The inventory of Active listed single-family homes, condos, and TICs in San Francisco increased 9% over the past two weeks and is now running 49% higher on a year-over-year basis. Reports of decreasing inventories in San Francisco are either incorrect or possibly refer to a decrease from the levels of last October which would not reflect the market’s seasonality.
Keep in mind that our listed inventory counts do not include listings in any stage of contract (even those which are simply contingent) nor do they include multi-family listings (unless the units are individually listed).
And combined with early reports that listed sales volume in San Francisco was off by ~20% on a year-over-year basis last month, months of listed inventory has now crossed over the four month mark (which is relatively high for San Francisco and close to 2x on a year-over-year basis).
∙ SocketSite’s San Francisco Listed Housing Inventory Update: 3/03/08 [SocketSite]
This was the data point needed for that DQ discussion thread.
Whatever the reason for the small increase in sales volume it is clear demand is down as inventory rises sharply and the CSI and medians continue to fall.
I was going to throw in a comment in that thread on Friday asking if I was the only one who noticed that Bear Sterns has basically failed, but it looks like the answer 48 hours later was no.
It appears, based on increasing inventory and DQ and CSI numbers, that those sellers who listened to the NAR and decided to wait out 07 and list in 08 thinking the worst was behind us ended up on the wrong side of the curve.
Hope the bought earlier and hadn’t touched their equity with HELOC’s and the like because they are going to have to work harder and harder, it appears, to sell their depreciating asset.
This is so predictable.
For the last two years, you have a restriction on supply leading to pent up demand.
Then in the last 4 months, the people who could only qualify with funny loans are out of the market.
The pent up demand continues to drive the market, but only for those who are paying in cash at the high end, and those who can still qualify, in Bernal and the lower end.
As the pent up demand works its way out of the system, and as people begin to realize that prices will fall and start to stand on the sidelines, the pent up demand is starting to dry up.
And we’ll realize that we have a housing glut, not a shortage.
Evidence of a housing glut is the fact that homes on busy streets etc. aren’t selling, as compared to a housing shortage we had when everything sold.
Like any bubble, it ends with oversupply. There have been too many condos built in SF. All those people who have held off to sell until “the spring” will realize this.
I disagree– there isn’t a housing glut in San Francisco. There is uncertainty in the market, and so demand is down. But San Francisco has built far less new housing than other cities. A SPUR report showed that Seattle was building twice as much housing annually as San Francisco, despite Seattle’s smaller population.
There will be buyers for these condos at the right price. The question is, what is the right price?
I’m just wondering how far the spread between listings and sales will continue to grow. From what I can glean, over the last few weeks for every condo that is sold or pulled from the MLS, 2 more are listed. The SFR inventory is increasing a little more slowly — 1 1/2 new listings for every one that is sold or pulled. Thus, with record low sales and growing supply, the months of inventory continues to increase — now double that of a year ago and growing.
I’m not sure I agree with tipster on one point. At least from the quartile numbers I see, it looks like all market segments are being socked about the same. For example, the median age of the most expensive quartile of SFRs is higher than any other segment of SFRs or condos. And the median listing price for SFRs is ticking up a bit while the $/sf is trending down — indicating that bigger, nicer houses are coming on the market but at lower prices/sf. (I’m looking at the public data from Altos — anyone with better/different data may be able to fill in the picture).
I also disagree that there is a glut of homes.
it is simply that the mix of homes is not appropriate to the population, IMO.
thus, we have a relative glut of 1 BR “luxury” condos.
but a huge paucity of 3-4BR homes and also a paucity of affordable 1 and 2 BR condos.
too much that is built is “high end”
Ok, so we have surging inventory, slightly higher sales volume and moderately lower prices.
Can anyone say San Diego in 2006? We are just two years behind, apparently.
Not to mention looming job losses in the city due to big job cuts in the banking sector. And those guys are reported to be the “high earners.”
I’d say we are about 1.5 yrs behind San Diego and 1 yr behind LA in the cycle. q3 08- q3 09 IS GONNA BE ROUGH
“it is simply that the mix of homes is not appropriate to the population, IMO.”
Many new developments seem ideal as rentals rather than condos. We’ve already seen at least one small new development go rental… does it make financial sense for larger developments in the pipeline to go 100% rental? My former apartment complex constantly has near 0 availability, and from talking to the management it sounds like they’re far from hurting financially. At what point does earning about $3 per sq. ft. per month beat trying to sell a building full of condos in the current market? I’d bet that a new rental building would fill up very quickly, even with premium rental pricing.
As for selling condo developments vs renting them…generally the math has been far more favorable to selling the condos, but it is definitely tipping the other way with the strong rental market compared to the softer sales market. However, it still doesn’t appears feasible to build rentals at current construction costs. Another tough part of this equation is that a builder is going to need a pretty big loan (high LTV) to take out the construction loan so the permanent financing of keeping a building rental could be a sticking point.
LA and San Diego are not the same experiencing the same phenomenon, first of all. LA County median was up in January.
Dataquick Analysis: DQ analysis: “Sales remained extraordinarily low, and a significant portion of what did sell was in areas beset by foreclosure activity. That’s where sellers are the most motivated and price cuts are largest. Mainly it’s in the inland markets, often in newer suburbs, where prices got pumped up artificially with the sort of crazy loans that no longer exist,” said Marshall Prentice, DataQuick president.
“More difficult to glean from today’s statistics is the exact status of more established neighborhoods, often near the coast or job centers, where foreclosures aren’t a big problem but where sales are scant. We’re anxious to see whether the government’s recently announced higher conforming loan limits
will have much impact on sales in these areas this spring and summer.”
That’s pretty similar to what we’ve been seeing. And QUITE different from San Diego.
Here’s a blog on LA RE, from the Times, a newspaper that has done its fair share of fearmongering:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/?track=realestate-blogs
At the bottom, look at “A Tale of Two Markets: High End Holding Steady” specically. Sounds pretty familiar.
This is a trend that has been with us for a while, and a couple of you reminded me in comments to revisit it. The trend is this: even as foreclosures pile up and prices collapse in less desirable neighborhoods of Los Angeles, prices continue to hold steady — or even rise — in higher-priced neighborhoods.
I’m not talking about luxury neighborhoods like Beverly Hills or Malibu, where entertainment money and foreign buyers are big factors. I’m talking about the $700,000 to $900,000 price range. Here are five sub-million-dollar neighborhoods where median sales prices held steady or rose from January 2007 to January 2008:
Neighborhood/ZIP # of sales in Jan. 08/Median sales price % change yoy
Woodland Hills 91364 15 / $875,000 5.7%
Arcadia 91006 20 / $761,000 6.8%
Torrance 90505 15 / $794,000 2.8%
LA/Westchester 90045 15 / $772,000 13.0%
LA/Mar Vista 90066 24 / $743,000 -2.3%
Source: DataQuick/DQNews.com
DSL wrote in comments, “The homes in my target market of South Pasadena, Arcadia, Pasadena, San Marino rectangle have not come down one iota in terms of listing prices. Why is this ‘bubble bursting’ as you all put it seemingly only confined to areas no one with a decent income would ever dream of living?”
So let’s also cease with the uninformed fearmongering in this forum too.
Fluj–people would probably be willing to cease with the “uninformed fearmongering” if you’d stop with the uninformed (or is it misinformed–deep down perhaps you know better?) use of median sales prices to show a “healthy” SFRE market.
“Healthy” ?
It was, San Diego – LA – SF.
I cried foul.
The end.
“So let’s also cease with the uninformed fearmongering in this forum too.”
Agreed. But only if we cease with the unwarranted cheerleading and boosterism as well.
The fact that neighborhoods which are affordable to 2% of Angelinos haven’t fallen materially doesn’t negate the fact that LA county prices fell 13% while sales are off 45%, year over year. Including markets like Pasadena et al. Check your same blog for “a tale of two homes.” Or look at this table for Feb ’08. A lot of the pluses you point out are now negative:
http://dqnews.com/Charts/Monthly-Charts/LA-Times-Charts/ZIPLAT0802.aspx
“I cried foul.”
Using median sales data, which (as you know?) is close to meaningless.
Is Orange County still considered part of LA? Because it is down in almost every zip code – median home prices and # of sales.
http://www.dqnews.com/Charts/Monthly-Charts/OC-Register-Charts/ZIPOCR0802.aspx
Median sales data is far from “meaningless.” It is often the best data we have. Bears don’t hesitate to use median sales prices when they show a decline.
Median is not meaningless. Nor is volume precise. Exactly, Dan, when median falls these guys proclaim it from the rooftops. And as I pointed out before, when supply is down how is volume the best criteria? It isn’t. Further, I take it Dude that you didn’t read the 700-900K comment for second and third tier LA neighborhoods. It was in the LA blog and it is very similar to what we’re seeing here.
I read it, fluj, and responded directly. You listed 4 LA zip codes where the median was still holding or up in January, right? I linked to the chart showing the stats for those same 4 zip codes in February.
Woodland Hills 91364 15 / $624,000, -21.6%
Arcadia 91006 20 / $782,000, -29.7%
Torrance 90505 15 / $753,000, -10.3%
LA/Westchester 90045 15 / $728,000, -4.3%
I agree that medians are imperfect, but they’re all we have. And the medians are down for the 2nd and 3rd tier LA neighborhoods. I also agree it’s very similar to what we’re seeing here.
Yeah, that could be something we’d see around here. Except it’s hard to correlate ‘hoods. I did a search for 700 – 900 K available properties to try to correlate what’s happening in SF.
In neighborhoods 1-9 there are 90 active listings within that price range.
But then if you remove 3 and 4 to get more central areas there are 64.
After that, removing the Sunset and Glen Park, there are 26 active listings.
Take away Bernal Heights and the Central Mission, and there are 16 listings. Each listing appears to be either location, maintenance, or size challenged.
Still think we have a surplus of inventory? We don’t.
medians are not ALL we have, has everyone forgotten the CSI?
The median does not track home values, it tracks what people are spending on homes and tells us virtually nothing about how much home they are getting for those dollars.
The whole reason the Case Shiller Index was created was to provide timely and more accurate numbers regarding true appreciation/depreciation for existing single family homes, the stickiest of all real estate prices.
And the CSI is down down down for SD, LA, and the Bay Area as has been shown repeatedly on this, and many other, websites.
Agreed, bear, but we lean towards medians because they’re specific to the city and not the bay area in general. But I agree the CSI index is superior.
fluj, why are you removing all those areas and homes? Are they not part of the city? Don’t people live there?
Hey, I bet if we 1) remove all the properties that have lost value and 2) remove all the properties in areas where sales are down and inventory is up and 3) remove all the properties which need any work, then we’ll see what’s really going on in the local market: there’s nothing for sale anywhere and anything in the city flies off the shelf for over asking. Only 16 listings in the whole city!!
Unfortunately, Noe Valley and the Marina are not the city. You’ve accused us bears of fallacy of division before – applying macro, national trends to the SF market. But this is fallacy of composition on your part. Nice try, though.
Fluj, with all your qualifiers, I’m surprised that there was a single place left!
Well..the problem with the CSI is that it’s not country level of course. Median price data IS.
Last month I did some quick work where I did actually get close to the Case Shiller price decline using the declines per county using weight according to house sales.
It’s repeated here:
“actually I think the data here (fron Dataquick, posted by Dude above)
SF is down 0.7% year over year.
CoCo down 15.6%
Alameda down 13.0%
San Mateo down 10.3%
Only Marin was up by 0.7%
and the MSA index are consistent, which leads me to believe that these median price changes are fairly indicative of what is happening (at least measured by Case Shiller.
based on jan 08 sales, I weighted each regions price change as follows:
Alameda 36%, CoCo 31%, Marin 5%, SF 14%, SM 14% and came out with overall decline of 11.0% – pretty damn close compared to 10.8% Case Shiller.
So, as I have said before, I believe the SF median price remains a reasonable but not perfect indicator of what is happening, and the MSA numbers are a poor guide to SF City, given the representation is around 14% in total and the mix of price declines is so different between regions.”
If the median consistently understates true price falls, as is oft claimed, I would have expected my answer to be well below 10.8% It wasn’t.
The CSI is superior for a description of what is happening with single family homes in the SF MSA as a whole, but isn’t an accurate measure of what is happening in SF proper. Most of the homes used for the CSI are outside of SF. It’s just spin to only note the deficiencies of median prices, but not the deficiencies of the CSI, in describing what is happening with homes in SF proper.
It is true that CSI does not break down its apples-to-apples comparison by county. So I guess that is a deficiency. All the guesswork about what the actual CSI SF-specific data reveal is just that — guesswork.
To the extent you think medians (esp. comparing one month with one other month) really provide anything useful, note that we also have lots of data on median listing prices, not just sale prices. Median listing prices in SF (both price and price/sf) have been in a steady downward trend for about a year for SFRs. Condos have held up a little better but have been socked in recent months.
Oh, the Richmond and central SF is an outlandish thing to wish for, huh? No one wants that in an SFR right?
Come on man.
I also have always wondered exactly how Case-Shiller factors out the value of improvements. The benefit of CSI is supposed to be that it measures prices by comparing sales of the same houses over time. How did they apportion increases in value to improvements versus actually apprection? Most real estate would depreciate over time without improvements.
“Oh, the Richmond and central SF is an outlandish thing to wish for, huh? No one wants that in an SFR right?
Come on man.”
Realtor speak for only areas that are strong/desirable are the real San Francisco. Absurd!
Everything else is where exactly?
yeah yeah … we have had the CSI isn’t local enough debate ad nasuem despite the fact that it appears the bay area CSI tracks the 10 and 20 city CSI and that there is NO evidence the SF is ‘special’ and doesn’t follow the same national RE trends.
Prices rose here in the 2000’s despite massive job losses due to the dot com boom and flat wages thanks to H1-B visas and stagnant hiring. Why because the same factors that drove the national bubble drove the SF bubble, loose lending and massive speculation.
If SF wasn’t immune on the way up there is no rational reason to think SF will be immune on the way down. The operative word in that sentence being rational.
No. It was a Realtor speaking, pointing out how many 700-900K homes are for sale in central SF and the Richmond. Do you deny that that is what most people would prefer? I’m not saying Bernal Heights isn’t desirable, for example. It is. A 1625 foot property at 618 Precita just closed for 855K. Under asking, and still over 500 a foot, behind a gas station, and a half block off Cesar Chavez. Oh but prices have taken a big hit around town, right guys? Just like LA and San Diego! And post Katrina New Orleans, and Harare Zimbabwe and Kabul.
Hey fluj – is that the same 618 Precita that appraised for $1.0 million in November of 2005?
https://socketsite.com/archives/2006/04/instant_equity.html#comments
“Oh but prices have taken a big hit around town, right guys? Just like LA and San Diego! And post Katrina New Orleans, and Harare Zimbabwe and Kabul.”
Now that is desperation.
Yeah, same house that was purchased for 750K 19 months ago.
“Oh but prices have taken a big hit around town, right guys? Just like LA and San Diego! And post Katrina New Orleans, and Harare Zimbabwe and Kabul.”
Way to contort what was said earlier! The original comment claimed what we are seeing now in SF is exactly what San Diego and LA saw when their downturn started and that SF was 1.5-2 2 years behind.
How you concluded the quoted text above is beyond me?
Oh and sold for “above asking” has now become mysteriously become “under asking but x Price/Sq ft.”
Akrosdobay, I don’t have time for your particular brand of nonsense today. Read the entire thread. The original point was that SD to LA to SF is not a credible analogy.
“Akrosdobay, I don’t have time for your particular brand of nonsense today. Read the entire thread. The original point was that SD to LA to SF is not a credible analogy.”
Apparently the thread doesn’t have time for your nonsense either. You lose credibility in my eyes ever time you post. Your last post just proved my point.
I think you need to heed your own advise. RTFT again.
No. Stop.
Clearly LA is nothing like San Diego, nor is it gonna be. I refer again to the initial analogy, which was uninformed bull f##@#n s@@t
Yall are so willing to seize upon nonsense it isn’t even funny. GOod luck with that. LA is like this: plenty of demand in luxury. Plenty of demand in 700-900 in good areas.
You’re down with the guys who are lumping Riverside and eastern OC with LA?
OK then. That aint LA to an Angelino. Surely all of you reading this at least know that. Good god. Sometimes this S*** gets tiresome.
San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego.
It’s like those old compare and contrast essays we had to do in school. How are they the same? They are all coastal cities in california where people use loans to buy homes. How are they different? They are geographically separate and have a different mix of businesses that support their economies.
Since this bubble was entirely created by loose lending that was equally available everywhere one can conclude that for the issue of home prices their similarities outweigh their differences.
Uh oh.. Looks like Fluj is blowing a gasket. Fluj all the markets are going to be bad. Manhattan, the best market in the country with foreigners coming in to buy any supply is feeling it too. I think you must be just too young or you simply don’t undertand what a real estate downturn looks like. You’ve seen year after year of price appreication and bought into the cool aid. It simply doesn’t go on forever. The best thing you can do is learn from this and realize its best to take your profits when you can, and don’t get too greedy. Greedy people get burned the worst.
Fluj said–
No. Stop.
Clearly LA is nothing like San Diego, nor is it gonna be. I refer again to the initial analogy, which was uninformed bull f##@#n s@@t
Yall are so willing to seize upon nonsense it isn’t even funny. GOod luck with that. LA is like this: plenty of demand in luxury. Plenty of demand in 700-900 in good areas.
You’re down with the guys who are lumping Riverside and eastern OC with LA?
OK then. That aint LA to an Angelino. Surely all of you reading this at least know that. Good god. Sometimes this S*** gets tiresome.
cooper,
I found your tune toward fluj very offensive and tint your arguments.
Basically, everytime I see a post which attacks fluj personally, I don’t need to scroll down to know that must be cooper.
You can argue your points, but personal attacks, something like “deflujsional”, or “you must be just too young” are just uncalled for.
It’s to a point that I would rather read fluj’s arguments than yours.
It’s like, somebody in passing mentions LA tanking as if that’s reality. All bears take it as a given. I literally got on the phone with my colleague, and a guy I grew up with, who works for Sotheby’s in LA. He confirmed what I said above about 700 – 900K.
Then I try to show what the reality is with 700 to 900K here in town. I get criticized for being too limiting, when we all know that that is what the majority of SF residents want. Yeah, I’m too young, I’m predicting health, I’m manipulating dollars per square feet (even though something was apples to apples and 105K more 19 mos later) etc etc. Why eliminate Bernal? So I talk about Bernal. blah blah blah.
Just a bunch of fluj haters! And apologies for coming home from St. Paddy’s and getting on the computer. I really wasn’t angry at all. Just a bit combative.
Both sides make some good points here, but I have to say that my experience of this market thus far supports the theory that the high end of the market, the high demand neighborhoods and the unique properties are still flying off of the shelves, at very high price points per sq/ft. There is softness in the portion of the market that has either lost its uniqueness and strong selling points or that never had them to begin with and were bid up due to a lack of supply. I would use Watermark as an example of a building that is no longer unique-that view is selling in many of the new towers-and their resales are suffering as a result-even at the high end of the market where people are coming into the city and paying cash because the market is nowhere near as intimidating as it recently was. And the units looking directly into the side of a building, or with low sq/ft, or poor layouts, or cheap finishes, etc. that were still selling easily until relatively recently are much more difficult to move now-fewer and fewer people feel the need to settle for them. Especially considering the availability of all of the “latest, greatest” units in the new towers and other developments.
Are we 1.5-2 years behind the national curve? That depends-the paragraph above would seem to suggest that we are. If we’re going into a serious recession or even (gasp) a depression, then we certainly are. If the bears are right about that, they are right about the SFRE market taking a hit as well. Eventually the job losses and the bursting of the recent RE bubble will come home to roost and supply will become an issue. SF is experiencing the kind of growth in the condo supply that we have never had before. ORH, Infinity, BLU, Milennium, SOMA Grande, the Folsom street corridor plans and the transbay terminal. The continuing development of Mission Bay (Radiance, the plans for the seawall behind Giants stadium), the third street corridor, and potrero and the dogpatch rising to meet those developments in the middle with projects like 25 sierra (not new, I know) and homes at espirit park. The amount of development is massive and all of this supply was a good thing for an economy that was performing to the level that San Francisco has been and that the national economy was performing at when construction/planning began.
We had a serious undersupply issue at basically every price point in almost every desirable neighborhood-hence bidding wars. But with all of the new construction and the population density and services that eventually come with it, there will soon be more desirable neighborhoods than we’ve ever had before. South Beach, much of Soma and the northern end of mission bay already have a lot to offer, with many of the areas listed above starting to reach that “critical mass” where restaurants and services will come flooding in. Then, all of a sudden, we will have a lot of inventory in places that will look very appealing to potential residents. Without an economy that is (at least) stable, we’re not going to be able to fill that supply and prices will have to fall. No statistics necessary there, just common financial sense (before you start railing at me about #’s never lying, or tell me that I just don’t understand stats, please keep in mind that my background is in finance, as is my degree. So, while #’s don’t lie, interpretations frequently do).
With that said, what if this “recession” shakes out in one-two years? So far, our pent up demand has kept the market going (relatively) strong. Even the stat bears have to admit that we are outperforming the rest of the country by a wide margin. And unique properties are still selling quickly and at a high price-anecdotally, the penthouse at 601 4th street was on the market for four days before it went into escrow. Who knows what they got for it, but it seems foregone conclusion that they got at least full asking price. That’s just one example, but it is typical of what we’re seeing-the places with a wow factor-either in the residence or the location-sell fast and around (still sometimes above) asking. San Francisco is the kind of market you could watch for 10 years, waiting on the sidelines, hoping for a drop down to “reasonable” prices and never get them. People are going to continually enter the market as prices fall-people who just couldn’t stomach the bidding wars or who just couldn’t stand to pay the price of city living. They-in addition to foreign investors taking advantage of a weak dollar and domestic investors who can finally purchase units that will cash flow as rentals-will prop the market up and at least slow the decline.
So, IMO we’re left with this: serious crash/recession/depression or no? We’ve weathered the bursting of the bubble quite well, but we are approaching a tipping point. People are scared. The credit crisis is real. But the fed is acting quickly and aggressively and stock valuations are not at unreasonable levels. If we can weather this current crisis within the next 1-2 years, I don’t think San Francisco will ever see the 30% + declines that the rest of the country has suffered. We may not (almost certainly won’t) see our previous levels of appreciation for 3-5 years (could easily be longer), and many of the ordinary properties that were bid up because the supply was so low will take a hit, but we could easily hit a very anticlimactic bottom in the next six months. If this crisis is as bad as many on this site are convinced that it is, then prices are gong to steadily decline or even plummet due to foreclosures and fear of investment.
After all of that (thanks for bearing with me), here is the conclusion I have come to: there is risk in both sides of the market, although there is clearly more downside right now than upside. The cost of waiting a bit (at least) to purchase will almost certainly be low-this market isn’t going to skyrocket any time soon-and could easily result in missing a large drop in equity. In the current market, I would only buy: a truly unique property that had everything I wanted-location, square footage, view, etc.-the kind of property people in this city will always want and will be willing to pay for; or a fire sale property with potential. And be prepared to hold onto it for 5+ years. Anything else = big risk without the prospect of a big reward, which is never a good idea.
Thanks for hearing me out and for all of your postings. This is a great site and an excellent resource for anyone looking (or even thinking about looking) at SFRE.
Cheers.
This is late and people probably aren’t reading any more, but I have a hard time seeing oversupply as being an issue inside SF. There are a lot of people who live in the Bay Area that would rather live in SF but don’t because they couldn’t afford to b/c there wasn’t enough housing…so if supply goes up in SF, I really don’t think it will be oversupply, and I think we’ll continue to see outlying areas be much harder-hit. SF is really not a vaccum at all, it’s population grows significantly (I forget numbers but it’s close to doubling I think) during working hours. Lots of those people will be very tempted to move in and eat up whatever supply seems extra. You really can’t look at it in isolation.
So if you guys are looking at SD/LA and including orange county, you also have to include alameda and contra costa, in which case I think you see more or less the same picture here already.
We’re still reading.
I have to agree with Mark Twain’s post above – long but accurate synopsis of the market. I’ve been bearish since late ’05, but I have to admit I’ve been surprised that SF has fared this well while Contra Costa and even San Mateo get crushed. I guess we can consider it a tribute to decades of “progressive” anti-growth policies and the NIMBY junkyard dog mentality that pervades our fair city. The supressed demand has proven more resilient than I expected.
The salient point: downside risk is still much greater than potential upside at this point. Any veteran of credit or economic cycles knows that 5 years of credit abuse are not fixed in 1-2 years.
Regarding SF supply being quickly snapped up…I just don’t see it, at least not on a mass scale. Bay area home prices are still disconnected from bay area incomes. As outlying areas continue to get cheaper, I’d wager more people leave the city than move in, especially in outer ‘hoods like Sunset and Glen Park. But we’ll see.
I think Dude’s observation is supported pretty strongly by the chart/numbers at the top of this thread. Supply is up considerably and sales are down considerably from last year. One cannot reasonably conclude that indicates strong demand. It remains to be seen whether would-be sellers just hold on and refuse to sell at growing discounts over recent years (although the increase in listings seems to indicate the opposite), but it is clear that demand is a fraction of what it was — for various reasons.
I just want to say, “Thank you” to socketsite for updating this data, as well as the median price and sales volume graph, on a regular basis.
So then…. Thank you.
Yeah; I think there’s probably not much I could add to mr. stats.
I also think some people are really going after fluj when he seems to at least back up his posts with data.
I just wanted to point out if we’re making comparisons, that looking at SF alone is really analagous to looking at the more expensive third or maybe quarter of LA, because lots of people live in the East Bay or down the peninsula but work in the city and could move in if prices dropped. Also, plenty of people live in the city and commute down. So I don’t think it’s fair to compare SF without including other counties just because of the way the lines are drawn up here vs. down there.
Why everybody on here would rather look at raw
number that can be interpreted sixty million ways than listen to people in the midst of the market is something I don’t get. But hey, whatever floats your (bottle around a ) boat.
Why everybody on here would rather look at raw
number that can be interpreted sixty million ways than listen to people in the midst of the market is something I don’t get
i’ll answer this (there is no offence meant, honestly)
First, let me personally say that it IS possible to interpret data differently. Thus, it is important for one to UNDERSTAND the data, what it is telling you, and what it is not telling you. One also must understand the limitations of the data. As you point out, many people are unable to do this. we all can fall trap to “data mining”
However, these qualifications are not specific to graphs/charts, they are also important for allegorical stories from those in the midst.
my reason for not totally believing the people in the midst of the market is that they have been so horrendously wrong for so long. (again, in my opinion)
For over a year I heard “there is no housing bubble” and then when it was clear that there was a housing bubble I heard “well, it’s a souffle” and then “we’ll have a short soft landing”
it was only 9-10 months ago when SF realtors thought that price declines in the city were IMPOSSIBLE. even when confronted with the fact that RE did fall in the past, they still felt it was impossible. I must thus discount their future predictions as many do not know the past.
basically, the people in the midst have been (in my opinion) severely behind the curve. I think that’s partly because nobody is perfect, partly because the RE market has so many working parts it is impossible to be “right” all the time, partly because some Realtors have a conflict of interest in the market going up (no big deal for me), partly because many Realtors are young and haven’t lived through a downturn before. (how many were in the business in 1989?)
This is not to say that I don’t listen to what Realtors are saying. Only that I take their experience/information and add it to my own, as well as macroeconomic data, as well as a whole host of other information-like when Satchel posts data with addresses (some of which I’ve confirmed personally)
I think Realtors are fairly good at assessing what is happening RIGHT NOW in their local market. They (again in my opinion) have been very poor at understanding what the effects of macroeconomics will have on the local RE market, and poor at predicting what will happen.
Its hard to read the numbers and compare it to a particular locality/district. Economy/real-estate is not mathematics, where there is one right and one wrong. But, it’s a better indicator than people coming up with statements(some with their own interest in mind).
Its funny how everyone agrees on numbers when its all rosy….