S&P/Case-Shiller Index Change: February 2008 (www.SocketSite.com)
According to the February 2008 S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index (pdf), single-family home prices in the San Francisco MSA fell 5.0% from January ’08 to February ’08 and are down 17.2% year-over-year. For the broader 10-City composite (CSXR), year-over-year price growth is down 13.6% (having fallen 2.8% from January).

For the month of February, markets in the West were the biggest decliners. San Francisco [-5.0%], Las Vegas [-4.8%], and Los Angeles [-4.3%] were the worst performers. Each had a negative return in excess of 4%. Charlotte remains the only market that has a positive return over the past 12 months, but it too has seen negative returns in each of the last six months and is in the midst of growth deceleration.

Prices fell across all three price tiers for the San Francisco MSA with the rate of decline accelerating across the board.
S&P/Case-Shiller Index Price Tiers: February 2008 (www.SocketSite.com)
The bottom third (under $513,218 at the time of acquisition) fell 5.9% from January to February (down 32.0% YOY); the middle third fell 5.9% from January to February (down 20.6% YOY); and the top third (over $756,420 at the time of acquisition) fell 2.5% from January to February (down 6.0% YOY).
And according to the Index, home values for the bottom third of the market in the San Francisco MSA have returned to December 2003 levels, the middle third to May 2004 levels, and the top third to March 2005 levels.
The standard SocketSite S&P/Case-Shiller footnote: The HPI only tracks single-family homes (not condominiums which represent half the transactions in San Francisco), is imperfect in factoring out changes in property values due to improvements versus actual market appreciation (although they try their best), and includes San Francisco, San Mateo, Marin, Contra Costa, and Alameda in the “San Francisco” index (i.e., the greater MSA).
UPDATE: Back by popular demand, the San Francisco price tiers plotted logarithmically:
S&P/Case-Shiller Index Price Tiers: February 2008 (www.SocketSite.com)
Steep Declines in Home Prices Continued in February 2008 [Standard & Poor’s]
January S&P/Case-Shiller: San Francisco MSA Continues Decline [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by anonfedup

    And remember San Francisco, while we claim to have the “Wall Street of the West”, Charlotte has become the nations second largest banking center, and Los Angeles got our stock exchange. Charlotte is living what we are dreaming which is “it is different here, because we are special”.
    To watch a great city like S.F. let major financial institutions slip away, along with the high paying jos, and instead become a tourist based economy along with luxury condo housing for Peninsula tech. employees is sad. Imagine only 30 years ago this was a place people moved to not for bohemian nostalgia, but for economic opportunity and quality of life.

  2. Posted by Peter

    That latest Case-Shiller graph is just plain scary.

  3. Posted by cooper

    That is one ugly chart. [Removed by Editor]
    [Editor’s Note: Let’s take the higher road make this about the data/facts/trends (rather than individuals).]

  4. Posted by Steve

    To the naysayers who think San Francisco is immune from price declines, San Francisco dropped a whopping 5% in just one month alone. The highest drop of any of the 20 cities listed.
    Are the Realtors going to say that now is the time to buy? I hope not. They’ve been saying that for the last year and buyers who followed that advice got burned badly.
    Expect SF to have further price declines for the next 3 years.

  5. Posted by Trip

    Notice that the SF MSA is now seeing the steepest price declines of any area in the country that CS tracks. I know, I know — we’re going to hear from many that SF is totally different from its own MSA.
    SF listings are way up, and sales volume is way down. To argue that prices are not following is to argue that the laws of economics have been repealed here.

  6. Posted by "Dave"

    It’s sad that we have fewer “financial engineers” here as opposed to the “Peninsula tech” workers? Ridiculous.
    Charlotte can keep right on living that dream. Their biggest employer? The health care system. #2 and #3? Wachovia (20k) and Bank of America (14k). #4 and #5? Walmart and Food Lion… Thanks but no thanks.
    Between Charles Schwab and Wells Fargo alone, we have more financial employees than Charlotte. Oh and then of course there’s our “sad” little tech economy (six of the top ten companies in the Bay Area by revenue).
    People who are sad about the opportunities created at HP, Intel, Oracle, Google, Cisco and Apple should probably just move away from here. Soon.

  7. Posted by Jules

    HP, Intel, Oracle, Google, Apple and Cisco are not in San Francisco the last time I checked. I think the above post was about San Francisco becoming a bedroom community, instead of a economic leader. If their employees choose to live here and take busses to work 40 miles south, why cannot the SFGOV create opportunities for these companies to consider having their headquarters here in the city, since there are so many opportunities here as you claim. Using Schwab as an economic indicator for the city is not a good idea these days by the way.

  8. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Let’s see if I can resume.
    Step 1 – the BA is different
    Step 2 – the Real BA is different
    Step 3 – SF is different
    Step 4 – SF excluding Bayview is different
    Step 5 – SF excluding Bayview and Excelsior and Sunset is different
    Step 6 – SF excluding Bayview and Excelsior and Visitacion Valley and Sunset and Richmond and SOMA and all the new condos built all over is different
    Step 7 – SF excluding Bayview and Excelsior and Visitacion Valley and Sunset and Richmond and SOMA and all the new condos built all over and the lower parts of Bernal North, South, East and maybe some streets on the West and don’t forget the Western Addition and some parts of Hayes Valley and Van Ness and “I will attach an excel spreadsheet with all the bad streets in the good neighborhoods” is different.

  9. Posted by Michael

    Dave: The problem for San Francisco is that the average “financial engineer” earns at least 2-3x times that of the average “Peninsula tech” or commercial bank employee year after year.
    IPO or buyout money? Once in a lifetime for the majority of tech employees and not much more than a top bankers ANNUAL bonus.
    Two different classes of earning and buying power.

  10. Posted by cooper

    Ok I’ve cut back on commenting here because of all the excessive and one sided editing by Socketite. Fluj and I have had a lively back and forth for some time and the one sided editing has gone too far. None of my comments are personal and are at BEST light teasing. At the same time, I’ve had personal attacks such as “go back to Texas” even thoughh I am not from Texas. Exactly zero of these comments have been edited.
    The one sided bias here is quite obvious and it has stifled commentary. And the highly pro realtor and pro builder bias of the sight is more than obvious. Cough, trying to get paid advertisign.
    Too bad, this site could have been a decent source of information but the owners bias has pretty much ruined it. I am done coming here…much as others have stopped. It’s just way too boring.
    [Editor’s Note: One sided and too pro industry? You have got to be kidding. And as always, all we ask is that comments try to add value (and we honestly don’t care which “side” they’re on).]

  11. Posted by SFwatcher

    TO add to SanFronzi
    Its not street anymore, it the top floor and bottom floor. Even if bottom floor condo is dropping price, top floor is different..

  12. Posted by "Dave"

    So Jules, Schwab is a poor economic indicator but Wachovia and Bank of America are good economic indicators? I believe Wachovia just had to raise $7b in capital, announced a $350m loss, and cut its dividend in half. And if you had bothered to actually read my post, I stated that those companies were in the Bay Area.
    The earlier post was about the utopia of Charlotte where they “live the dream” compared to SF where all of our high paying jobs are evaporating. It was based on no facts whatsoever, just opinion. The median commute in Charlotte is 22 miles, so let’s not get all teary eyed about people walking to work or riding Segways in downtown Charlotte. It just isn’t happening.
    If you don’t like it here, go away. I don’t see why that is a difficult concept to grasp. And if you don’t want to live in SF and commute to a sad tech job on the Peninsula, then don’t. There are plenty who will.

  13. Posted by Enthano

    Not to dismiss the index, but remember this is tracking single family homes only for the San Francisco MSA so it’s not a perfect reflection of local market conditions. SF has relatively few single family homes and the SF MSA covers a much larger area than the City of SF.

  14. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    The one sided bias here is quite obvious and it has stifled commentary. And the highly pro realtor and pro builder bias of the sight is more than obvious. Cough, trying to get paid advertisign.

    oh how many times have the housing cheerleaders accused SS of being biased against the market and being a site full of “bitter renters”.
    One mans teasing is another man’s bullying.

  15. Posted by San FronziScheme

    San Francisco does have a lot of local tech companies, start-up of well installed. They are just a little bit smaller on average than the Valley’s behemoths and therefore not as visible. But there are plenty of tech workers working and living here.
    About the Google shuttle effect, this is a reality, but not as wide-scaled as announced in some posts. SF is not a sleeping community for the Valley by far. Just try commuting every day after day. I have a few friends who tried and it sounded like a great idea until they practiced it. SF-San Jose is 50+ minutes by the 280 and 90+ minutes by CalTrain. Knowledge workers do not have the time to drive around for 2 precious hours a day to go sleep in beautiful Fog City.

  16. Posted by "Dave"

    Michael, I have several friends from b-school who are in those financial jobs and I know how the payscale is tilted. I also know that there are no bars on the exits here in SF.

  17. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Its not street anymore, it the top floor and bottom floor. Even if bottom floor condo is dropping price, top floor is different..
    And is worth every penny of its 1000/sf tag price paid in 2006.

  18. Posted by cooper

    badlydrawnbear said “oh how many times have the housing cheerleaders accused SS of being biased against the market and being a site full of “bitter renters”.
    One mans teasing is another man’s bullying.”
    there probably is a lot more bitter renters here…the point is the socketside editors are biased. They edit only one side of the argument.
    And sorry but me saying “oh where is person X” now is not bullying. I’ve had pro builders like fluj say “go back to texas” and much much worse and its never edited. While about 80% of my comments now are being edited out and the worst I’ve said is where is person X — That is light teasing at best. While at the same time every thing I say here.
    Where was socketsite when I got slammed for saying all this was coming? they never edited any of the peopel arguing with me?
    Socketsite edits like this is bloody Pravda. no point in posting if every comment I make gets edited. Why doesn’t socket site just make all the comments and have the debate it wants to read rather than editing our comments to spin what it wants to say? Save us all they babysitting. If you want to have a blog then have one and stop the ridiculous editing.
    [Editor’s Note: Out of 175 of your comments, 7 have been “edited.” Almost exclusively for writing nothing more than “Where is Deflujional now?” And now back to the data…]

  19. Posted by zzzzzzz

    “…Charlotte can keep right on living that dream. Their biggest employer? The health care system. #2 and #3? Wachovia (20k) and Bank of America (14k). #4 and #5? Walmart and Food Lion… Thanks but no thanks….”
    And the number one employer in SF? The City and County, by a long shot; one city worker for every 27 residents, no less. That’s nothing to brag about.

  20. Posted by dub dub

    I may have missed it, but isn’t this data broken down by county too (instead of including alameda, marin, contra costa, etc). It seems if you had the raw data, it would be easy to make a “San Francisco county” index.
    [Editor’s Note: Unfortunately it’s only released at the MSA level (although we’d gladly publish county level statistics if any pluggged-in tipsters would care to “liberate” the raw data).]

  21. Posted by Anon

    For everyone that leaves someone is ready to move in? I wouldn’t be quite so sanguine about San Francisco’s population prospects.

  22. Posted by HappyRenter

    John said:
    “When the three tiers meet, that’s the bottom. (of course, some of the extreme bears would like to see the index dropping to 80)”
    That was when last months data came out. The tiers seem to have met now. I don’t think he will be right, but we will see for sure next month.
    FWIW I expect the lower tiers to cross the upper tier, but for them all to continue to head downwards.

  23. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    And yet according to DQ, almost every zip code in San Francisco proper has seen median price and price per square foot go *up* this month.
    SFS is just a speculator who made a bad bet and is now trying to talk down the market. Good luck with that one.
    [Editor’s Note: Keep in mind that while median sales price is a good measure of what people are buying, it’s a poor measure of actual appreciation.]

  24. Posted by John

    Did the three tiers just meet again?
    I had predicted that when the three tiers meet, that’s the bottom. However, I was expecting them to meet at about 160 (2002 level, inflation adjusted) in 2009.
    So, I will have to modify my prediction – yes, I am willing to call the (near) bottom now, but the bottom will be pretty flat (“U” shape instead of “V” shape). We will see a flat (slightly declining) bottom into late 2009, hovering between 160 to 160, before it goes up.
    Actually, based on this graph, I would say it is a good time to start search if you want to buy. Buying in SF is difficult due to the limited choices, so it may take one and half years to find the one you like.
    I know some bears will be attacking me. It doesn’t matter. Wait for one year and let’s see how far off I am.
    [Editor’s Note: February index values for the three tiers: Low – 180.7; Middle – 171.1; High – 171.3. We don’t see any signs that we’re nearing a local “bottom.”]

  25. Posted by John

    Hey, HappyRenter, thank you for keeping tracks of what I said. It is good to know someone remembered me. 😉

  26. Posted by ex SF-er

    the rate of acceleration of the downturn is actually quite surprising.
    I’m assuming (dangerous to do) that much of it has to do with tightening lending practices.
    Bay Areans are simply not “rich” enough to affod RE at last year’s levels. That much was always obvious. It was also evident that financing played a major role in the ability for people to bid up prices.
    the question now: what will become of the financing?
    will govt have the necessary tools and be able to intercede in time to stop the halt? (they have a STRONG incentive to keep housing prices up since property taxes are based on valuation).
    if the powers that be cannot find a way to open up the mortgage market, then the expensive markets will have a long way to fall.

  27. Posted by Anonymous

    “And yet according to DQ, almost every zip code in San Francisco proper has seen median price and price per square foot go *up* this month.”
    Nice qualification with “proper”. BTW, DQ’s sq. ft. numbers don’t include condos. Actual March 2008 report:

  28. Posted by ex SF-er

    I remember when you posted your theory earlier last year.
    I as just wondering about the methodology behind this prediction.
    -is there a rationale behind why the downturn should stop when the 3 lines meet? or is it more that you’ve obsrved in the past/other markets that RE tends to recover when the three lines meet?
    Because I see that they did all intersect at the end of the downturn of 1997, but they did not in 2001.
    -is there no chance for an over-correction, or for them to be intersected but continue falling for a while?
    now that they’ve met, it could be bad if they continued falling at 5% month over month for a few months. (I don’t think that will happen, I’m just asking)

  29. Posted by Mole Man

    The market spread between low and high end units has been squeezed back down. That spread got prominent after 2001 and exploded after 2003 but since 2006 has almost entirely gone away. This indicates a radical shift in the character of the market. Probably the biggest influence is the flushing of the worst of the fraud that was going on.

    That San Francisco and the Bay Area stand out so much is an interesting example of paying a steep price later on. The DC/NoVa market had its 5% down in one month period some time ago. Local markets really are different, but only in the manner in which they snap back from all this craziness. Still not much sign of a bottom anywhere, even in the markets that headed down first.

  30. Posted by satchelfan

    Hey people! San Francisco is not even in the top ten for highest median gross income for the Bay Area…Must do something to the home prices you think?

  31. Posted by greater fool

    I’m also wondering about the rationale for calling the intersection of all three tiers some kind of inflection point. If you think about the quantitative meaning of that point, it’s merely the point at which all three tiers are at an equal degree of appreciation relative to the benchmark score of 100 back in the year 2000.
    So why would it be important that all three tiers meet at the same degree of price appreciation?

  32. Posted by satchelfan

    Oh wait… those numbers are for the entire state..hmmmm…

  33. Posted by FSBO

    Listed sales for April (SFHs and condos in San Fran) are on a pace to hit an all-time high in the median price – $849K v the previous high of $839.5K for May 07. Volume will of course be off probably 15-25% from 07 & 06. It’s really pretty incredible in light of these overriding trends. As an example, check out 2221 Baker (recall the Photoshopped hill removal) – it just sold for $405K over asking.

  34. Posted by John

    SF-er, my theory was that the top tier was “less” overpriced at the first place, and eventually, all three tiers will go back to their fair value.
    And I believe the fair value is the 2002 price level (inflation adjusted).
    I was predicting that it will take a little bit time to reach the bottom (2009). Add a little bit of inflation, I figured the fair level at 2009 is about 160 to 165.
    The real question is whether the market will over-correct. That’s a real possibility, due to the over-building over the last two to three years.
    The home builders are holding back right now. So, by 2009, the over-building between 2005 to 2007 will be canceled out by the under-building between 2007 to 2009.
    My prediction was not really about cause-and-effect. My real point is at the end of 2009, the index will be at 160 to 165, and the three tiers will be at the same level.
    The three tiers meet a little bit earlier than I thought.

  35. Posted by ex SF-er

    it looks like they do count condos.
    it is unclear to me if they count new condos.
    from the site: “Reporting resale single family residences and condos as well as new homes”
    FWIW: I counted
    on YOY basis:
    13/23 SF zip codes saw median price declines
    10/17 SF zip codes saw price/sq ft decline.
    however, # of sales per zip code was widely different.

