Three months shy of a five year hold, the apples to apples sale of 130 Newman closed escrow on 1/5/10 with a reported contract price of $850,000. Call it 5.6 percent under its April 2005 purchase price of $901,000 for the remodeled single-family Bernal Heights home (not to be confused with a 5.6 percent drop from “peak“).
∙ Newman! [SocketSite]
∙ Another Market Metric And Food For Thought At The End Of The Year [SocketSite]
I think this site has officially Jumped the Snark. I no longer get the uber-witty inside jokes. Who exactly is the postman? What do mailmen and apples have to do with one another?
Oh, wait… Post-man. A blog-post-man? A man-who-posts-snarky-titles-on-real-estate-blogs is delivering another “apple” to the jaded masses? Oh, forget it… I can’t keep up.
[Editor’s Note: Not quite. And heaven forbid you’re forced to think a bit with respect to a headline. But just for you “Dave,” we’ve tried to make it a little easier.]
It’s on Newman Street. Remember Newman on Seinfeld?
Seinfeld reference. I recommend more TV.
So far outside of the cultural zeitgeist that he doesn’t get a Jerry vs. Newman reference? That alone is enough for me to discount a person’s thoughts on any other topic (real estate included, of course).
Yeah, nothing says zeitgeist like a “Seinfeld” reference. Talk about now. LOL. Cut that poster some slack. Seinfeld is ancient history.
Why shouldn’t 901K be confused with peak? How much higher could you really have seen this one going for? This isn’t a ~1M Bernal house, it’s two blocks south of Cortland and 1233 sq ft. So it still got ~700 a foot. Stack 700 a foot up against your notion of “peak” for Bernal for a moment. It very much is a peak level sale. That’s the problem with “peak.” There were “peak” type sales interspersed all along the way during the last market.
Or, rather that’s the problem with “peak” being thought of as a frozen moment in time. It’s not like there were 10 of these very houses on the market at once. We had four plus years of competititive buyers vying for the occasional better house that came along.
Housing prices in Bernal and SF generally clearly went up after April 2005. A lot. The ed.’s point that “peak” was thus higher than the 901k paid in April 2005 is 100% valid. Anonn can throw out all sorts of variations of “hey, he overpaid, it happens” but the bottom line is that this apple shows a sale at 5.6% below April 2005, which means a substantially farther drop from peak. It is true that we can debate how much that drop from peak is because the 2005 sale was earlier than and below the peak of the bubble.
No, I made a specific point about location and dollars per foot. You are more than welcome to go back and compare ~700 (actually ~730 in this case, I was being generous) a foot versus whatever the Paragon study called “peak” for Bernal.
Your rote “socketspeak” dismissals of reasoned points are tiresome, anonrobot.
The peak was when your latestneighbor bought.
It’s not fixed moment in time like the equinox or the second coming.
Home prices in SF did go up after 2005, but the rate of increase slowed. From here:
http://www.rereport.com/sf/ron/index_a.html
the median SFR price increased from $850k in 2005 to $900k for the peak year of 2007, before going down to $830k in 2008.
So it’s possible that this house may have sold for about $950k at some hypothetical peak moment. Prices may be down a little more than 10% from the very peak (13% according to Paragon), but still prices have held up pretty well so far in Bernal.
What anonn is saying is a reasonable approximation of the truth.
For what it’s worth, Zillow has this area only up about 8% from 2005 to the peak. So that makes this look to be about a 14% fall from peak. Zillow also shows 94110 down about 15-20% from peak pricing, more or less consistent with this particular home.
The “zestimate” for this home in particular has a much higher run up to the peak, but I would tend to discount that. The 94110 is probably a better reflection of the area.
The light green line in the graph is 94110:
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/charts/15163544_zpid,10years_chartDuration/
No doubt, this seller was “motivated” to bail out of their loan before the 5 year mark. They bought just after things started heating up, but bailed out while the government was still subsidizing real estate, so they more or less saved the shirts off their backs. I’m sure it didn’t end the way they thought it would in 2005 (“Offers Tuesday”) but I’m sure they’ll manage.
Yet another “local” vs “global” fight.
Yes, overall the peak in “Real” SF was somewhere around early 2008.
Yes, how a property will sell depends on local elements as well as the number/nature of potential buyers when your house is on the market.
It’s still a better buy today than 5 years ago. Someone should do the math on how much paper or actual wealth has been destroyed. That’s probably north of 100K in 5 years plus the inflated mortgage payments.
Let’s at least acknowledge those, e.g. “45 yo hipster,” who correctly called that this would sell quickly at the listed price.
Zillow, ZIP code valuations, shot in the dark surmising of seller’s rationale?
Thanks for the vote of confidence, I guess.
But this house is two blocks south of Cortland, 1233 feet, and it went for 901K before. Let the knowers know.
Needed to be at least $998K to beat inflation (usinflationcalculator.com only allows calculation up to 2009 thus far). That’s a much bigger real loss. The long slow grind continues…
I’ve been looking at SFH in Bernal and went to this open house. I have to say I’m shocked it sold for that price. It had nice fixtures – but the location is not as good as other properties I’ve seen in the same price point which were both bigger and nicer. The more I look at Bernal properties the less the selling prices make any sense to me.
Another dataset that is pretty consistent with the numbers tipster cites:
http://blackstone-sanfrancisco.com/198.html
Shows 2009 D9 SFR median prices down 7% from 2005 (pretty close to this sale) and down a bit over 16% from the 2007 peak. Medians have limitations, but we have a number of measures and methodologies that all result in some pretty consistent results.
Bottom line is that the 2005 buyer took a bath financially, but, as tipster notes, he actually got out relatively OK by getting out now, and certainly did a lot “less bad” than a 2007 buyer of a similar place.
certainly did a lot “less bad” than a 2007 buyer of a similar place
No, you can’t say that with certainty.
What do you know of Bernal Heights, anon?
Thanks for reminding me of my call on this prop sftim!
I have been saying since end of 08 that sfh’s and condos/tics in d10 have generally fallen 8-15% from peaks. So yes, if you purchased retail in 05-07, of course you will have a sizeable loss (all costs included). But if you purchased projects that needed serious development to obtain highest and best use (as I did) than you stand a good chance of still being ahead today. And as investments that are held long term, there is opportunity for future appreciation. I know that’s a debatable topic, but I think 10+ years from now SF RE will be alot more expensive, for the usual reasons: future inflation, global economic growth, increasing # of millionaires, superstar city effect, etc. And yes, I do think all these trends will eventually supercede all the negative trends we have been witnessing in the last 2-3 years. Guess I’m a long term optimist.
Anon, those numbers are not medians. They are averages.
Pretty worthless, basically.
This shows what it shows, a 5.6% drop from 2005. Using medians/averages/Zillow/Paragon reports to project how much from peak is basically guesswork.
A small minority of houses were bought at peak, yet every apple is now projected to show a bigger loss from this mythical Holy Grail.
Funnily enouugh, if back in say 07 (early 08?) someone claimed that prices were up 8-10% from 2005 they would have been laughed out of town by the same people now claiming that such increases took place!!
Yes, you’re right REpornaddict. Blackstone posts averages. And yet the numbers are consistent with other measures. Show us anything you might have that indicates otherwise.
As to what anyone may have said in 2007, hindsight truly is 20-20, no? We now can see with concrete numbers that prices did, in fact, rise between 2005 and 2007. And now we can see that they have fallen in Bernal to below April 2005 prices.
“Funnily enouugh, if back in say 07 (early 08?) someone claimed that prices were up 8-10% from 2005 they would have been laughed out of town by the same people now claiming that such increases took place!!”
I don’t know who these mythical people are, but when you find them, please let me know. *sigh*
SFRenegard..are you beine serious?
Look at any discussion of, say dataquick medians from that period.
They generaly show prices slightly up from 06 (and 05) but that increase was always put down to mix affecting the numbers.
certainly the view then was not that prices had risen 10% or so from 05!
Here’s one example thread, sure there’s many more!
https://socketsite.com/archives/2007/11/san_franciscos_sales_volume_up_and_down_in_october.html
It seems like we’re talking about different things here. I don’t see any claims about Bernal or D9 in that thread.
no you’re right – thread not about d9.
But its not just d9 apples where people try to project 05 sales into some 07/08 peak.
Anyway some of the methods used to project this sale to peak aren’t d9 specific either eg Dan’s medians above.
those that are d9 specific are either averages(!) or from Zillow(!!).
Most of the districts in that average price link had increases of 10% or more from 05 to 07 – not just d9. It wasn’t the opinion of m that prices has risen by that much – that was generally believed to be caused by mix.
My basic point still stands – that this shows a 5.6% drop from 05 yet people are trying all sorts of methods to show thats 15%+ from peak none of which are really reliable – citywide medians, averages, Zillow…
From socketsite’s link above:
“Decline from an estimated peak in the first half of 2008: Bernal Heights SFR -13% (+2%)”
That seems pretty specific.
Got it. Prices aren’t falling. They just never rose. Good news for all those 2007 peak-of-the-bubble buyers.
I don’t really see the problem with an estimate of peak or an estimate of a fall from peak. Certainly, data is subject to things like mix and sample sizes and things like that, but I’ve never seen anyone make a concrete criticism of the Paragon data other than trying to cast doubt in vague generalities. I like data and I like numbers and I realize that not all the numbers are perfect and that it’s hard to compare apples to apples and that it’s hard to account for intangible factors in a clear and consistent way. That doesn’t mean we can’t make a damn good estimate based on the data like we do in every other aspect of life.
Some people here do see problems with a little bit of fuzziness because they hate numbers and want to keep people in the dark so they can spin things instead. If they don’t want to use real data and instead speak in vague meaningless generalities, that’s their problem, but I can certainly understand why LMRiM used to say things like this:
Well, I’m glad we got that settled.
The seller overpaid in 2007, and the buyer underpaid in 2009.
Therefore, prices in NV have hardly moved at all, a sure sign of strength.
Posted by: LMRiM at August 6, 2009 12:24 PM
https://socketsite.com/archives/2009/08/noe_valley_renovation_sells_for_a_penny_over_opening_bi.html
“Hate numbers.” “Got it prices aren’t falling, they just never rose.” “[Insert snide comment here.]”
Whatever. Go steal another new writing style from rottentomatoes.com or something.
Hate numbers? No. Love ’em. If they’re applicable, that is.
First, the 2005 sale isn’t in the MLS.
But the number of 2 br 1 ba’s that sold for 900K or more 9A, in the MLS, ever? Eleven.
Guess how many of those were in 2005? Six, including the four highest. Only two were south of Cortland, both 900K.
The 2005 purchase was a peak-type sale, period. Sorry about the Paragon study being so well regarded by the editor of this website. Not my fault.
anonn, what about the other 5? What about 2/2s? We need more numbers. It seems hardly relevant that the sale isn’t in MLS.
Those stats (anonn at 2:58pm)don’t prove what you are asserting them to prove.
If this place was one of the nicest homes in D9A, then just because few homes sold for 900K doesn’t mean that prices didn’t rise, it just means that few homes sold were as nice as this. It’s a very scattershot hood, with lots of dilapidated homes. Your stats just mean there were few homes in that price range in that hood. Doesn’t mean 2005 was the peak.
http://www.mapjack.com/?yzsmWPK6bFcD
What use is a peak price threshold floating in the ether if is not applicable to a house? With buyers willing to go there? Or any combination thereof?
None of you who are criticizing are even willing to parse what being south of Cortland means in 9A. So I’m not going to spend any more time on it.
What do 2/2s have to do with this house? I’m sure they commanded more. I didn’t treat the fact that the sale wasn’t in the MLS as relevant. I merely mentioned it.
Now it’s crystal clear. It just so happens, conveniently, that the peak for this particular segment of the market hit in 2005, even though the entire rest of the market saw two more years of price increases.
If you slice the market so finely, you can argue anything you want. And it is invalid.
It didn’t just so happen. My gut was where I came from with the first call. So I went back and looked at this type of property, ever, in the area. The sales data backed up what I had to say. Forget about year. 900 has been, and is, a significant threshhold for 2/1s in Bernal. I don’t care if you don’t wish to understand that. The sales are there.
“Yes, how a property will sell depends on local elements as well as the number/nature of potential buyers when your house is on the market.”
And the current level of government subsidy, which is still currently the largest in history.
I find a suggestion of price thresholds a little odd. Were you also making this price threshold argument between, let’s say, 2003-2006? Or is this just post-hoc justification?
Yeah. I never would have put a Bernal 2/1 on the south slope at 900K, if that’s what you’re asking.
I’m not sure whether you’re just the anon guy who pans everything or not, but I’ll answer you anyway. Another threshhold I’ve repeatedly mentioned is Noe’s 3M factor. Few properties ever got there. The super nice larger Bernal house is a third one I’m aware of repeating here. The amount of times a Bernal house has sold above 1.5M is smaller than people think.
The zillow aggregate numbers for 94110 agree with your analysis. Between the end of the runup in early 05 and the decline in 08 that zip was mostly flat with no sign of the 10% runup that a zip like 94114 had in that period.
Interesting info Anonn, I have noticed some of what you are saying as well. Someone paid something like 700K for a large one bedroom TIC in Noe in 2005 that I was following (it did have nice southern yard access and a good feel, roughly 800-900sqft). Someone wanted that place bad and went 150K over asking and got it. They have not tried to sell it, but if they did would take a loss. My guess is this TIC would not have sold for more in 2006 or 2007…
Ha, this is classic fluj balderdash. How many times has he mocked and excoriated those who even suggested in 2007 that the market had peaked earlier? Now is he is insisting that is exactly what happened! And, you see, the market has only fallen a little bit since that peak we hit 5 years ago. Once again, at least he is consistent in his never-ending dissembling.
You’re funny. Theres’s a difference between talking about “the market” and an individual property. Notice my language. “Peak type sale” is what I said.
You don’t get to be right for being wrong, OK? I took abuse all through 2007 from the likes of you.
Stop clamoring to dismiss all the time, and take some notes. Unless you’re never going to do anything. In which case, go away.
Prices for Summer 2005, Summer 2006, Summer 2007 and Summer 2008 were all pretty close for most neighborhoods in San Francisco, closer than the error bar in our measurement. Most of the better neighborhoods tended to peak later, complicating the picture.
I really don’t think you can point to any one moment and call it The Peak, which is why I guess people like to have these endless holy wars about it.
“‘Peak type sale’ is what I said.”
Again very convenient. Any time an “apple” sale goes against your disproven theory of the market (down maybe 5-10% at most), you can just claim that the prior sale was a “peak type sale” to pretend that the buyer paid above market or that the market itself was higher than it actually was.
And you also make the same claim as to recent sales that are not “apples” to argue that . . . see, the market has not fallen because “peak type” sale prices are still being paid.
Pure sophistry. Again, at least you are consistent!
You’re pretty much only saying, “I don’t like you” to me. The sales data backs up what I said very clearly. Talk about consistent. All I need to do is say five things in a thread and along you’ll trot with your own bitter little brand of anonymous nothingness.
Huh? Not at all. I’m just calling B.S. where I see it. But nice non sequitur.
Yeah, well, I looked at all the 900K and up 2/1 sales ever in the area. I relayed the information. Over half of them were in 2005. The top four were in 2005.
So, explain how I’m not correct. Explain how you can argue with any conviction that this house would have sold for 900K * X(in 2007-2008). Evidence does not exist. Nobody is saying the market hasn’t fallen. Clearly, it sold for 850 on the fifth. It sold for 900 before. That’s well within the 5 to 10 that I have been talking about. But you want to say this is somehow an example of the market falling 13 %. That’s what you’re trying to say here. Right? Is there another point?
Put your e-thesaurus down and say something once in a while. People like you don’t realize how transparent you are. Sophistry, non sequitir, balderdash, straw man …. that’s all a bunch of nothing. It’s so obvious. Now, for me it is back to Lebron James going for 60.
“I looked at all the 900K and up 2/1 sales ever in the area.”
Exactly. Why didn’t you limit it to 2/1 sales on Newman? Hey, if you’re going to slice the market so thin to try to make your point, may as well go whole hog.
2/1’s do not exist in a vacuum. They are just a part of the larger market, which went up in price between 2005 and 2007. “Within the 5 to 10 that I have been talking about.” What a joke.
Someone find both anon(n) guys a real job!
Boy, that’s a stretch. No kidding nothing exists in a vaccuum. Nor is everybody in the market going to think about paying this much for something this small. I isolated like properties for a reason, like an appraiser would.
Why do you think appraisers only compare like for like when determining value? If I hadn’t limited it to 2/1’s, the square footage figure would have been much lower than the ~730 this one displayed. Again reinforcing “peak.” (You realize the Paragon study you’ve internalized as gospel was based on dollars per foot, right?)
By the way, 153 properties were sold in 2007 in Bernal, averaging 663 a foot. So there you go. The Newman property beat the avowed peak year averages by 10 percent.