Inventory of Active listed single-family homes, condos, and TICs in San Francisco climbed 11% over the past two weeks versus an average of 5% for the same two weeks over the past four years.
Current inventory levels are down 17% on a year-over-year basis but up 12% versus the average of the past four years (up 23% if you exclude 2009) and up 48% as compared to 2006. Inventory of single-family homes in San Francisco is down 16% on a year-over-year basis but up 8% versus 2007 (we don’t have the breakdown for 2006).
28% of active listings in San Francisco have undergone at least one price reduction with the percentage of active listings that are either already bank owned (60) or seeking a short sale (117) falling one point to 13% over the past two weeks.
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: 3/01/10 [SocketSite.com]
∙ Will Pent-Up Demand Outstrip Pent-Up Supply? [SocketSite]
Any bets on whether we will hit the green line?
2010 is the new 2008.
When the line converges to the green one, that is when we hit bottom. Once that happens, buy, buy, buy – like a Walmart sale on Black Friday. You’ve been officially put on notice.
Inventory of single-family homes in San Francisco is down 16% on a year-over-year basis but up 8% versus 2007 (we don’t have the breakdown for 2006).
Only 8% up vs 2007? With total inventory up over 50% vs 2007, how much more is condo/TIC inventory now vs 07??
Two responses:
“Holy logarithm, Batman!”
“I cainna hold her na more, Captain Kirk, she’s ganna blow!”
“Dammit, Scotty, there’s too many houses and hardly any suckers; we’re spinning out of control!”
“I cainna hold her na more, Captain, she’s ganna blow!”
The old TV show paraphrase: comedic pyrite for the funny-challenged.
Treeman, re: “When the line converges to the green one, that is when we hit bottom.”
Why is that? I profess, the post with this graphic is the one I usually skip on SS, so maybe the answer’s obvious.
With so much empty blue space at the top & bottom of the chart, could you change the scale, fill that empty space with the graphed lines, and more clearly see the separation of years? …just a thought.
“Only 8% up vs 2007? With total inventory up over 50% vs 2007, how much more is condo/TIC inventory now vs 07??”
Yeah, that’s the interesting part of this.. Would be interesting to due the same chart but on condo/tic vs. single family.
Sounds like SFH is the new RealSF.
With so much empty blue space at the top & bottom of the chart, could you change the scale, fill that empty space with the graphed lines, and more clearly see the separation of years? …just a thought.
Tbe way the chart is currently presented is actually quite easy to understand in absolute terms, because the bottom of the graph represents zero.
If the scale were adjusted to better fit the inventory values, then it would be difficult to tell at a glance, for example, that October highs are usually around double of end of year lows.
“Sounds like SFH is the new RealSF.”
No, but it is interesting. We hear a lot of really bad stories about condos (40%+ declines, people walking out, etc). So it would be interesting to see the trending without having SFH mixed in.
In both situations, you have those at the top of the pyramid pretending the base is not needed…
Focus on a smaller subset of data and you will just be caught off guard by rapid, sudden changes.
I don’t think separating different types of housing is making the data subset too small.. Now if you said only condos in D5 with more than 2 bedrooms and 2 baths, then maybe.. But all condos?
People have been talking about how many more condos were built during the runup than SFRs since word one.
Enid-
It’s an inside joke. Check out some of the old Case Shiller posts. There was some dude that for months claimed that the convergence of the lines would equate to bottom. It was never grounded in anything and was just something that poster liekd to proclaim.
My statement, likewise, is not grounded in any sort of reality. The 2 lines intersecting would represent nothing but a lot of inventory.
Hmmmm, appears to be a pregnant woman’s torso (breasts on right side of chart). Must mean it’s time to buy!
“The US housing market will face another retreat while mortgage-backed securities and Treasurys are likely to go through a “material” correction, Meredith Whitney, CEO of Meredith Whitney Advisory Group, told CNBC Tuesday.”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/35887306
We will most likely see a surge in home purchases in the next couple of months. The tax rebate is due to expire.
It will be interesting to see if Congress will pass another tax rebate.
Pent up housing supply continues to remain near all time highs. Currently, 1754 homes are in some state of foreclosure (NODs, NOTS, bank owned) in Ess Eff. Two weeks ago we were at 1755. Standard disclosure about noise in the data, you know the drill.
I will never understand why you have no interest in parsing NODs from NOTs and bank owned, and instead lump them all together. Everyone knows that any number of things can happen during the NOD stage. This is the last time I’ll say anything. You’re a broken record and so am I, but it’s faulty, and you know it.
“It will be interesting to see if Congress will pass another tax rebate.”
Not. Gonna. Happen. There is no political will for it.
“Everyone knows that any number of things can happen during the NOD stage.”
True, but it’s an indicator. Not a whole lot of NODs in 2005.
Calling NODs “pent up housing supply” is a big stretch, tho. Everybody knows a lot of them were strategic defaults for HAMP mods. Everybody knows many people have taken lesser paying jobs in order to keep roofs over their heads. Everybody knows the average mortgagee, by far, does not go the walk away route, but rather still tries to hold onto their property come hecka or highwater. Even just shedding light on what percentage of NODs actually becomes NOTs would be nice, if he’s gonna go the route he’s chosen.
I agree that it would be very interesting to track conversion of NOD’s to NOT’s locally. I know there has been significant press recently about the increased likelyhood of owners to walk away when losses reach a threshold of, say, 25%. And also that as foreclosures have become more commonplace in America, and “regular folks” have watched institutions walk away from bad investments, that “jingle mail” is becoming much more socially acceptable than it was previously. However, I DON’T know if we’ve also seen that trend in San Francisco, and it would be interesting to know if it’s been increasing over time.
That said, I do think the NOD/NOT/Bank Owned metric is an interesting if incomplete indicator, and I thank Ebayguy for tracking it.
Twenty five percent underwater was the litmus that the Chronicle reported some lenders, analysts and I believe consumers saying in last week’s article. That said, people should consider that these are the exceptions to the rule. Most people still want to hold onto their property. And NODs, as NODs, are not in any sort of supply just because a NOD showed up in the mail. So what percentage of people have chosen to go short sale? What percentage of people let it ride out? What percentage of people walk away? What percentage of people solve an income problem? What percentage of people strategically defaulted in order to get a loan mod? But really. NOD + NOT + REO = X? come on.
“Everybody knows a lot of them were strategic defaults for HAMP mods.”
Is there anything to this besides anecdotal assertions? After all, there isn’t a guarantee that the strategery will work.
Yes, there is, and it has been shared repeatedly. NODs can make the bank put the file in a more time sensitive standing. Numerous links to BBSs with consumers sharing experiences, treasury reports, and articles have been shared on the subject.
I’m not buying it. I don’t think anything has been shared here that suggests that’s true. In fact, I believe you yourself would suggest that people in SF wouldn’t be in the position to qualify for HAMP in the first place, since people in SF are so prudent with their money and wouldn’t be above 31% of gross income on their mortgage payments + property tax and insurance. In addition, as mentioned above, people tend to need to be severely underwater for strategic defaults. If you provide hard data fine, but random articles in the Chron where they interview one guy in Antioch who did don’t count.
“Guy out in Antioch” is not how I responded. But I take it you don’t disagree with my other points. Consider also that we’ve all seen NOTs rescued 11th hour many times.
“But I take it you don’t disagree with my other points.”
I don’t think you made any other points — you’re just making noise. Banks don’t usually issue a NOD until 90 days, so we’re already talking 3 missed payments here. What percentage of people recover from 3 missed payments?
Provide better data if you have it, but don’t shoot the messenger. Comparing the relative level of NODs/NOTSs that we’ve seen over time is a helpful stat.
So NOD is not necessarily part of any “supply,” for the reasons I gave, is not a point?
Well, you’d need to say why NOD is supply, then.
I looked at some things for clients today and was really surprised at the lack of certain inventory. There are precisely two condos in the Marina over 1000 sq ft for sale. There are exactly five houses under 900K in all areas 5 with parking for sale. You think those two types are sought after?