The net number of single-family homes and condos in contract across San Francisco dropped around 6 percent over the past week, representing the second straight week-over-week decline at a time of the year when the pace of sales typically accelerates.

That being said, sales activity is still up around 200 percent versus the same time last year, when pandemic-driven shutdowns hobbled the market, and around 60 percent higher than at the end of April in 2019, prior to the pandemic having hit.

But the average list price per square foot of the homes which are in contract dropped around 3 percent over the past week and is now down 9 percent on a year-over-year basis. And 20 percent of the homes which have yet to go into contract have reduced their list prices at least once, which is 5 percentage points, not percent, higher than at the same time last year.

And while inventory levels ticked down another 2 percent over the past week, and a spring spike has yet to materialize, listed inventory levels remain at a 10-year seasonal high (and 40 percent higher than at the same time last year).

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Ali

    The bubble is about to burst!

  2. Posted by two beers

    Hilarious news articlerealtor PR in today’s chron.: “San Francisco’s pandemic exodus looks like it’s almost over”

    “looks like” and “almost” are doing quite a lot of lifting there!

    The piece acknowledges what readers of this site know: net outflow was already about 2000 households per month well before covid; now, net outflow is leveling off at about 3,000 households per month, post covid.

    I guess that “looks like” “almost”.

    Sure, that’s a lot better than the 6,000-8,000 per month net exodus per month during the 2020 peak summer evacuation, but jeez, how long can the city keep losing even “only” a net 30,000-40,000 households per year before the remaining stawlarts of the real estate industrial complex load up the van for Austin?

    • Posted by Notcom

      Impressive, but still no match for a FT piece years ago that offered up “I’m convinced this might be…”

      As for the Chron claim – and your interpretation of it – was it actually a net figure or a gross one ?? wasn’t it settled here long ago that most of the “exodus” claim were actually based on the latter…and thus meaningless??
      or let’s make that ‘almost meaningless’

      • Posted by two beers

        To the writer’s credit, the article (DDG the headline quoted above) does repeatedly emphasize the data refer to net outflow.

    • Posted by Dave (Seattle dude)

      Not sure about that figure of a pre-pandemic net outflow of 2,000 households per month. Prior to Covid SF’s population was peaking and set to start falling. There was still a slight net inflow in 2018. It apparently reversed in 2019 but 2,000 households/month net outflow seems high. What is the figure for household size? 1.5, 2.0 individuals?

    • Posted by anon

      I’ve sometimes wondered if sfgate and the chron are compensated for the ads they run as news articles. Does anyone know? Whether it’s featuring a house or the puff pieces they do regularly that only interview realtors about how crazy hot the market is, etc.

      • Posted by Notcom

        Compensated “stories” are labeled as such. In answer to (what I suspect is) your inference of a ‘quid pro quo’: yes, news organizations need to cultivate news sources, and as those sources often are the same ones who place ads, that potential for ‘conflict-of-interest” exists. But, historically at least, the SFNA had an essential monopoly on RE advertising – certainly in SF itself – so there was an offsetting influence.

        That’s no longer true, of course, so perhaps the need for pandering is greater. Or maybe it’s just laziness: the Sunday ‘Homes’ section could never be confused with literature.

  3. Posted by sparky-b

    list price in contract is a weird metric.

  4. Posted by Conifer

    Keep calm and carry on.

  5. Posted by Dale Duncan

    Build it and they will leave?

  6. Posted by WHAT-A-TOWN

    List price is not sale price, most SFHs are going way over asking.

    • Posted by SocketSite

      “Over asking” sales are a function of pricing. And while it’s true that the average sale in San Francisco closes “over asking,” said “premium” has dropped to under 5 percent while the average list price per square foot of the homes which are in contract is currently down 9 percent, year-over-year.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles