As we wrote three months ago:
Never mind transaction costs or whether or not a one year hold typically makes for a good return in real estate, instead focus on the apples-to-apples aspect of the listing.
Purchased for $1,200,000 in August 2009, the Eureka Valley condo at 3563 21st Street with “designer finishes & city views” is back on the market for $1,149,000 today. A sale at asking would represent a 4.3 percent drop in value for the property over the past year.
In the words of a plugged-in tipster, “has the market stabilized since August 2009 or not?”
Having fallen out of contract and reduced to $1,039,000 in August, yesterday the sale of 3563 21st Street closed escrow with a reported contract price of $999,999.
Call it a 17 percent drop in value over the past year for the Eureka Valley condo. And consider this an open call for other 2009 vintage apples on the tree.
∙ Eureka Valley Apples To Apples And Year Over Year: 3563 21st [SocketSite]
Gee, and it was not that long ago that fluj used to excoriate me and others for not accepting the “fact” that prices were up substantially since 2009. Not that he ever accepted my request that he point to a shred of evidence to support his position. He did not need to because, you know, it was a “fact.”
Even I would not have guessed that a Eureka Valley place like this would see a 17% decline over August 2009. Things are obviously worse than I thought.
Wow. A quarter million dollars on a two bedroom condo. Poof. One year.
Get. Used. To. It.
thinking about fluj already at 6:38AM, you might need to see somebody about that.
prices were up substantially since 2009
The plural, “prices,” while talking about one property, from a poster who routinely loudly discredits median and average from sets of hundreds? LOL.
Most people understand that spring 2009 has seen the lowest prices. If you don’t wish to believe that it is OK. It’s not necessary to flame the site all the time because of your difference of opinon.
fluj, I admit I call you on it when you mix up medians and averages to provide misleading “support” for your position. You know the drill about those two measures so don’t pretend otherwise. And I’m also certain that most people in your circle of realtors “understand” that prices are up from 2009 — they must be, I just know they are, and the facts that inventory is way up, sales are way down, and evidence like the subject of this thread all point to lower prices should just be ignored.
All the foreclosure moratoria and the tax stimulus did slow what would otherwise have been a larger crash in 2009. May have even been a slight uptick between spring and fall ’09, particularly among lower-end places. But the price decline has plainly picked up speed again. This big drop in Eureka Valley is no anomaly.
Ha ha, that’s hillarious, fluj/anon.ed. Do you have even one speck of proof for that statement, or do you just figure if you repeat it often enough people will believe it, like the poor buyers of this place did before they lost their life’s savings in a year’s time.
Fluj,
“Most people understand that spring 2009 has seen the lowest prices”
This sale, as many others reported in the past few weeks, would seem to suggest that “most people” are dead wrong if they think we’ve seen the bottom of this market.
I think if you believe that Spring 2009 was the bottom of the market, it’s no longer a “difference of opinion”; your opinion is in fact the outlier.
Yes, 3/21 to 4/22 ’09 257 sales 678K median
and 9/21 – 10/22 2010 328 sales 700K median
That’s so far today, so look for at least another 20 sales or so. The market isn’t exactly brisk, and prices are of course in general down quite a bit from peak. But up from 2009 in terms of both volume and price? No question about it.
You’re welcome to dial down your fake enthusiasm/ aggressive offense routine at any time in order for people to talk to you more, Tipster.
[Editor’s Note: Keep in mind that on a year-over-year basis sales volume has been running an average of 15.5% lower in San Francisco over the past three months. And don’t get us started on Medians…]
My opinion is based upon facts, embarcadero. As you can see above.
Re: median.
More expensive places in nice neighborhoods are selling, because financing is (relatively) more available
When the percentage of all SF sales in District 10 decreases, the median naturally goes up.
It doesn’t mean that “prices” are going up.
Don’t we all know that by now?
Fat lotta good the increased median did for these folks. That was one insanely big check they had to bring to closing.
Seriously, fluj? The MLS median was 3% lower during a one-month period in 2009 than the last month — that’s your proof? As I stated above, you know full well what medians and averages indicate and what they don’t. What was the median in July 2008? Way higher, right? And you think apples-to-apples prices fell by the change in the median (20%?) over the next nine months? Of course you don’t.
And anyone can play that selective game. Let’s look at the median from May ’09 — 634k
http://www.dqnews.com/Articles/2009/News/California/Bay-Area/RRBay090618.aspx
And from September ’10 — 620k
http://www.dqnews.com/Articles/2010/News/California/Bay-Area/RRBay101021.aspx
So much for the well-understood fact.
Regardless, I’m stunned that the difference you point to is so small since the jumbo market totally froze in early 2009, pushing the median down.
I don’t know why I’m wading in here.. I guess I’m not particularly feeling like working right now.
But percentage of D10 sales ain’t the cause of the change in median:
According to Redfin, sales in 94124, 94134, 94112:
03/21/10-04/22/10: 66 (or 25.68% of total sales)
09/21/10-10/22/10: 86 (or 26.22% of total sales)
I still like the Morgan Stanley explanation:
https://socketsite.com/archives/2010/08/mix_pshaw_whos_ever_heard_of_such_a_ridiculous_thing.html
Housing prices for organic sales in SF MSA *did* (past-tense) go up for a bit YOY, but now are on a downward trajectory YOY again in SF MSA. I’m betting this is generalizable to SF, especially since there are fewer short-sales/foreclosures in SF than the surrounding area, but we would need to slice the data finer to know.
I’m guessing the organic sale market is largely flat since March ’09 because of huge government stimulus and cheap mortgage rates due to government stimulus. We won’t know for a while, however, because there aren’t that many apples from that time. The few apples we’ve seen suggest the market is down from then, however, like this one.
As I mentioned in an earlier thread (https://socketsite.com/archives/2010/10/socketsites_listed_san_francisco_inventory_update_octob.html), March-April is usually around the peak of trailing 3 months inventory, so it’s sort of BS to compare March-April sales to September-October sales and say volume is up, especially when you’re looking at the ’09 numbers which don’t seem to be “normal.” Housing is highly seasonal.
No proof that 2010 prices are up over 2009? Au contraire. Three words: “Case Shiller Index.”
Ha..one acronym: MSA
sanfrantim, beyond the point that CS extends to the broader MSA, something was off on their methodology. It shows SF index down from 157 in July ’08 to 117 in March ’09 — down 25%. Prices were slammed but no reasonable person could contend SFR prices fell by 25% in 9 months. Didn’t happen.
CSI may be a good piece to throw into the mix, but something got fouled up in early 2009. Maybe for the reasons sfrenegade points to.
Let’s see where the ’09 apples fall going forward. Per CR, things do now seem to be crashing at the early 2009 pace (not 25% in 9 months, but falling fast):
http://www.clearcapital.com/company/newsroom_details.cfm?position=30686
From AT’s link above:
“Clear Capital™ Reports Sudden and Dramatic Drop in U.S. Home Prices
Clear Capital (www.clearcapital.com), is issuing this special alert on a dramatic change observed in U.S. home prices.
Clear Capital’s latest data through October 22 shows even more pronounced price declines than our most recent HDI market report released two weeks ago,” said Dr. Alex Villacorta, senior statistician, Clear Capital. ”
This special Clear Capital Home Data Index (HDI) alert shows that national home prices have declined 5.9% in just two months”
It was a bubble. Get. Used. To. It.
There is often a back story as to why sales show distress and that it is not JUST the corrected market.
I know indirectly what happened here. Divorce. The wife wanted out and wanted to be near the kids house (just blocks away ) so she ran out and overpaid for this originally…….remember the J Church line that runs directly at your back wall here ? She decided to sell this now and lease optioned another house near by. It was situational and the list price should have been at $995,000 originally.
radar, thanks for the info. She did pay list, however, in 2009, so it’s not as if she put in some crazy overbid. And the 2009 $/sf certainly was not out of line for this area, which is very nice. I imagine that for many (or most) bubble purchases, there is some backstory like this that “justified” the sky-high purchase price. Collectively. they made “the market” shoot up. Now it is falling back fast as the collective backstories no longer drive people to pay as much.
I suspect we will see more 2009 apples sooner than usual as people run from underwater places or move for job purposes.
“…so she ran out and overpaid for this originally”
Move along, nothing to see here, just another clueless buyer who overpaid. it happens….
“lease optioned another house near by”
So after eating the roughly $250k loss from this disaster, she turned right around and is overpaying rent b/c of an “option” that is going to expire worthless. Some people never learn.
– El Bombero
3561 (same complex) just sold at 945, having sold at 1.035 in 2009. So (in this case anyway) 2009 was not the bottom of the market.
New condo smell, perhaps?