non-stories that people are cheerleading about are more indicative of the psychology of hope than anything else.

  23. Posted by anonn

    But seriously, you must admit that a y-o-y increase in sales of 5 houses means nothing. Actually, due to short sales and foreclosures,
    First off, your second sentence. What foreclosures? Look at most of the breakdowns in these micro neighborhoods. What foreclosures are you referring to? Why are the prices for most areas not sledgehammered?
    Secondly, I’d like to ask you about the first part of your conclusion. Viewed in light of the market shift 95% of the people who post on here acknowledge as an actual sea change that occcurred in mid September 2008, you call a 5 sale gain “nothing?” Really?
    No. I think the shoe is on the other foot. It is incumbent upon you to explain why a stasis — for the most bearish among you, call it a momentary stasis primarily caused by seasonal bounce, should mean “nothing?” Why nothing, when so much has changed? When, to hear yourself and others tell it, every single factor involved in the purchase of SF r.e. has changed? Why is that nothing?
    I find that odd.

  24. Posted by REpornaddict

    so a YOY increase in sales..
    “most likely has negative implications for the market. ”
    First you questioned whether the data was true. Then dismissed it as noise and statistical insignificance. and now this – that it’s actually a negative data point.
    Sorry, but you really, really are protesting too much. That is a ridiculous statement. Absolutely ridiculous.

  25. Posted by tipster

    What this means is the Realtors are doing a better job of matching expectations with reality. When sellers list at unrealistically high prices, there aren’t any transactions. But the developers got the message a month or two ago, that the market was falling and probably would continue to fall and so the developments (e.g. infinity) started cutting prices and moving inventory. I suspect August will be up too.
    Just look at the posts today: a major realtor beating up sellers for wasting time (and money: as prices fall, the longer a house sits, the less it gets), and even the Ritz throwing in the towel and slashing prices.
    That is going to push volumes up (or at least stabilize them) and maximize Realtors incomes, so the push appears to be on.
    At any price point, at any trend, there are always buyers. That’s always been true and always will be true. People buy for all sorts of emotional (non rational) reasons and so even buyers who think prices will fall will buy. The trick is managing the expectations of all parties concerned to match the market. Only then do the commissioned salespeople get paid.
    You can see evidence of this on a district by district basis: the districts where the Realtors are beating down the expectations of the sellers (i.e. where prices have dropped significantly) are selling houses, and in the districts where that isn’t occurring, sales are slower.
    The numbers today tell us they are doing their job more effectively than in months past. It may only be 5 more houses, but it could have been 5 fewer. I see no reason why prices would go up, and lots of reasons why they will stairstep down. But volumes are a different story.

  26. Posted by anonn

    Why are you talking about condo units, Tipster? The data has to do with SFRs. Not developers, the Infinity, realtors managing developers, or anything you just said. SFRs have remained relatively desirable, and folks are still paying relative premiums. That’s the story. This thread has jumped Jabberjaw or some other goofy looking cartoon shark.

  27. Posted by Robert

    Annon — you really believe that there are fewer short sales in SF now than 1 year ago? Seriously? You realize that even 5 more distressed sales than last year would completely wipe out the prized 5 house advantage, right?
    But, yes, I claim that you can’t draw any conclusions from 5 additional homes being sold this month than last year. Any conclusions — including my pointing out the influence of short sales — are extremely tentative, and completely dwarfed by the significance of the income data.

  28. Posted by anonn

    Annon — you really believe that there are fewer short sales in SF now than 1 year ago? Seriously
    No, of course I do not believe that, and I did not say that.
    I do think I read the data Garrett provided, and that some of you probably glossed over it. Wholescale distressed property volume is not something it displays.

  29. Posted by REpornddict

    “believe you neglected to mention that pending home sales were unchanged for the West — they only rose for the nation as a whole. Actually, only the non-seasonally adjusted sales were unchanged YoY. For some (odd) reason, the seasonally adjusted sales in the west fell by 0.2% YoY”
    Robert, what was your source for this unchanged West figure?
    the link in the socketsite article here
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a5QWWeMXezCw
    gives an increase of 2.9% in the West – not unchanged as you said.

  30. Posted by Robert

    Y-o-Y is unchanged for the West, but up nationally — the source is the NAR — the source for the data release.

  31. Posted by ex SF-er

    I for one think that the YOY rise in sales is an excellent sign, as is the reduction in inventory on a YOY basis. (remember, it is nearly retarded to use MOM data unless you correlate MOM data with previous MOM changes).
    This shows that SF’s RE market is starting to clear.
    And it is no surprise. Lower prices equals more sales. Duh. SF’s prices are lower YOY than last year so it’s not surprising to have increased sales. However it IS possible to have lower prices AND lower sales, and that means the market will fall even further. So it is VERY GOOD news that sales are up and inventory is down (all IMO again).
    In addition, we are in (either) a new bull market or a massive bear market rally. (you can pick). either way, it does increase the feeling of optimism and big ticket items often correlate well (not 100%) with consumer confidence.
    Not to mention trillions upon trillions of stimulus some of which is clearly now available (through incomes and lowered mortgage rates) to the housing market.
    ===
    I’d like to highlight one thing: it is very very very difficult to analyze the markets given the massive amounts of government assistance/interference. I’ve said this before.
    As example: I believe MOM incomes were reported as falling again (nationally), however this number is difficult to analyze. If I recall correctly (I might not-please do your own due dilly) there were massive transfer payments from the government and those had to be adjusted by the statisticians. the adjustment dropped income very slightly positive to negative from. As the transfer payments slow the adjustment will go the other way around.
    Also: unfortunately, employment continues to suffer terribly. remember that employment numbers are seasonally adjusted (UP the first half of the year and DOWN the last half of the year). So the employment numbers you’ve been seeing the last few months are adjusted upwards, and they start getting adjusted downwards now.
    I just feel it’s important to understand the methodology behind these numbers.
    In the end: my feeling for some time is that the govt is trying furiously to blow an equities bubble (which they are doing). this equities recovery has improved confidence in consumers. In addition, massive govt support in the form of various payments, fiscal, and monetary policy has started to spur demand both through income generation but also as market support (lowering mortgage rates through MBS purchases and zero interest rate policy, massive borrowing with secondary transfer and stimulus payments, etc).
    Thus for now, things appear improved. how could they not be with 12-23 Trillion dollars of support? Unfortunately, we’re taking on impossible sums of governmental debt. This debt is unsustainable, and everybody knows this.
    what is disagreed upon is whether or not private savings and private enterprise can or will step in to replace the government before we have a currency crisis. What is Ben Bernanke/Obama/Larry Summers/Tim Geithner’s exit strategy???? (answer; they don’t really have one).

  32. Posted by anon

    ^^”the govt is furiously trying to blow an equities bubble…”
    Yep, and we’ve all seen this movie before. Strange how no one can remember the plot ending.
    Along with the govt, some news yesterday on one of the private sector’s players working so hard to pull the nation out of the RE slump (i.e. bubble-blowing):
    http://sbk.online.wsj.com/article/SB124940991556305327.html
    Bet there’s some excitement in Laguna Hills today.

  33. Posted by Joe

    Ah, fluj/ken/anonn, we missed you! What would we do without your bizarre non sequiturs, nonsensical attempts at rhetorical questions, and variations of telling everyone, “yeah, well you’re stupid.” Scintillating commentary from you, as always!

  34. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Yes, welcome back. SS wouldn’t be what it is without you. Just like life wouldn’t be the same without parking maids, the IRS and that guy who steals your parking spot.

  35. Posted by sanfrantim

    anonn, sorry, but did you even look at the district 5 data linked from this thread? median down about 20% YOY. The story here is inventories are moving in Noe at price points that are lower than 2008. We could debate the data’s significance, but not its relevance to this discussion.

  36. Posted by sparky-b

    sanfrantim, I believe what he was saying is that Noe is only a small part of D5, and the area also includes Glen Park, the Mission, Twin Peaks, etc.

  37. Posted by anonn

    Yeah, Tim, I looked at it. Do you know that 5-K is the one driving that, not 5-C?
    Joe, stop it with the “we” thing. You’re you, pal. Weak, nothing to say except critical of yours truly, and always harping at language like an 11th grade peer editor. Say something once in a while, OK?

  38. Posted by REpornaddict

    Thanks Robert, I see it now.
    The 2.9% increase for the West is the one that backs into the 3.6% quoted on this ste wich is MOM, and the unchanged/-.2% is YOY. Fair enuff.
    By the way, do you know why there would be a difference between the YOY figures with and without seasonal adjustment – the difference isn’t much for West but is for other regions.
    I thought the whole point of YOY was thatit removed any seasonal influences.

  39. Posted by chuckie

    I was going to bite my tongue until you bring up the “we” thing, anonn. I must chime in to say I share fully the sentiments of Joe and SFS above. Your heckling is pretty tiresome.
    I was happy to see that the editor deleted a couple of your more egregious posts yesterday. Stop already!

  40. Posted by REpornaddict

    Sorry, but using this data to conclude that prices are down 20% in Noe is pretty useless – d5 is alot more than Noe for one, and median prices for an individual district for one month is pretty unreliable.
    You could also conclude from the data that places are moving in Noe priced 10% above 2006 prices, or nearly 30% above 2004 prices.

  41. Posted by anonn

    Of course you do, Chuckie. You and Joe are the same, merely writing on this board to criticize me.

  42. Posted by Trip

    Here is a concrete example of the point I raised above rather than my extreme illustrative hypothetical. Look at the July numbers for Santa Clara County, which are much stronger than SF’s numbers YOY:
    http://barbarachang.rereport.com/market_reports?searchtype=search&period=1
    Santa Clara County is quite similar to SF — many very nice areas with some not-so-nice areas. And it’s a much bigger jobs center. Sales in the tony areas continue to be pretty anemic as in summer ’08, but they have picked up considerably in the more modest areas. July ’09 sales were far higher than July ’08 (unlike SF — flat); July ’09 inventory was way, way lower than ’08 (unlike SF), and July ’09 DOM for places that sold was a bit higher than ’08 (like SF). Yet median prices were down a lot (15.6%) and average prices were down even more (18%) reflecting the continuing freeze at higher price ranges.
    So even though the supply curve has seemingly shifted in favor of sellers, and even though sales are up — seemingly indicating that demand has also shifted in favor of sellers — prices continue to fall dramatically (yes, 15.6% in a year is a massive decline). I suspect this reflects two key trends. First, despite the sales pick-up and listing fall-off, we’re still not at the point where demand is so robust as to exert upward price pressure, as compared to the recent past (2 to 5 years ago). Second, and more important, and related, the demand curve has shifted far to the left. I.e. even those willing and able to buy are not willing or able to pay nearly the prices they were in the recent past. This is probably due to both tighter lending requirements and more cautious buyers. Again, this is all magnified at the higher-end where lending and down payment requirements are far more stringent than during the bubble years.
    Ex SF-er’s point that, duh, lower prices means more sales, is exactly right. But the flipside would not be correct — more sales and/or lower inventory numbers do not necessarily translate into an end to price declines — yet.
    That said, I would not have predicted that SF July sales numbers would be even this good (roughly equal to a pretty weak ’08 for SFRs, but not condos). Remember the surprisingly strong D9 condo sales numbers for July ’08? We’ll see how things develop during the post-peak seasons and beyond.

  43. Posted by REpornaddict

    definitely some valid points Trip.
    I would point out, though I guess it’s not clear what the sales/inventory situation was for the whole of the year in which they saw that price drop – it could only have improved recently, for example. But I fo rone am not that interested in Santa Clara as to go digging!
    And, of course, using median pricing is unreliable – particuarly in situations where, as you say, the higher end is struggling there will be a negative mix effect.
    But if you do us median price, you could also argue the jump of the median price of 8.1% last month reflects the pressure of higher sales and lower inventory!
    But no, to be fair, I take your point about the equilibrium. But you may also agree that it means the downward pressure on SFHs would be less now than it was a year ago (for now). And, given what happened in the fall, that is somewhat surprising.

  44. Posted by Trip

    you may also agree that it means the downward pressure on SFHs would be less now than it was a year ago (for now)
    Certainly — no argument at all. Declining downward pressures will certainly come, and may have already, and necessarily precede upward price pressures. And you’re also exactly right on the value of medians and averages — but you’ve got to use what you’ve got! But a couple of caveats (of course). First, the SF sales and inventory numbers for July ’09 SFRs are really not that much different from ’08 — but they are marginally better, so I accept your point to that extent. Second, the July ’09 condo numbers are even worse than ’08, and (beat dead horse) SFRs and condos are not distinct markets, even though they are not perfect substitutes, and price trends in one discipline prices in the other.

  45. Posted by REpornaddict

    Yup. Condos are defintely under greater pressure than SFHs price wise, and I agree there are some interlinkages between SFHs and condos/TICs, although of course their exact magnitude is hard to quantify.
    Finally, though, without looking back too much, I am not sure there was huge downward pressure on SFH prices a year ago. Some, certainly but I don’t think huge. That of course came a few months later – and the inventory/sales situation soon reflected that. So be slightly better off than a year ago isn’t at all bad – that translates to much, much better off then 6-9 months ago.

  46. Posted by il_guru

    my $0.02
    SFH <1Mil market is on fire right now.
    For life events (not for economic reasons) I bid on 2 property in the nice part of Bernal recently and they both went in 2 days with several percentage points over asking.
    Realtors asking to wave appraisal contingencies is also the MO.
    Lots of people out there that drank the Kool-Aid of low interest rates and governament help and think that you have to buy now or forever be priced out of the market.
    Psychology and expectations are a powerful thing though …

  47. Posted by Robert

    By the way, do you know why there would be a difference between the YOY figures with and without seasonal adjustment – the difference isn’t much for West but is for other regions.
    I don’t know whether NAR uses the standard algorithm, but you can get differences YoY if you are re-adjusting the seasonal adjustment annually — and it also depends on the time window you are using. But generally, a large break between adjusted and unadjusted YoY data is a sign that the adjustment parameters are changing quickly.
    In general the NAR is not known for econometric sophistication — not a slam, but they are a trade group, not the BLS. They can’t hire 500 PhDs to work on this stuff. I would use YoY data when possible, and take all data from trade groups with a grain of salt.
    By the way, one thing to keep in mind is that seasonal adjustment is more of an art — you are basically subtracting sales from one month and adding them to another based on historical patterns. You’re not going to get things right to 1%, as the factors that cause the seasonal changes themselves change over time, and they don’t always operate with the same force from year to year.

  48. Posted by anonn

    You keep saying NAR when it was one guy pulling numbers from the SFARMLS and tallying them.

  49. Posted by REpornaddict

    anonn,
    we had moved OT and were dissecting the NAR pending sales data from yesterday – not the SF sales.
    probably belonged in that other thread.

  50. Posted by jhgjhgjhgjhgj

    Buy now or you will be priced out forever.
    for real this time!

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles