January 29, 2008
If You Can’t Beat Them…Give Them A Post Of Their Own
If you’re looking for first-hand reader impressions and insight with regard to San Francisco’s Chelsea Park, head on over here: Chelsea Park (Phase I): On The MLS And Opening Tomorrow (1/27). If you’re looking for (or to join) the statistical debate that ensued, you’ve found it.
First Published: January 29, 2008 6:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
" ... the people are that continue to pay bubble prices in a deflating market. "
Riddle me this. Where is widespread behavior not a market indicator? Only on the Internet.
Do you mean to say that this largely sustained price point plateau that's been happening for six months to a year has been an entire six months to a year of dead cat bounce? Right? Logically that must be your stance.
Median is high. Prices are near or higher what they were in spring of '06. Volume is down, but down from all time highs.
I ask again. When and where is widespread consumer behavior NOT THE MARKET? Sorry. Widespread consumer behavior is precisely the market.
SFR sales Districts 1-9 1/1/7 - 1/28/7: 84 sales, 54 DOM, avg pr $1,183,623, 597 a foot.
SFR sales Districts 1-9 1/1/8 - 1/28/8: 63 sales, 54 DOM, $1,313,776, 657 a foot.
How is that a deflating market? It is a neat illustration of volume down, median up. But 63 SFRs so far this year is not really that bad! I'll go out on a limb and claim it is historically pretty good, actually. (Haven't looked that up.)
I challenge anyone to corroborate deflation from these stats.
Posted by: ghost of fluj at January 28, 2008 11:14 AM
"I challenge anyone to corroborate deflation from THESE stats"
I agree you can't see much of a downturn in this extremely narrow set of stats. But look at all the other market indicators -- DOM of listings (not sold) way up while median price and $/sf are way down. Total sales are way down. CSI index trending down for 18 months. Even median sales prices have been trending down for the last 8 months. You can't just pull out an isolated statistic and say "See, rising prices." Sales volume is way, way down even though interest rates are also down and inventory is up. How can that possibly be explained other than by concluding that the market has softened?
Posted by: Trip at January 28, 2008 12:05 PM
@ Tipster. "very narrow" ?? I'm showing you this year to date versus last year. LOL.
"median price and $/sf are way down "
This is patently false. I just showed you why.
To S.S., it's kind of hard to engage in discourse when six very vocal bears continually posit fallacies as givens in every single thread. Why don't you delete errant and off topic claims to begin with?
As to these properties, I haven't seen them yet but I like the units' floorplans. It has been very suprising, to me, to see Mission Dolores become so prohibitively expensive. The reality seems to be that many buyers really like the area for the reasons already listed. Chelsea Park is definitely going to address a real need:
2007 condo sales for area 5-M Mission Dolores:
36 sales, $848,625 price, 38 DOM, $psqft $734
2006 condo sales for area 5-M Mission Dolores:
58 sales, $751,423 price, 43 DOM, $psqft $635
These stats would seem indicate pent up demand, if anything. 2007 sold faster, and for more money. They were lesser in number as well. That has to do with the fact that there were just plain old fewer on the market. That's because of the following.
The MLS shows that there were ZERO condos withdrawn from the market in 2007 in Mission Dolores. And right now not a single condo in 5-M has been on the market for over 25 days without an offer.
Posted by: ghost of fluj at January 28, 2008 12:38 PM
Ghost -- you pointed to 63 sales over a 3-week period and compared them to 84 sales over a 3-week period. Yes, that is a very narrow set of data that illustrates nothing. And I also pointed out that median price and $/sf of LISTINGS (rather than sales) are way down. That is not "patently false" but an undeniable fact. (I know, this has nothing to do with Chelsea Park -- my apologies).
Posted by: Trip at January 28, 2008 1:34 PM
Median and $sqft of listins is not down. Maybe it should be. But it isn't. And I really have to question where on earth you get your data from. Active listings do not stay active listings a year later.
Posted by: ghost of fluj at January 28, 2008 3:31 PM
Condo sales 12/1/6 to 1/28/7, areas 5-K and 5-M:
18 sales 46 DOM $830,722 sp $646 $psqft
Current condos areas 5-K and 5-M:
12 active, 13 DOM, $843,250 lp and $706 a foot.
You are wrong across the board, Tipster. What you continually posit as indisputable fact is in fact your own strident conviction, and an incorrect opinion.
Posted by: ghost of fluj at January 28, 2008 3:49 PM
Ghost, please read carefully because you keep attacking a strawman. First, I said nothing about districts 5-K and 5-M but was noting SF-wide numbers. Second, you are now comparing past SALES numbers with current LISTING numbers -- apples to oranges. Third, you noted a very narrow set of statistics and claimed that rebutted an entry stating we were in "a deflating market" and I pointed out the fallacy of your "proof." That is all. I actually would welcome any comprehensive numbers you can provide that shed real light on things instead of self-selected, narrow numbers that mean nothing.
Posted by: Trip at January 28, 2008 4:19 PM
How can you compare current listings of right now to current listings of a year ago? You cannot. Past listings are no longer "current." They are mostly sold, some withdrawn some expired. Again, I ask you where you get this current versus current data.
First I showed you city wide numbers for SFRs, YoY. Then I showed you 5-K and 5-M active condo listings versus the sales of what were "current listings" of a month ago, or a month and a half ago, last year.
Basically, I tried to show you "current listings" versus "current listings" YoY, in the only way that it is possible to be shown.
I talked areas 5-K and M because that's where these condos are. And this thread was the jumpoff for your "median and sq ft down" claim.
Also, guess what, 28 days is actually four weeks. Not three. Some people would call it oh gee I don't know, A MONTH? Self selected -- yes, I selected those numbers to show how last year started off versus how this year started off.
Once more, where do you get your current versus current information? I am not letting you off the hook here.
I showed you current versus current, YoY. Where do you get your information? I feel like you just make it up, actually.
Posted by: ghost of fluj at January 28, 2008 4:45 PM
Ghost of fluj (who sounds an awful lot like fluj) mea culpa on the 3 weeks vs. 4 weeks. Blurry vision.
No, I don't just make it up. Look here:
Flame away at the numbers presented all you want, but they are apples-to-apples and do not appear to paint things as being too rosy city-wide. Medians down, $/sf down, DOM up. Same across all quartiles.
I respect your input, but you have to provide some meaningful numbers and not distorting snippets, or at least qualify what you say. Averages are different from medians. Listing price data are different from selling price data.
Posted by: Trip at January 28, 2008 4:59 PM
Are we looking at the same charts? You truly find those charts to be compelling evidence of some sort of real change? Because I think to just about anybody they will look like what they actually are: mild fluctuations that can be qualified, generally, as plateaus. I see nothing compelling there.
I offered up sales data and it isn't good enough. I offered the specific area's condo sales, which specifically contradicted a Tipster's claim, and it isn't good enough. I give up. We're talking about this area. Oh wait. No, Ghost of Fluj, why are we talking about this area? Come on.
Posted by: ghost of fluj at January 28, 2008 5:13 PM
Ghost, I'm just presenting what I have. See what you want to see. But don't try to skew things with distorted, limited data, which is what you've been doing.
Posted by: Trip at January 28, 2008 5:37 PM
Don't call my flat numbers YoY, pulled directly from the MLS, "distorted" and skewed while simultaneously accusing me of flaming. OK?
Posted by: fluj at January 28, 2008 5:54 PM
Fluj and Ghost of Fluj -- both of you -- you posted sales data from two 4-week periods for a small volume of sales of SFRs only, and you conveniently included only districts 1-9. You posed a challenge: "I challenge anyone to corroborate deflation from these stats." And I showed how your numbers offered a limited, distorted view of things. That's all.
See here if you want yet another of the many, many relevant data points you ignore which certainly appear to "corroborate deflation":
Posted by: Trip at January 29, 2008 10:04 AM
There's me, Tipster, and there's a different person, Trip. While you are analyzing statistics, please try to at least keep the names straight.
I haven't participated in this discussion even once, but I've been addressed several times. It's Trip with whom you are conversing. We aren't the same person.
Posted by: tipster at January 29, 2008 11:01 AM