San Francisco Listed Inventory: 10/13/09 (www.SocketSite.com)
Inventory of Active listed single-family homes, condos, and TICs in San Francisco fell 2.8% over the past two weeks and is currently running 18.4% under last year’s levels on a year-over-year basis (down 24% for single-family homes and down 15% for condos/TICs) but is within five percent of listed inventory levels at the same point in 2006/2007.
Thirty-three (33) percent of active listings in San Francisco have undergone at least one price reduction while the percentage of active listings that are either already bank owned or seeking a short sale is down to 9.5%.
The standard SocketSite Listed Inventory footnote: Keep in mind that our listed inventory count does not include listings in any stage of contract (even those which are simply contingent) nor does it include listings for multi-family properties (unless the units are individually listed).
SocketSite’s San Francisco Listed Housing Inventory Update: 9/28/09 [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by polip

    this is surprising
    to say the least

  2. Posted by EBGuy

    The pent up supply continues to grow. Currently, 1603 homes are in some state of foreclosure (NODs, NOTS, bank owned) in Ess Eff. This is up from 1587 two weeks ago.

  3. Posted by anonn

    16 more in two weeks is noteworthy? I think your comment is in the wrong thread, EBGuy.

  4. Posted by Dan

    Is there a link to your data, EBGuy?

  5. Posted by tipster

    Yes, EBGuy. That’s a rate of 100% increase per year. At that rate, there will be 3200 by next year. That’s really not that troubling, is it?

  6. Posted by EBGuy

    16 more in two weeks is noteworthy?
    FWIW, I report this number every two weeks to coincide with SS’s SF Listed Housing Inventory. That way, when the trend reverses, you can tell your clients that they’re not making any more foreclosures in the City; until then, it’s lights out.
    @Dan, I use Yahoo!Realestate as it also allows you to drill down to the neighborhood level.

  7. Posted by REpornaddict

    LOL. That is EBGuys repsonse to EVERY thread. I am sure he just cuts and pastes, and changes the two relevant numbers.
    I know someone predicted, back in March or so, that the line would fall below 2008 levels (it was 20% or so above it at the time I think).
    But 2006 and 2007 levels? No one would have made such a stupid, ridiculously optimistic prediction!
    Its happened, though.

  8. Posted by anonn

    Come on. What is that stat doing in a thread that illustrates falling inventory? Blinders off if you please, Tipster.
    And your 3200 number assumes that they all just sit there anyway. Do you enjoy wrongly being wrong?

  9. Posted by anon

    Not surprising in the least.
    There is just not much inventory out there right now. Also hardly any new construction is in progress compared to a couple of years ago when mutiple highrises were being built simultaneously. Finally, many newer buildings continue to move closer to being 100% sold.

  10. Posted by anon

    The Yahoo! forclusure date is rife with errors.
    In my zip code alone, the same units can be listed two or three times. These duplicate units need to be manually deleted in order to get a real count. So who knows what the real number is, but it sure isn’t 1,603. Could be 1,203.

  11. Posted by tipster

    EBGuy’s numbers are perfectly relevant. I said last month the inventory would stay below 2006 for the rest of the year. Yet it’s so “Surprising”? No it’s not.
    People are trapped in their homes. Last year they at least *tried* getting 2007 prices. This year, they are not going to bother. They might rent out the place and wait for a year, rather than bring $200K to the closing or wreck their credit. They might try to apply for a reworked mortgage (which just lowers the interest rate for a few years and repackages the missed payments back into the principal so the lender doesn’t have to write down the value of the mortgage).
    But they aren’t going to list the home. Not now. Not when there’s “green shoots” to be had right around the corner.
    In a few months, people will realize that, no, prices aren’t going back up to the level they paid. Or the banks reworked mortgage is a raw deal. Or that the bank isn’t going to do anything at all. And all they’ve done is paid more on a declining asset.
    THAT’s when the inventory will start to rise. But for the rest of the year and early into 2010? It stays under 2006. It’s going to go down, and stay down until next year.

  12. Posted by West Portal

    anonn,
    An increase of 16 SF foreclosures in 2 weeks is making no assumptions about foreclosures(NODs, NOTS, bank owned) just sitting there. EBGuy is simply stating that 16 more were added than removed, thus a net increase of 16 in 2 weeks.
    If you assume a constant rate of 16 per 2 weeks (without any compounding) this would be an increase of 416 in 52 weeks, or an annual rate of increase of near 25%, not 100% as Tipster suggests. However this extrapolation makes no assumption about actions occurring with respect to individual foreclosure listings, since the increase of 16 in 2 weeks is a net increase.

  13. Posted by anonn

    Tipster did, in as you point out, in an exaggerated fashion. The comment is out of place regardless. This thread is anchored by a chart illustrating falling inventory, not rising inventory. So why “pent up supply increasing” ? There’s an assumption at play there too. They assume that these NODs and NOTs and REOs are not already reflected in the supply chart. They often are.

  14. Posted by REpornaddict

    “EBGuy’s numbers are perfectly relevant. I said last month the inventory would stay below 2006 for the rest of the year. Yet it’s so “Surprising”? No it’s not.”
    But Tipster, did you think it would happen in March or April, say?
    Somehow, I doubt it.
    What is surprising, to me (and presumably other people), is how the inventory level has moved relative to 08, 07 and 06 since the start of the year, or spring.
    Not how it has moved since the last time SS posted the inventory numbers.
    Or maybe I am missing something?

  15. Posted by EBGuy

    But 2006 and 2007 levels?
    You have to admit, that is like manna from heaven for SS — gives us something to talk about (at least more so than if listed inventory had ballooned out of control). Listen, I freely admit there is a lot of noise in the Yahoo!RealEstate data (I wouldn’t base a PhD thesis on it). I use it only to point out a general trend (which is, foreclosures are getting generated quicker than they can be absorbed by the marketplace). That, coupled with falling listed inventory, indicates that the Coalition of the Willing is growing as a percentage of listed inventory. At least that’s my take…

  16. Posted by steve

    I don’t know what is happening in SF-proper, but in Palo Alto and Menlo Park, tight inventory of quality houses has been translating into higher prices since late winter/early spring. maybe the supply and demand curve works differently in tipster’s city?

  17. Posted by anonn

    You’re simply refusing to acknowledge one datapoint while embracing another, EBGuy. Why you continue to posit that NODs, NOTs and REOs aren’t within the existing supply is not known.

  18. Posted by DataDude

    Does anybody know whether the number of off-market transactions has gone up? (i.e. realtors trying to keep inventory low)
    [Editor’s Note: We do and they have. But only slightly so far (28% of transactions in August of 2008 versus 33% of transactions in August of 2009) and muddled by unlisted sales in new developments.]

  19. Posted by EBGuy

    Why you continue to posit that NODs, NOTs and REOs aren’t within the existing supply is not known.
    Well, for one, I’ve tracked homes through the foreclosure process, and many (dare I say most) are not part of the listed inventory. Hence, pent up supply.

  20. Posted by tipster

    Steve,
    according to Redfin, 94301 (nicest part of Palo Alto) inventory is up 66% YOY and 6% from last month and prices are down and falling. Sales are down YOY and MOM. Median sale price per square foot is down. Asking price per square foot is up a bit, but who cares.
    http://www.redfin.com/zipcode/94301
    Palo Alto in general:
    Inventory up 40% YOY, 8% MOM, Sales down YOY and MOM, price per square foot down YOY, up a bit MOM.
    http://www.redfin.com/city/14325/CA/Palo-Alto
    Thanks for sharing your anecdotes.

  21. Posted by steve a/k/a/ Trip (a/k/a/ Groucho)

    tipster, who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?

  22. Posted by anonn

    Well, for one, I’ve tracked homes through the foreclosure process, and many (dare I say most) are not part of the listed inventory. Hence, pent up supply
    To begin with, “many” = “most” = “not part” –> your conclusion that there’s pent up supply?
    What is that? Does it even qualify as an opinion?
    Actually, a lot more properties in the MLS these days do have some sort of short sale or bank sale disclaimer attached. This proves that they are very much part of the supply.
    Still tho, why this thread? “Oh look. Inventory is down. I’m going to talk about how foreclosures are up and therefore inventory is up.”
    Weird.

  23. Posted by steve

    Tipster, thanks for sharing your conclusions. Your graphs, however, support exaactly what I wrote, “tight inventory of quality houses has been translating into higher prices since late winter/early spring.” (for those who haven’t clicked and care, the graphs show rising sale prices since late winter — they also show current Palo Alto prices all the way back to late 2007 levels)
    Anyone in the market down here knows that there just aren’t that many good choices, especially in the “affordable” range under $2M. (and, I write this as someone who has been looking and wating for prices to come down for 20 months now.)
    Back to SF, though, I find it amazing that you can continue to claim that decreasing SF inventory supports your seller capitulation, price implosion theory. If you were able to show any evidence that a high number of pulled listings had 100% or higher LTV ratios I’d be more inclined to entertain your position.

  24. Posted by FAA

    Yeah, c’mon, Steve. Haven’t you seen the gaudy, giant TV-screen-billboard clearly proclaiming “Palo Alto is now Value Alto”?

  25. Posted by J

    Actually, a lot more properties in the MLS these days do have some sort of short sale or bank sale disclaimer attached. This proves that they are very much part of the supply.
    That proves nothing. You don’t know if they have missed a payment yet on a short sale.

  26. Posted by steve

    J, I tried (unsuccessfully) to buy a woodside short sale early this year. I’m not an expert, but it was my understanding at the time that it was impossible to get the bank to entertain the possibility of a short sale if the seller had not both missed payments and demonstrated financial hardship. At least back then, banks seemed uninterested in forgiving debt unless the only possible alternative outcome was foreclosure, and even then…

  27. Posted by J

    They will do what they think will lose them the least, when they are not too busy…
    http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/06/psychology-of-short-sales-by-tanta.html

  28. Posted by steve

    FAA, here’s a great example of the state of things in Value Alto:
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/Palo-Alto/455A-Forest-Ave-94301/home/21685404
    the listing and photos are of the 2219 sq ft, less expensive 455a forest (pending without release), but its 2412 sq ft sibling 455d forest sold on 9/15 for $2.3M. it was one of 40 SFHs that closed in September. all the others came with their own land, however.
    455b forest is also sold but you can probably negotiate 455c down to $2.35 if you drive a hard bargain.
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/Palo-Alto/455C-Forest-Ave-94301/home/21666768
    pretty insane for a city where the real estate agent mantra is “the value is in the land”

  29. Posted by Debtpocalypse

    FWIW, and because intellectual honesty requires it, let me confess that the relative strength of the SF housing market has surprised me. This is also true of the East Bay markets I monitor more closely with intent to purchase. I think some inventory has been pulled with the hope for better prices next season – I know of some such properties. I think inventory has benefited from the lethargy with which banks are moving against deadbeats – I think further waves of foreclosure are coming, and my subscription to foreclosure.com is suggesting this. I think some inventory has benefited – and transacted – from greater resilience in demand than I’d anticipated – that’s where I got it wrong. There were definitely more buyers with more cash and more access to credit the past 6 months than I was expecting nine months ago.
    Live & learn.
    No one (reasonable) ever said that real estate prices aren’t sticky. They are. This stuff will take time to unwind.
    My real-money wager this summer was to forestall purchase in favor of a new lease in a new location in the East Bay. In 2002-2006, I second-guessed myself to death by renting, as I watched prices ascend ever heavenly. And now, even though some bottom-callers and blue-skiers want to declare the alls-clear to real estate misery, I continue to maintain that that simply reflects the hard-death that bubble mentality must suffer.
    I don’t doubt for a moment that renting remains the better financial option for those who can choose it. Especially if you are contemplating a 7-figure purchase, which I am.
    There will be further declines before prices begin any ascent, and I further expect several years of likely sideways price motion before any eventual ascent.
    The past year was supported by tax benefits, various moratoria, and the Fed’s wholesale manipulation of the “market” for agency debt, mortgage-backed securities, and the long-end of the curve.
    Let’s see how residential real estate fares after the Fed ceases selective propping of those assets.
    Let’s see how residential real estate fares if it resorts again to being a true market.

  30. Posted by EBGuy

    What is that?
    The opposite of pent up demand. You’ll have to ask one of your colleagues for the definition.
    Still tho, why this thread?
    I had, at various points, published this data under DQ News threads and Case/Shiller reports. I normalized my practice to SS’s SF Listed Housing threads a couple of months ago to regularly report on the foreclosure trend data (and make it easier to find the previous data point). As always, NODs may be cured and never make it to auction (though I wouldn’t bet on it these days).
    Actually, a lot more properties in the MLS these days do have some sort of short sale or bank sale disclaimer attached.
    I think you just won the battle but lost the war. I don’t have access to the data (or for that matter, have the time) to figure out how these two data sets intersect. At worst, when the aggregate foreclosure data turns (begins decreasing), it may lag the true pent up supply by a couple of months. I’m not too worried about that as the NODs will still have to work their way through the system before listed inventory is unaffected by defaults.

  31. Posted by anonn

    That proves nothing. You don’t know if they have missed a payment yet on a short sale.
    No. The opposite of what you say is true. If it says it’s a short sale, it’s a short sale. If it says it’s bank owned, it’s bank owned. And, obviously, they are in the MLS and therefore part of the inventory.
    And EBguy, you’re talking as if you made a point on which to stand. You did not.

  32. Posted by ex SF-er

    I will personally admit that I wasn’t expecting the inventory to fall as far as it has this early.
    but I also said numerous times that economic forecasting is relatively useless in the housing market due to the unprecedented level of govt support in housing.
    one must understand international politics to correctly gauge RE’s future.
    about a year ago I was continually surprised at how willing our govt was to risk a currency crisis. But I changed my tune on that long ago (which is why I predicted very early in 2009 that we’d likely end recession officially in Q3/Q4 2009 as example… followed by probable “W” shaped recession).
    the wild card is our debt levels and foreign government’s willingness to keep buying our debt.
    So long as the creditors will supply our country with cheap debt we will continue to try to reflate the housing bubble (the stock and gold and commodity reflations are already well underway)
    I’m watching the dollar (every day is a new all time low), commodities, and Treasury rates as my tea leaves for how long this reflation can go on. when we see signs of Treasury stress then we know the game is over. unfortunately that won’t give us a lot of time to invest/trade on that information.
    but until that time, housing has unprecedented support
    -zero interest rate policy (keeps mortgage rates down)
    -tax credit for housing
    -Fed buying MBS securities (keeps mortgage rates down)
    -loosening of FHA guidelines
    -allowing the tax credit to act as FHA downpayment
    -tons of bank debt held on the Fed’s balance sheet through the various facilities
    -foreclosure moratorium
    -federal refinancing/modification programs.
    -changed accounting rules allowing banks to hide losses, allowing them to continue lending (when they should be shut down)
    -Federal guarantees on bank debt
    etc etc etc.
    I’ve said this before as well: don’t fight the fed. I’ll wait until the other Foreign central banks and sovereign wealth funds fight the Fed, and then I’ll bet against the Fed. But as far as I can tell they are all still in an unholy alliance together.
    I am very willing to be shown otherwise, but we have thus far solved none of our major structural problems in our country (banks still all insolvent/zombie, massive indebtedness of our populace, declining national income, increasing federal debt, etc etc). but the other countries haven’t shown that they have the ability/knowledge/willingness to hit us when we’re down, so we’re all locked in a death embrace.
    how long? who can say. could be years

  33. Posted by anon

    All, don’t waste your time on anonn today. He’s obviously in a bitchy mood and going to throw one strawman and red herring after another at you.
    Anonn, here is the point. Yes, you are right that a tiny fraction of the places that are in some part of the default or foreclosure process are on the MLS. In fact the number is growing. They are identified as short sale or REO or whatever. But the vast majority of places that are in the process of being lost to the banks are not on the MLS. Thus, EBGuy’s stats, imperfect though they may be, on the ever-growing pipeline of foreclosures is overshadowing anything re active MLS listings. Perfectly relevant point to this thread.

  34. Posted by anonn

    “A tiny fraction” ? So you say. Thosw of us who look at the MLS constantly know better.
    I wonder why you don’t ask EBGuy to deduct the — sorry, not tiny amount — of foreclosure pipeline properties that his imprecise or non existant, even admittedly thanks to Yahoo, duplicated, numbers speak to?
    Too much. This chart shows falling inventory. You want to believe the guy who says, “Wait a minute. Something is happening here. Two weeks, 16 more. I haven’t correlated which are reflected in the inventory or not. But despite this chart, pent up inventory is increasing drastically” — as if banks don’t ul;timately try to sell properties they’re saddled with.
    LOL. “Waste your time.” Indeed, the opposite is true, of me. This site is at a nadir. Too many knowledgeable posters flew the coop, and it’s because of negative nothings without names, like you, anon. Too many of you on this site simply don’t know what on earth you’re saying. “Strawman” indeed. “red herring” hardly. I spoke to the heart of the matter. The chart atop the thread. It is you who wants to throw your lot in with the unverifiable.

  35. Posted by anonn

    Better yet, deduct the properties that are in the MLS + the properties that get taken out of NOD or tax default because people managed to get a job or whatever reason.
    The willingness with which this crowd, usually very much like “SHOW ME THE NUMBERS OR ELSE I DON’T BELIEVE YOU.” The willingness of this crowd to bend over to grasp this unverifiable straw is comical and of course hypocritical (as usual.)

  36. Posted by diemos

    The overlap between the MLS and NOTS,NODS and REOs is a red herring.
    The salient point is that the number of distressed properties is continueing to rise.

  37. Posted by Trip

    ex SF-er, excellent points, as usual.
    I too am somewhat surprised at this graph. As I’ve oft-noted in recent months, one phenomenon that explains much of it is the boom in very low end properties almost certainly driven by the market-juicing factors ex SF-er enumerates. Recall that this graph is not the entire MLS but excludes those properties under contract (even contingent). Redfin shows 473 places on the MLS at $500k or less and 160 (34%) of those in contract. By contrast, there are 238 places at $1.5M or more on the MLS and only 22 (9%) in contract. So, basically, the low-end of the market is doing much better than last year, and the higher-end is faring far worse. This is consistent with the point noted all over the place that the crash hit the low end first and is now filtering up to the higher-end, largely because of the differences in loan products used at the two poles.
    Note also that sales are down something like 20% this year in SF. So even if inventory is flat, there is substantial downward price pressure due to lack of demand, except at the very low end. SF is all but unique in California in continuing to show YOY sales declines. We continue to run 12-18 months behind the parts of the state that got slammed hardest first. The inventory trends are interesting and indicate some slowing in the declines at the low-end. But not the higher-end, where the worst is yet to come.

  38. Posted by diemos

    “FWIW, and because intellectual honesty requires it, let me confess that the relative strength of the SF housing market has surprised me.”
    Second.

  39. Posted by diemos

    “So long as the creditors will supply our country with cheap debt we will continue to try to reflate the housing bubble (the stock and gold and commodity reflations are already well underway)”
    Their willingness deflate their currency to defend their exporters is truly astounding. Don’t they know they would be better off by handing money to their own peasants to buy stuff from their factories instead of us?
    “I’m watching the dollar (every day is a new all time low), commodities, and Treasury rates as my tea leaves for how long this reflation can go on. when we see signs of Treasury stress then we know the game is over. unfortunately that won’t give us a lot of time to invest/trade on that information.”
    When it finally hits it will come not with a whimper but with a bang. Currency crises hit fast.

  40. Posted by RenterAgain

    So, what’s a not-exactly-poor renter supposed to do? I’m determined not to buy while interest rates are this low, but people are still telling me it’s a great time to buy. (The chorus of “it’s a great time to buy” only ceased from Oct–Dec 08. Argh.)
    ex-SFer and diemos, any thoughts for big savers on what to do with the down payment money? And EBGuy, please don’t stop posting your updates on NODs etc, I appreciate you doing the research.

  41. Posted by diemos

    Me? I’ve decided that it’s time to look seriously at foreclosures in Livermore. Prepay those housing costs, hopefully by buying something that’s less than 1x income.
    Then I can start doing some investing in alternative energy, i.e. some solar panels and solar thermal heating retrofits.
    My expectation is that the weakening of the dollar will continue to be felt as rising commodity prices that will create a drag on the economy and will hit leveraged asset prices like housing.

  42. Posted by EBGuy

    For some perspective, approximately four months ago, homes in some state of foreclosure (NODs, NOTS, bank owned) stood at 1297. We’re now at 1603.

  43. Posted by sleepiguy

    I normally don’t participate in these discussions, being so financially unsophisticated and all, but based on the Yahoo/RealtyTrac data it looks like 50% of the 1600 or so foreclosures/NODs etc are located in District 10 based on the # of foreclosures in D10 zip codes (about 780). Won’t it be a bit easier to absorb that inventory because, as we’ve seen in the East Bay, the hardest hit areas are seeing a huge jump in sales numbers, just at severely discounted prices. Right now, 57% of listed SFHs in D7 are in some form of contract (of 264 houses on the mls, 151 are in contract). The median asking price is about 500k. It also looks like the median balance owed is also about 500k based on the yahoo data. I just think that there’s something of a bottom in the southern areas thanks to the aforementioned gov’t intervention and that SF just isn’t going to see huge swells in inventory provided that D10 continues to contain the majority of foreclosures. That of course doesn’t mean that the 1.5 million and up homes won’t have continued downward pressure applied as foreclosures increase in the rest of San Francisco (which they will).

  44. Posted by ex SF-er

    ex-SFer and diemos, any thoughts for big savers on what to do with the down payment money?
    Unfortunately, no. These are extremely dangerous times for savers, and the winds change too rapidly. This is often the case with severe financial dislocations.
    it sounds like you already have your house in order, so you’ve already done the lions share of what needs to be done.
    My most important advise to people has been to avoid adding new debt, build up an emergency fund/safety fund, and invest only in what you know REALLY well. You’ve already done that. You can also consider diversifying your investments, although that doesn’t work as well as it used to (most things are becoming positively correlated over time).
    The way that I’m investing right now takes a LOT of time and research (one of the reasons I haven’t been posting as much of late).
    2008 was the easiest investment year of all time for anybody who didn’t drink the kool-aide. I never would have believed how easy it was. Thus, it was easy to tell people to sell the stock market, go long Treasuries, short the various markets (esp financials and RE) like crazy, and go long commodities.
    2009 is much more difficult. In general the play has been to go long anything that was beaten down in 2008 no matter how dumb that trade seems or how bad the fundamentals, or go long anything with government guarantees. (so long commodities, financials, stock market, foreign markets, etc).
    but that play seems to be about to fizzle IMO. timing the market is near impossible. I don’t recommend it. My guess is that we’ll see problems as earnings don’t live up to expectations in the next 2-3 quarters, and as the bill for the various bailouts runs higher and higher.
    thus I’m all in cash, cash equivalents, precious metals and oil right now. and that will probably change quickly depending on what i see happening.
    secular bear markets are VERY difficult to invest in because they can whipsaw so violently. Longs get crushed, shorts get crushed, almost all market timers get crushed, and only a few lucky do well. (and of course the insiders and the connected).
    good luck to you. and remember: perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps the enthusiasm spread by the green shoots campaign will hold, and it will lead to more job formation which will lead to improvement in our underlying structural economy, and we can earn our way out of this over the next few decades, escaping another massive retrenchment. I’m not optimistic about this, but it can definitely happen. (that’s what happened in 2003-2007 as example… we just blew a housing/credit bubble to escape the 2000 recession).

  45. Posted by mac

    “ex-SFer and diemos, any thoughts for big savers on what to do with the down payment money?”
    I think propably RenterAgain is planning to keep it in cash and cash-equivalents since I assume its still down-payment money for whenever he jumps into the housing market.
    ex SF-er, what “cash equivalents” do you use?

  46. Posted by anonn

    For some perspective, approximately four months ago, homes in some state of foreclosure (NODs, NOTS, bank owned) stood at 1297. We’re now at 1603.
    What perspective is gained from that? Around 570 are added every four months? How many of those are absorbed? How many are in listed inventory? How many were actually foreclosed?

  47. Posted by diemos

    “What perspective is gained from that?” That the number of distressed properties has increased.
    “Around 570 are added every four months?” Apparently.
    “How many of those are absorbed?” 570 fewer than were added.
    “How many are in listed inventory?” Who cares?
    “How many were actually foreclosed?” Who cares?

  48. Posted by anonn

    Or, you could say that the number only increased by 306 in the past four months. So looking back at a much higher 1297 number four months ago, the rate of absorption has increased, and the rate with which properties are falling into a foreclosure cycle has greatly diminished. The exact opposite point EBGuy is trying to make.
    “How many are in listed inventory” ? Important.
    “How many were actually foreclosed” ? Important.
    Really, “who cares”? Who cares about how these foreclosure properties fit into the trackable market?
    Well, OK. Why should YOU care indeed? I’ve asked you that many times. Now run along and buy an imaginary solar property in Pleasanton.

  49. Posted by Trip

    Yes, a growing SF foreclosure pipeline, that has continued to swell during the peak sales months and massive govt injections of funds, is not relevant at all to a thread specifically focused on sales inventory and a site generally focused on SF real estate trends.

  50. Posted by Rincon Hill Billy

    I called it…again!
    Now…what do I get for it….?

  51. Posted by anonn

    Yeah Trip. I can talk to you civilly if you read the earlier dialog. But let’s start here. How about an increase of only 306, from 1297, over the past four months, months that have seen the removal of moratoriums? Wouldn’t that speak to the opposite effect? (I don’t really want to belabor that. I simply find a blanket “306 increase, wow, pent up inventory is skyrocketing” not credible.)
    And Trip, why is it OK not to track “Pent up inventory” ? Why is it OK to blindly assume that none of it is in the MLS? That all of it goes to some market?
    Please. I’m not the one you should be using your small sardonic skillset on.

  52. Posted by Trip

    Well, now I get your point. You don’t think an almost 25% increase (from 1297 to 1603) in the foreclosure pipeline in just four months reveals anything material notwithstanding the fact that foreclosure action has been slowed during this period because of HAMP. I’m with EBGuy on this one in that I read that as a very significant trend, particularly given the fact that SF sees only about 400 total resale sales a month. I guess we can just agree to disagree on our interpretation of it.
    Again, for the record, I am surprised that the active listings are not a few hundred higher than this. As I noted above, it appears that it is largely due to continuing bustle at the very low end of the market.

  53. Posted by REpornaddict

    RHB,
    I dont remember you forecasting the line would fall below 06 or 07 levels, but fair play if you did (and before, say, a month ago!).
    As for what you get, how about the Hank Plante forecaster of the year award 😉

  54. Posted by anonn

    You don’t think an almost 25% increase (from 1297 to 1603) in the foreclosure pipeline in just four months reveals anything material notwithstanding the fact that foreclosure action has been slowed during this period because of HAMP.
    No. This was the very period in which the early the foreclosure moratoriums enacted earlier in the year, or late 2008 ceased.
    And again, anybody merely taking a moment to glance at the MLS on any given day will see numerous bank owned or REO or short sale properties. They are not part of the pent up supply. They are in the supply. The supply that has been shrinking.

  55. Posted by EBGuy

    anonn, First off, apologies for jumping in so soon on this thread. It’s not often we get a thread that could be considered “bullish” (low listed inventory?!). But really, I did wait 40 minutes for something to develop, and nothing else got posted so I put up my data.
    I did a quick check on a small sample (and managed to shock even myself). Glen Park has 14 homes in some state of foreclosure (NODs, NOTS, bank owned) and 21 homes currently for sale. There is NO overlap in the data sets. Even I didn’t expect that…
    In “basket case” areas like the Excelsior, properties in some state of foreclosure (108 rough count) greatly outnumber homes for sale (27). So, at most, you could have an overlap of 27 properties.

  56. Posted by steve

    “bank-owned not-MLS-listed in prime areas” interests me, but, unfortunately, those aren’t the stats EBGuy has been keeping.
    “LTV ration > 100% in prime areas” also interests me, but, unfortunately, I know of no public source for that information.

  57. Posted by RenterAgain

    Thanks, ex-SFer. Given my lack of investment expertise, I think keeping my head down and keeping non-retirement savings in Money Markets and CDs will have to do for now.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *