Bay Area Notices of Default (NODs) in the first quarter of 2010 fell 30.5% on a year-over-year basis, down 5.8% in San Francisco proper (from 569 to 536). NOD activity in San Francisco rose 15.3% from the fourth quarter of 2009 to the first quarter of 2010 (versus an 88.4% gain the year prior).
Actual Bay Area foreclosures in the first quarter rose 6.1% on a year-over-year basis (from 6,050 to 6,417) with Contra Costa (up 6.0% to 1,842), Alameda (up 4.2% to 1,266) and Santa Clara (down 7.6% to 1,069) leading the way with respect to volume.
First quarter recorded foreclosures in San Francisco totaled 193, up 91.1% on a year-over-year basis and up 10.9% (19 homes) from the fourth quarter 2009 versus a 10% drop from the fourth quarter in 2008 to the first quarter in 2009 (think moratoriums).
∙ California Foreclosure Activity Declines Again [DQNews]
∙ Actual San Francisco Foreclosures Down 2.8% QOQ (Up 55.4% YOY) [SocketSite]
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain; the Magnetar Trade will not affect Ess Eff.
the Federal and State governments, in combination with the Financial industry, have done a pretty good job at divorcing the link between NODs and Foreclosures thus far
the important thing IMO will be how do the various parties act/react going forward?
will there be a continuation of moratoria, covert bank bailouts, relaxed accounting to allow mark-to-fantasy accounting, etc?
Or have the banks “earned” enough off of the free money that’s been dumped into their executive bonus pool that they will be more willing to let the NOD’s go through the cycle?
will changes to HAMP (or whatever they’re calling it now) allow or encourage more foreclosures and short sales instead of the current practice of leaving people in their homes for months/years without making mortgage payments?
who can say really. this is all political in nature anyway.
my guess (only a guess, because I don’t have the President’s ear) is that they’ll let these dribble out in increasing frequency but try to keep enough off the market so that it doesn’t overly stress the market (or more importantly so it doesn’t stress the banking balance sheets)
simply the next chapter in the neverending “extend and pretend” saga.
Editor, it might be helpful, though a little work, to also chart the ratio of foreclosures to listings.
Nineteen month over month isn’t going to affect anything. Even if the 101 to 193 increase was month over month, versus year over year, I doubt it would do much.
Nineteen month over month isn’t going to affect anything.
Well it certainly left a mark in the Real SF® this past year.
approx 64 foreclosures a month (calculated from above) on 500 sales/month (Mar ’10 figure) is nothing?
vs. approx 34 (Q1 2009) on 332 sales (Mar ’09 figure)
Anyway, NODs and foreclosures are good for the market. It will help with price discovery since more inventory will be hopefully be on the market (assuming no more moratoria, which only extend and spread out the pain).
And this does not even include the short sales. Of course, you can’t just consider the added foreclosures QOQ; you have to consider the absolute number. The delta just indicates that the problem continues to worsen.
This is plainly pushing prices lower. Add to that the fact that no-down, no-doc loans are also gone, and the pool of buyers has shrunk, increasing the downward price pressure. I have no idea how long it will take to finally reach the bottom, but it will be many, many years before prices start rising again with these trends baked in.
Well it certainly left a mark in the Real SF® this past year
I don’t follow. First off, you quoted where I said “month.” You responded with “year.” Secondly, this year is up from last year in both price and volume. So can you explain what you meant?
ex-SFer has it right, IMO. Looks like banks are now starting to foreclose and assume properties at a slightly higher rate, even as notices of default decline relative to their peak. The Great Unwinding seems to be underway. Bracing.
Add to that the fact that no-down, no-doc loans are also gone
Are you serious with that?
Those things are long, long gone.
“Those things are long, long gone.”
Exactly. Hence the reduced pool of buyers, and as a result sales volumes that are far below those of the peak years.
Right. For the effects that we saw after the last market’s fallout. Evidenced, especially, by certain regions and certain sections of cities seeing more change than others. Now, moving on two plus years, we discuss a new reality.
“Now, moving on two plus years, we discuss a new reality.”
Agreed again. The new reality is that far fewer buyers can qualify for loans to buy in SF. Less demand drives prices lower.
So why did you say “add to that” is my question? That was baked in long ago. We added it already. You, like a lot of bears on here, want to talk about 2010 like it’s the fallout we started seeing for subprime in spring 2007.
So can you explain what you meant?
My bad, I was commenting on the year over year rise in foreclosures (from just over 1 a day to now over 2 per day). At the beginning of 2009, there was basically no foreclosure activity in the Real SF®. What a difference a year makes.
To foreclosure totals, yes. Meanwhile the overall SF marketplace, along with the foreclosures that happened throughout the year, is up.
“So why did you say ‘add to that’ is my question?”
I thought it was obvious, but I’ll spell it out.
The growing pool of foreclosures (plus short sales) increases the supply, which pressures prices lower. The reduced pool of buyers (which, you note, is probably permanent) reduces demand, which pressures prices lower. So both the supply and demand trends continue to push prices lower. And neither of these trends is reversing any time soon.
OK. You think talking about something absent for two market iterations has a place in this discussion. I don’t.
Prices are up YoY in San Francisco. True or false?
False, except perhaps at the extreme low end where the (expiring) buyer credit juiced sales temporarily.
So both the supply and demand trends continue to push prices lower. And neither of these trends is reversing any time soon.
I think you’re wrong on that. At least right now, activity and prices seem to be picking up. The recovery may be hampered by rising interest rates or another dip toward recession, but at the moment it’s looking like the bottom is in the rear view mirror.
I think the it’s important to consider that banks stalled for a long time on foreclosing on bad properties when the market was at rock bottom. I wouldn’t necessarily conclude from higher foreclosure numbers that it’s a sign that the market is headed for further turbulence. It may not be smooth sailing from here on out but this isn’t the data point I’d be basing too many conclusions on.
Right now foreclosed properties may be dampening the recovery, but that it doesn’t mean they’re enough to stop the recovery entirely.
Is anyone surprised by this data? Prices in SF have been in a steady decline but the rug certainly hasn’t been pulled out / the sky hasn’t fallen. Properties are still selling and comps are all over the board with peak highs, -30% peak lows and everything in between. This is the new reality and I expect that we’re going to see more of the same between now and 2012-2013. But the broad stock market and general market recovery is doing surprisingly well and there are still lots of buyers in the market looking for homes.
The sooner these foreclosures / short sales are flushed through the system the better. I’m more curious to see how those old charts from 08/09 that showed the massive backlog of resets looming over 2010-2011 are factoring into these current real-time trends. It seems as though interest rates haven’t moved that much and the resets have largely not hit as hard as many expected (myself included). Certainly gov’t aided but its clear to me that we’re not seeing the apocalypse many predicted (self-indited).
Was it smarter to buy in 2010 than 2008, yes. Is it smarter to buy in 2012 than 2010? I think if you have a 6-10 year horizon it may be negligible. But you’re certainly going to pay less in 2012 than 2010. The question is does it really matter in the long run if you’re selling in 2018. That is, do you rent for 2 more years rather than buying a home if you know you’re situation for the next 8 years. These are the questions that are hard to answer. There is a logic that supports buying now if you think inflation is going to kick in (further).
All I can say is that this is a very crazy market and it will be interested to read the history in 2020 😉
Yeah, well, real quick, SFRs in SF 1/1/10- today: 770 sales, 888,571 average sale. Same time last year? 726 sales, 730,597 avg. You think that’s the low end effecting that 150K swing? Unlikely.
Let’s pick a high end neighborhood. How about Pacific Heights and Presidio Heights, together? YTD last year — 11 sales, 4,349,318. This year, 14 sales 4,429,170.
How about middle ground? The Sunset?
Last year 68 sales, 753,847. YTD this year, 74 sales, 763,284.
I don’t know where you’re getting your information, AT. But even this bear’s lair of a website is rife with articles, charts and information showing SF is up YTD this year over the same period last year.
Yes, resorting to averages really gives accurate information . . . (although I am surprised that SFR sales this year are only slightly higher than last year in the grip of the catastrophe/freeze).
Check out the first two graphs.
http://www.altosresearch.com/paragon/latest/paragon_market_update_zip_based_cmid_55_zipd_none.html
I agree with anonn.
the SF market is up from last year.
how could it not be with how bad it was last year!?
it is “good” news because it means the worst may be behind us (at least in nominal terms).
SF went from an A market to an F market and is now at a C market. C looks great after you had an F. Not so good when you remember we were recently at A.
as eddy brings up well, the trick is to try to figure out what is in store for us. My own thoughts is that this is practically impossible to figure out due to massive governmental intervention. it’s all politics.
My guess is that nominally RE prices will stagnate for some time with a slight upward bias. In real terms they will continue to lose value for some time (many years). I think that we still have 2 more years of serious pressure though (my Dec 2011 call that I made 3 years ago still stands). But we live in a nominal world… so locking in RE valuations may not be the worst thing on Earth depending on what happens with inflation.
I certainly would never dream of spending so much money on RE in San Francisco, but on the other hand I just put $80k into my house last year, and will probably put in another $80-100k this year so I totally get why people would spend money in a down RE market.
For me, it makes sense because I view these expenditures as CONSUMPTION and not as “investment”, and I can easily afford the upgrades.
(My mortgage is now 0.5x yearly gross household income… and my monthly mortgage payment is approximately 5% of gross income and 10% of takehome income).
I’ve been in my house for some time and will likely stay for decades…
I can easily make up the money I may lose on RE so it’s no big deal.
But there’s no way in “H E double toothpicks” that I would risk millions at this point… even at my income that’s too much.
there’s taking risks… and then there’s stupidity.
as I’ve said before, you risk little by waiting. unless we turn into China the risk of RE taking off and people “missing” a strong recovery is low. Thus, I’d sit and see how things settle out.
even small nominal losses really hurt in San Francisco due to the large purchase prices and transaction costs.
OK. Believe that Paragon chart. We’ve parsed its shortcomings before. You can go ahead thinking March 2009 was better than March 2010. I’ll let others argue it with you in the future. What with your “Now that liar loans are gone we can see what’s what,” “The Mission is stuck in 2000” self.
“Believe that Paragon chart. We’ve parsed its shortcomings before.”
I don’t recall that. Shows both medians and $/sf continuing to decline. Why don’t you indulge us and parse its shortcomings again for those of who apparently missed it?
a.t heres a shortcoming for you…these are listing prices, not sale prices.
get a grip, man!
(probably down because stuff at the higher end is starting to shift again now – hence the jump in median SALE prices recently).
It doesn’t take volume, or what, precisely is for sale, into account. We’ve been over that.
You’re welcome to own up to any of your litany of recent errors followed by persistent blathering as well. Feel free at any time.
I mean sales volume? Sales?
Why didn’t you use the search engine on the site before you said anything? Why do you always just say whatever, and keep on saying it? Yesterday “Oh. Those bad, bad realtors. Look at that Prospect street manipulation. Look at anonn twisting his words.” COme to find you were totally in error. Or today, “now that liar loans are gone, add that to the mix.” Or “The Mission is the same as it was 10 years ago.” Or insert anything you write that proves to be false and then you never own up to.
You know, I was trying to be civil with you. But you had to say, “Oh sure. Resort to averages.” The MLS defaults to averages, buddy. You’re welcome, btw. Not that your backwards looking self actually cares to learn a thing.
The places that had the biggest freefalls were those where foreclosures simply dominated the market. We have not seen that here — yet.
If that happens, look out. Foreclosures at 5% of sales are a curiosity. Now they are at 10% and starting, just barely, to have an impact.
But from the post above this one, we have a one week number at 30%. That’s where Sacramento and Phoenix and all the others absolutely collapsed. Will that happen here? As ex-SFer says, it’s hard to know. One week does not a trend make, and any trend can be reversed if you throw trillions of dollars at it.
But the same way that, just before the Indonesian Tsunami happened, people thought it was fascinating that the tide absolutely, completely went out (remember – people ran out into what was the ocean), I find it fascinating that the bulls here have mentioned that the inventory tide has absolutely, completely gone out, particularly in neighborhoods that saw a lot of bubble-era sales.
Will there be a tsunami of foreclosures in those hoods? Who knows, but 30% of the listings this week are foreclosures or short sales. If that keeps up, it won’t be a promising sign for prices. But the ocean sure has been calm here for the last 6 months hasn’t it?
I find it fascinating that the bulls here have mentioned that the inventory tide has absolutely, completely gone out, particularly in neighborhoods that saw a lot of bubble-era sales
They did? Where? Oh, you mean 101 to 193? That’s the tide completely going out?
No, it’s not.
Tipster,
where are you getting that information you say isin the post above? (foreclosures 30% of sales this week).
“these are listing prices, not sale prices”
Yes, precisely. This reflects the prices at which places are being offered for sale, and they continue steadily downward. Market prices are plainly a relevant measure of market prices! Note that the SP/LP ratio was basically flat from March 2009 to February 2010 to March 2010, so there are no bidding wars jacking up sales prices over list prices. (See http://www.rereport.com/sf/index.html)
This is not the entire picture. I understand that. But if you focus solely on what sold, you miss the places that are on the market and thus disciplining prices but fail to sell at all or remain on the market. That is why median sales prices are not all that illuminating and average sale prices are worthless.
“It doesn’t take volume, or what, precisely is for sale, into account.”
And I also understand that mix is a factor with any gross market statistics, including these. Same problem with sales statistics, however. But the $/sf chart goes some distance to equalizing that, unless there is some extreme swing in the quantity of housing offered (show me something to measure that!), and $/sf also continue downward. “Apples” are also very useful on the “mix” point. But to argue that unambiguous city-wide statistics showing continuing downward listing prices is not a strong indicator of falling prices is just nonsense.
Tell ya what, let’s ignore the numbers and just buy into what the realtors tell us their “sense of the market” is — that always gives an accurate picture.
List prices? seriously?
Have a look at the graph for SFRs.
It shows a steadily rising graph for 08 and the first half of 09, then falling thereafter.
Are you suggesting that prices rose for 08 and 1/2 half 09 and then fell thereafter?
I am pretty sure exactly the opposite happened.
One thing I am sure of – you weren’t pointing to or prasing the merits of this graph when it indicated rising (list) prices.
As you know, ReP, 2009 was a very weird year. Higher end places almost completely stopped selling because there were no loans. See how the DOM for the top their doubles during that period? Not that complicated — far higher proportion of more expensive places failing to sell and thus staying on the MLS. But I understand that these marketwide stats are not perfect, particularly for short term trends. But they are good for longer term trends, and you can see where the lines flow.
Ha. Right. Let me tell you what your Paragon charts are actually depicting. Last year the people selling property had yet to get their heads fully around a change. Things were listed for peak or near peak, and not sold, or if sold, sold for way less than asking. This year they are listing for a bit less, and selling more volume.
“This year they are listing for a bit less, and selling more volume.”
Exactly my point. (although as I noted above I’m surprised that the sales volume to date is only slightly higher than last year — does not bode well).
Wrong. Last year higher end properties slowed down greatly because there wasn’t very much liquidity.
So now you are using DOM to prove your theories regarding 2009? DOM is probably the single most disproved stat there is!
what about 2008 – list prices rose pretty steadily for SFHs for most of that year. Does this mean that prices were increasing in SF during 2008?
That was not your point. Your point was that sales prices are down YTD versus last year. You pointed to a Paragon chart depicting list prices to back it up. What you’ve linked to shows has now been explained: Things were listed higher and the few that sold sold for much less. This year, things are listed for a bit less, and sold around list. So guess what happens next? You change your tune. Typical.
“This year, things are listed for a bit less, and sold around list.”
Again, exactly my point.
Uh huh. As opposed to “not sold at all, or sold way below list.”
Not your point. This year’s SF sales prices are up from first quarter last year. It’s a fact. You denied it when I asked you point blank.
Typical squirmy maneuvering. Cue “straw man” “ad hominem” and other noise tactics. Or maybe you’ll just go away and not look back. Like you have the last six times you spouted off, were proven wrong, and showed up again shouting some other baseless idea.
“This year’s SF sales prices are up from first quarter last year. It’s a fact.”
Nope. I responded with facts. Now, about some facts from you other than “because I say so”? Typical fluj-nothing. Boring. I do regret having wasted so much time with you on this.
You responded to sales numbers with listing prices. I’ll leave it to the other bears to sort your wayward backwards looking brain out right. You’ve lost my ear.
“You responded to sales numbers with listing prices.” Wrong again el-flujo.
Fluj April 21, 2010 12:17 PM: “Prices are up YoY in San Francisco. True or false?”
I responded false. Correctly so. Backed up with facts.
OK, now I’m really done. I should know better than to waste time with your nonsense.
OK. Price is down YoY. List price it is. For you. Forget about those pesky sales figures. Right? “Price” means “list price,” right?
The maddening thing about you is, you paint yourself into a corner almost every day. But you don’t care! You come back the next day saying some other b.s. Ha hahahah. OK. List price from here on out.
Got that, Socketsite? AT’s running things now.
I am right
You are wrong
Go away you’re an idiot
Rotate a few words here and there and you’ve got the perfect anonn-bot app.
No, you’re just one of those. If you weren’t, you’d know price is price. My problem is just that I need to win the argument eight times.
Come on, AT. Whatever your opinion is, listing price is not price. Please modify your statement to “The listing price decreased YOT”. That’s all. No need to cluster the thread with 30 rounds between you and Fluj.
listing price is not price
You’re really saying that with a straight face? So tell me then, why is the SP/LP ratio always pretty close to 1:1 in the stats? On an individual property the list price may be way off. But market-wide it is obviously a great indicator of market price.
Think about the quarter in question. The first quarter of 2009. How many things just flat didn’t sell then?
I can tell you that 366 SFRs were withdrawn between 1/1/09 and 4/21/09, yet 312 YTD. That’s about a 15 percent difference. Just because they were listed higher then didn’t mean they were selling.
At
Lp/sp has never been 1:1. It moves around between 0.9 and 1.1.
In any case, at least fluj’s average price is based on real price. Your listing price is at most an indication, it is nowhere close to real.
Lp/sp has never been 1:1. It moves around between 0.9 and 1.1.
And if it doesn’t, a price change in the last few days will take care of that. Listing prices are irrelevant to the real value.
Of course an idiot techie millionaire will do his shopping paying regular price tag, putting him in first line at the next “bring me to the cleaners” game. Buy a 1M condo, rent it for 3000/m, collect 800/m after all is said and done. 2 happy moment when that happens: when he buys (I win!) and when he sells (I stopped bleeding!).
“at least fluj’s average price is based on real price. Your listing price is at most an indication, it is nowhere close to real.”
Nice fluj-spin there. Look up “average” on wikipedia and learn about what nonsense your statement was.
Altos Research, who compiles the data that Paragon buys, makes their living, and has lots of clients, based on the listing price data you’re all talking about to identify pricing trends. All this realtor-spin that list prices on a market-wide basis don’t matter is just that. Spin and nonsense. When the evidence disproves fluj’s unsupported “Believe me because I say so or you’re an idiot” line of reasoning, he just pretends the evidence is not what it is.
Sales prices measure the state of the market.
Listing prices measure seller’s perception of the state of the market.
Sales prices measure the state of the market.
Listing prices measure seller’s perception of the state of the market.
Well said. I couldn’t agree more.
Both anonn and AT have valid points, because no one metric is perfect.
the problem with only looking at sales is that they ignore all the unsold-inventory out there. (they also ignore unlisted sales FWIW). For instance, sales prices didn’t look so bad at the start of the crisis, but many of us could see that sales numbers were going to be bad going forward based on rising inventory
at the same time, last year we had delusional sellers and so a fall in listing prices might be more to do with improved seller reality as opposed to a further fall in the market. (FWIW: many sellers are still delusional, and will always be delusional!)
thus, both sales prices and listing prices are valuable to use together.
Look up “average” on wikipedia and learn about what nonsense your statement was.
Altos Research, who compiles the data that Paragon buys, makes their living, and has lots of clients, based on the listing price data you’re all talking about to identify pricing trends. All this realtor-spin that list prices on a market-wide basis don’t matter is just that. Spin and nonsense. When the evidence disproves fluj’s unsupported “Believe me because I say so or you’re an idiot” line of reasoning, he just pretends the evidence is not what it is
Look up “average” on wikipedia?
Would it be OK if I called my 8th grade math teacher instead? What is the world coming to?
“Believe me because I say so or you’re an idiot” ?
That’s not how this thread went down. I gave AT enough rope and …
But the difference between withdrawn properties ’09, and ’10, that’s nothing? There’s no correlation between price discovery and seller perception there?
OK. (Why am I talking to someone who told everyone to look up “average” on wikipedia? sigh.)
Both anonn and AT have valid points,
“Prices are down this spring, and I point to last spring’s list prices as evidence.”
Good point, Ex-SFer?
Why do you think so?
I am looking in Orinda right now, and the exact opposite is happening, the listing prices are spiking way up, and the sold prices are down hovering near the lows for the past 3 years. I have been to some open houses, and every realtor says the same thing, make an offer, under asking, my buyer is motivated. There is a ton of inventory coming on this spring, and I just don’t see anywhere near the demand for it (at the prices they are asking). Things are going to be very interesting towards the back half of summer here.
Two of the last three homes to sell in Orinda went for 400k under asking. It is still an expensive area, but the price pressure is certainly downward.
fluj, I’m still waiting for some relevant data from you. To support your naked assertion that “prices are up” all you provided was average SFR sale prices. So you chose the most unreliable and varying metric — averages (if you don’t understand that, go ahead and call your middle school math teacher) — and limited it to SFRs, thus cutting out the majority of SF sales. Even you are well aware of how useless and misleading your selection was.
By contrast I linked to the same city-wide market price data that realtors all over town link to. I spelled how how I understood that list prices are not perfect, but prices are certainly a valid indicator of prices! You, on the other hand, provided nothing but patent B.S. Why don’t you give us, by month, city-wide volume, medians and $/sf from January 2009 to the present so we can all see the trend. It’ll take you about 5 minutes. Won’t be perfect for all the familiar reasons, but it will be helpful. Maybe I’m wrong. But you’ve certainly provided nothing so indicating.
Have you ever looked at the difference between average, and median, generally? With larger (in this case 700+) datasets? They’re not anywhere approaching the differences I showed for the entire SFR sales figures.The year to year differences I gave you are stark, 888K to 730K.
I chose SFRs because the information is subdivided by type anyway. I talked SFRs because I almost ALWAYS talk SFRs on here. (I knew you’d nitpickingly go there sooner or later.) And what of the second set of data, the 15% decrease in withdrawn SFRs, year to year?
Come on man. Give up the ghost. I’ve wasted enough time on your obstinate wrongness.
Give us? While you’re talking like what I’ve shown is “B.S.” — buddy. Have you ever once in your life seen a 700+ dataset where median and average are off by even 50K? Please. If you admit error for the litany of loudmouthed mistakes you’ve made about nearly everything lately I’ll consider it. Us? You mean you. Read the thread. Only a few anonn-bashing haters are with you.
Yep, I expected you would dodge any specifics! You are consistent.
But let me point out the clear error you make in trying to justify your dissembling. See:
http://www.rereport.com/sf/index_a.html
(click on Annual Trends)
For 2009 SFR sales (dataset 2137): average was $957,235, median was $740,000. For 2008 (dataset 2049): average was $1,129,265, median was $830,000. A bit more than $50,000 difference, no? You see, just a handful of $10 million sales has a huge effect on the average. Ask your 8th-grade math teacher about both medians and averages (I learned all this stuff in about 4th grade, but your 8th-grade teacher should be able to explain it).
Median and mean are both misleading when it comes to house prices and many other things.
The use of “average” for real price indication is not right either. However, it is at least better than using “listing” price.
I generally stay away from “average” vs “medium” vs “CS”. Actually I believe the CS is the best method to determine the market. However, currently, CS is not micro enough.
Still, please don’t confuse the discussion by introducing “listing” price as the real price. It only gives Fluj more ammo.
Focus on the problem with “average” instead.
If you are a buyer, nothing beats walking around the neighborhood and go to the open houses. No other data can beat that. You will get a sense on the pricing in no time.
No, I am not a Fluj supporter. However, the use of listing price is so laughable that I have to put in my two cents.
You’re a nitpicker, and you’re again using data incorrectly. The way they do those averages is that they also average the house’s size and dimensions and then give an average based upon those averages (a 3 Br 1.93 BA, 1670 foot house for 900 odd K or whatever. So THAT gets even more distorted. If you go purely on price it looks a whole lot different, as I’ve shown. Do you need your toys taken away?
Also, nobody learned median and mean in the 4th grade.
AT
Thank you for the link. It shows clearly that the LP/SP ratio changes, exactly the ratio I pointed out (between 0.9 to 1.1).
Fluj
You know very well that average price is not an accurate indicator. You can argue against median price due to mix, but that doesn’t make average better.
median and average are only part of the equation, you also need the standard deviation around the mean.
A.t never got an answer, so will ask for a third time.
if median list price is such a good indicator of the market then how come the SFR median list price showed a big increase during 2008, when everyone knows prices were falling then? If I had come on this site then and claimed that prices were rising because the Paragon list price says so, I would have been laughed out of town. And rightly so.
In fact, the graph shows falls during 06 and 07, increases in 08 and 1st half of 09 and then falls again.
Thats probably the exact opposite of what happened to prices, yet you claims its a good measure??
Meanwhle, while I agree the median (and, yes I prefer median to average) SALES price has to be interpeted with great care, I believe the graph of that has roughly plotted what actually happened in SF. Peak in 07, some slight falls during 08, a big downward shock in fall 08/early 09 and then a pretty solid recovery.
Who is fluj? I’m anonn. Fluj had a lot of baggage anonn doesn’t know much about. I know average is not the best. Nor, in some situations, is median, for that matter. They also don’t typically have 150K swings between them based purely on price with large datasets.
Go ahead and run median for SFRs YTD versus last year to this date. This year YTD is 80K higher.
I only use average because it’s right there. I don’t work for message board nitpickers, you know?
Here is some data I had handy. Don’t have 2010 YTD, but easy to get.
Homes-Citywide 2008 2009 % Change
Avg List Price $1,274,299 $1,148,335 -9.88%
Avg Sale Price $1,284,994 $1,133,321 -11.80%
Median Sale Price $930,000 $835,000 -10.22%
Total Sales 1663 1591 -4.33%
Condos-Citywide 2008 2009 % Change
Avg List Price $911,911 $816,806 -10.43%
Avg Sale Price $908,578 $793,300 -12.69%
Median Sale Price $775,000 $684,708 -11.65%
Total Sales 1855 1651 -11.00%
Had my agent pull Q1-2009 versus Q1-2010 actual sale prices, both average and median, for all SF. Summary, volume up, prices flat, but trending positive. Even condo market in district 9 is only off about 6% on both avg. and median sales prices, which really surprised me with all the defaults. Prices/sq. ft. have stayed steady at $600/sq. ft. with volume doubling from 77 to 144 units sold.
SFR Q12009 Q12010 %Change
Avg Sale Price $1,067,113 $1,174,897 10.10%
Median Sale Price $810,000 $825,000 1.85%
Avg. Price/Sq. Ft. $625 $629 0.72%
Total Sales 219 336 53.42%
Condos Q12009 Q12010 %Change
Avg Sale Price $769,347 $ 764,060 -0.69%
Median Sale Price $663,000 $663,000 0.00%
Avg. Price/Sq. Ft. $655 $647 -1.28%
Total Sales 227 383 68.72%