  36. Posted by REpornaddict

    what is interesting is that LA still has the bottom tier index way above that of the other two – they have almost converged for the SF MSA.
    the SF tiers are likely to meet next month – clearly they wont stop declining then, the question is whether they rates of decline will converge at all – personally I dont think so and in 6 months or so the upper tier will be the highest by some degree.
    Also bear in mind the County of SF is represented in this index by I guess 10-15% – so not really a barometer of what is happening here. (Sales in SF are 15% of the total MSA composite areas, but the Case Shiller exlcuded condos, of which there will be significantly more in SF)

  37. Posted by fluj

    Good morning.
    Let’s see. We’re happy to point out that Intel, Oracle, Google and Apple aren’t located in San Francisco.
    Yet neither is the “San Francisco MSA.”
    Cherry picking indicators? No! That’s not located inside the city limits. But this chart, composed of four counties outside of San Francisco is somehow relevant.
    No. Contra Costa shouldn’t even be on here. Mr. Shiller just adds it because he is an uberbear who likes to mess with guys like me. I’m convinced of it.
    Next we have Fronzi extending some metaphor. We see him going on about the Richmond and the Sunset now. Huh. Very interesting thing to say when medians did no falling in those areas in February. Richmond was the exact same volume (10)YoY from the previous February. it has one dollar per foot less (601), and about 100K higher avg sales price. Sunset was 27$ ppft higher this Feb. 6K on average less, and volume went down from 35 to 23 — but we aren’t talking volume, are we?
    And then Cooper called me a “builder” and said I told him to go back to Texas one time. I neither a builder nor have I ever told anybody to go back to Texas. (Well not since I worked at a ski resort in Colorado back in ’95, anyway. And then only to University of Texas pullover wearing skiers in jeans. And it was still mean back then. And I regret it.)
    You know what? I provide MLS numbers to this site on a fairly frequent basis. They usually get corroborated by another poster or two. We’ve already talked February in SF on here, more than once. And it is nothing like what the “MSA” portrays.
    So go ahead and seize upon this stuff. I know most of you do it for fun anyway, and that none of the loudest voices on here are in the market. ‘Cause if you were, you sure wouldn’t be thinking the sort of stuff you write whenever the Case Shiller comes out.

  38. Posted by tipster

    Case-Shiller looks at what the same house is selling for, while DQ just tells you the median amount people are spending. When volumes are down, there’s a difference.
    There doesn’t appear to be any basis for your prediction. To most of us, the graphs converging appears to be that the higher end just held on longer and is now catching up. Care to share the basis of your theory?
    To put a positive voice on this,we are transitioning from an economy in which the most careless spenders had the best lifestyle, to one in which the most productive will have the best lifedtyle. Although it may be negative for housing, it will be better for everyone.
    You can’t sustain an economy where the least educated, least hard working people have the highest standard of living. Those charts are reflective of the correction. That will be good for everyone.

  39. Posted by Anonymous

    I guess my abbreviations weren’t clear. From the DQ March 2008 RE report:
    “Price per Square Foot data is for single family resales only”
    In the interest of full disclosure, 19 of 23 zips showed sales volume declines.

  40. Posted by ex SF-er

    thanks for the info John…

  41. Posted by San FronziScheme

    It appears the PermaBulls have agreed for today’s strategy to counter all the “negativity that is bringing this market down”.
    1 – Read the chart the way you want it to be. Find a bottom for any meaningless oddity (“crossing of tiers”, for me it means simply that everything falls together from now on)
    2 – When the chart reading is discredited, question the “Case-Shiller” index as inacurate and slanted to the down side for whatever reason.
    3 – When Bears keep on charging with more charts and data, start pointing out highly localized anecdotes. “Real Estate is ever changing and highly localized” as the NAR lady says.
    4 – The last stand when they are cornered is anybody’s guess.

  42. Posted by John

    ex SF-er,
    Another factor is the credit market. That’s another force to cause the market to over-correct. The banks are shying away from mortgage loans right now, making buying more difficult.
    Actually, for people who has to borrow money, it is more expensive to buy (in SF) right now, than mid-2007, despite the price drop.
    My original timeline is that the credit market will get back to normal early to mid 2009. Add the Presidential election (The Dems are more likely to increase taxes, thus making buying more attractive), I have no doubt we will see the market picking up again in 2010. What happens between now and then is how we have some fun in predictions.

  43. Posted by John

    When did I become a PermaBull?
    I never knew predicting downtrend makes me a bull.

  44. Posted by fluj

    You routinely say things that are patently false. I don’t want to get into a now patented name calling round any more. It seems like we have find a way to politely disagree of late. But jeez, man, your enumerated step routine was really forced.
    Just keep it areas 10 and like two parts of areas 3. That’s where SF has taken its lumps. February attests, so did March, and I’ve been showing you all April updates all month. Saying otherwise is going out on a limb. It doesn’t have any basis in fact, and it is indeed the type of misinformation that has real buyers and sellers scratching their heads in the marketplace.

  45. Posted by San FronziScheme

    I see some are skipping straight to Step 4.

  46. Posted by fluj

    @ Fronzi,
    So we take it you have no interest whatsoever in retracting your false statements vis a vis the Sunset and Richmond, and other areas?

  47. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    To the editors,
    I would like to point out that why you are editing one posters comments for making it about individuals …

    [Editor’s Note: Let’s take the higher road make this about the data/facts/trends (rather than individuals).]

    Fluj’s comments, seem to me, highly personal and often directed at individuals and not about data/facts/trends but I don’t see his posts being edited. Maybe this is what cooper was talking about.

  48. Posted by tipster

    I think a lot of people appreciate your comments and insights. Your facts are never wrong. I suspect that for every snide commenter, there are ten who really appreciate your postings.
    Please keep them coming, no matter what kind of grief you get over them.
    For what it’s worth, to those of you who mention him, he usually just points out areas that are doing better than the rest. There will ALWAYS be such areas. He just points them out, without trying to pretend they are representative of the market as a whole. No harm in that.
    He says SFRs are still doing pretty well. Guess what, he’s right. He admits condos are not doing so well and aren’t likely to do well soon. He’s right. He doesn’t state that SFRs will always do well, just that they are doing well right now. I just don’t see why people attack the messenger when the messenger is correct.
    I’ve countered that there is still some pent up demand for SFRs, and not many have been built, as the likely reason why SFRs are still doing well, but will start to drop once that demand has been worked through. But I don’t attack him as a permabull. My take on it is he isn’t a permabull. Every now and then he heads in that direction, but pretty quickly pulls back.
    The attacks on fluj are misplaced. Reread his posts: 99% are very accurate.

  49. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    and back to the data …
    I have never seen the point in trying to counter the CSI numbers, which are clearly macro numbers (as pointed out in the post and by S&P/CSI itself) by posting micro numbers about individual districts within SF. The trend for existing single family homes (the stickets of all RE prices) is clearly down and down substantially and the trend shows no sign of slowing/abating. In fact to reference I post I made yesterday …

    kids is this loooooong from over and the home builders and financial institutions agree
    From Bloomberg: KB Home’s Broad Says Home Prices May Drop Another 20%
    Eli Broad … said he expects home prices to drop another 20 percent.
    “I don’t think we’re anywhere near a bottom in housing,” Broad told Bloomberg TV at the Milken Institute Conference in Beverly Hills, California. “We’re going to have a big inventory of unsold, unoccupied homes that’s going to take three or four years to clear out.”

    “People were using their home equity as really an ATM machine,” Broad said, referring to an automatic teller machine. “They were spending more money than they were earning by taking equity out of their home. That couldn’t go on indefinitely. We’re now paying a price for that.”
    From Reuters: Morgan Stanley see big bank woes just beginning
    “More capital hikes and dividend cuts (are) coming as our credit deteriorates and forward earnings decline,” [Morgan Stanley] analysts led by Betsy Graseck wrote in a report. “We think we are only in the third inning of the credit cycle and expect this credit cycle will be worse than (the slump in) 1990-91.”
    This goes a long way to explain why the housing bears refer to even primest of prime areas in SF as not having cracked ‘yet’. Because there appears to be a long road ahead before we hit bottom.

  50. Posted by fluj

    I’d ask that you take a step back and really look at this thread. I showed up like 30 posts or 2 and a half hours in. In my absence, my name had been mentioned how many times?
    Further, consider the source of this chart. Shiller is a self-avowed uber bear.

  51. Posted by fluj

    KB homes has nothing whatsoever to do with San Francisco. People are now buying with 20% down.

  52. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    Shiller maybe an “uber-bear” but that didn’t STANDARD AND POOR’S from publishing the CASE/Shiller Index showing record appreciation and price rises.
    Accusing Shiller of manipulating the data (that is published by Standard and Poor’s based on a methodology developed by two seperate economists) is a poor attempt to discredit these numbers.

  53. Posted by akrosdabay

    “Further, consider the source of this chart. Shiller is a self-avowed uber bear.”
    What is wrong with that? Why do you have strange iterations on the term “bear”?
    You don’t just plain represent facts but always take time to deride the bears. I think that is what rubs people the wrong way.

  54. Posted by Blank

    Whew, I was worried for a minute. I feel so much better now that I know that Shiller has no credibility, the monthly Data quick reports are meaningless, the market is strong, the budget is balanced, and Bush didn’t win the last election.

  55. Posted by Po Hill Jeff

    San Fronzi, I’ve got to disagree with you about the high-tech bedroom community question. At least in SOMA/Potrero/Dogpatch this is a real effect, and I know because I commute daily on Caltrain. The fast trains from the SOMA terminal to San Jose take 59 minutes start to finish, and if you leave from 22nd Street (Potrero/Dogpatch) and go to Mountain View, as many do, it’s 40 minutes. It’s a smooth ride, and you can work too.
    This is one reason I’m excited about buying (someday!) in Potrero or Dogpatch.

  56. Posted by fluj

    I didn’t say Shiller has no credibility. I said he is alligned in one direction primarily. That’s what “uber bear” means to me. There was even an item last week where he chuckled about it at some conference or another. I’m paraphrasing but it was like, “yeah, you got me. I’m pretty much always that guy.”
    And you know what, I actually do feel as if including CoCo is manipulating this data. Perhaps one of you could explain to me how Contra Costa is particularly relevant here.
    No. Contra Costa belongs in its own region with Yolo, Solano, Sacrmaento and San Joaquin counties. They all share the Sacramento river Delta and Suisun marsh characteristics. It has far more in common with those counties in every way than it does with Alameda, Marin, or any Peninsula areas.

  57. Posted by Dude

    Not directly relevant to the post, but I don’t think Shiller is an “uberbear.” Shiller is just an academic and leading figure in behavioral finance. He’s written on momentum trading and investor expectations, and how these factors currently play a stronger role in markets (whether equity or real estate) than underlying fundamentals. When repeatedly questioned about his predictions for home prices, he’s refused to prognosticate based on his ties to this index and it’s role in market trading. You want to see “uberbear,” go read Roubini.

  58. Posted by vox

    I thought we had agreed to graph this data in log scale.
    Whenever you want to chart data that’s been compounding/deflating over a long time series, it’s best paractice to do it in log scale. It’s impossible to draw trend lines otherwise.
    As is, it makes it look like the good old days were lackadaisical pastures without volatility and modern times are volcanic eruptions of apocalyptic meltdowns or bubbles.
    I’ll hold off on asking you to put the data into “real numbers” adjusted for CPI (or your own preferred inflator/deflator) but I would give you mad props if you went that far.
    Please refresh the graphs.

  59. Posted by Foolio

    My $0.02:
    Over the last year, I’ve felt like a sailboat out on the open seas, getting pushed in one direction and then the other by forces beyond my strength.
    I’ve been in the market, with aggressive (yet unsuccssful) offers.
    I’ve been out of the market, avoiding all open houses and locking up my down payment cash elsewhere.
    Yes, I want to buy. No, I don’t want to so badly that I will risk seeing my 20% down evaporate. As a potential buyer, this is one scary graph.

  60. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    let’s keep in mind the S&P puts the numbers together (I believe there is a committee) based on a methodology developed by two economists, NOT Shiller himself.
    Also, the Index was developed in the late 80’s and not in response to the recent runup in prices.
    And as far as included Contra Costa in the index, I didn’t hear housing bulls complaining about including these regions as the lead the market eve higher, which we can clearly see was the case by the tier break out, so to be complaining about it now is just disingenuous (IMHO).

  61. Posted by Mark D.

    re Fluj at 10:26: “Contra Costa belongs in its own region with Yolo, Solano, Sacrmaento and San Joaquin counties. They all share the Sacramento river Delta and Suisun marsh characteristics. It has far more in common with those counties in every way than it does with Alameda, Marin, or any Peninsula areas.”
    The definition of an MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) is from the US govt and is as follows: “The United States Office of Management and Budget (OMB) defines metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas according to published standards that are applied to Census Bureau data. The general concept of a metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area is that of a core area containing a substantial population nucleus, together with adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and social integration with that core.” http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/aboutmetro.html
    It has nothing to do with sharing “the Sacramento river Delta and Suisun marsh characteristics”. On the contrary, it’s economic and social integration that is important (e.g., BART goes to Contra Costa county, and residents use BART to commute to jobs in SF). On that basis, Contra Costa county is appropriately included in the SF MSA, whereas Yolo county or Santa Cruz county is not.

  62. Posted by fluj

    Had I been following this site three years ago I would have questioned what CoCo is doing in this MSA back then too. Some of those towns aren’t the Bay Area. They’re Delta.

  63. Posted by Louis

    1) if you take the data at semi-face value — or even some discount for bear factor of shiller — the SF market is going to decline for 3-6-9- months before a trend this steep can turn around.
    2) the “tale of 2 cities” is not believable in a drop this sharp — i.e. “its just the bayview” — so the price drop HAS TO affect over markete — only question is degree.
    3) so if richmond/sacto/san diego down 30% / bvhp down 20% ?? / top zip code in city will drop 10%.
    or some metric like that.

  64. Posted by Lurker

    Have any of you folks actually tried making an offer on a half decent, fairly priced property in District 5 or 7 lately ?
    That is the reality of the market.

  65. Posted by John

    SF is not just district 5 or 7.
    Yes, most people will avoid 10 (and maybe 3), and there are very few SFR in 8 or 9. However, all the other districts/neighborhoods are just fine for average families.

  66. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    And the CSI validates that. The SFH homes in the upper 1/3rd have barely declined remaining virtually flat for the last few years and only recently experiencing a decline.

  67. Posted by noseeum

    RE not including Contra Costa, that’s just a red herring. These numbers have been released consistently for years.
    Their direction, though not necessarily the exact magnitude, has been highly correlated with prices in SF proper. But even magnitude has been highly correlated.
    One can quibble with the details perhaps, but I don’t see how you can throw them out completely.
    RE Schiller being a perma-bear. Irrelevant. This is data. The process for creating the data is well documented and has been used in all market cycles. Schiller may draw conclusions from the numbers that you disagree with, and he can be called out as a perma bear in those cases. But you can’t blame his sentiment for the numbers.

  68. Posted by ex SF-er

    The methodology behind the Case Shiller index was created by Robert Shiller and Karl Case in the 1980’s.
    it was sold to Fireserv in 2002.
    Standard and Poors publishes the data.
    Contra Costa is counted in the MSA, because this is the way that the SF Bay Area MSA is defined by the United States Office of Management and Budget. It is the 9th most populous county in California. It is considered one of the counties of the “Bay Area”. Nobody considers it part of Sacramento area.
    there is no conspiracy (unless Shiller was a genius and decided to do this more than 2 decades ago)
    Contra Costa is no less relevant to SF than some of the far flung suburbs that are part of the other MSA’s. almost all the MSA’s have far flung components to them. as example: NYC’s MSA includes places in Connecticut, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
    in fact, contra costa county is only 30 miles from SF. (it’s like 70 to Sacramento)
    that said, there is truth behind the idea that some of the MSA’s are pretty large and there are significant differences between cities within each MSA. one must just understand that when interpreting the data.
    however, the important thing IMO is that the data is gathered CONSISTENTLY. Thus, RE skyrocketed in the SF MSA with Contra Costa, and now is falling with Contra Costa. It is most likely that SF MSA appreciation the last few years had less to do with SF county than the other counties… and now less to do with SF on the drop too…
    Case Shiller Faq, warning pdf

  69. Posted by john

    Coco to SF is like Inland Empire to LA.

  70. Posted by scurvy

    Po Hill Jeff, don’t be so excited about taking that train and doing the SF->Valley tech commute. I did it for over 5 years and honestly I can say, I hated it. Even when the “bullet” trains came into effect, it was terrible. The Bay Area is the only place I’ve lived where taking the train takes longer than driving. Caltrain is just plain messed up.
    Even if they make things faster, you still have to get to and from the train station and budget enough time to buy a ticket, get on board, etc. That 40 mins each way figure just turned to an hour easily.
    Once I realized that I was losing two hours of my life every day to commuting, I got a job that paid less inside SF. Now I have a 10 minute commute, and I’m much happier even if I took a paycut. The problem is that there aren’t enough tech jobs in SF to go around. SF truly is a bedroom/tourist community.

  71. Posted by fluj

    It’s not just 5 and 7. Forget about the Richmond. That market has actually gotten even more expensive. There are no good deals anywhere central right now, not even for fixers in the Sunset. And it’s a stretch to call that central. Maybe the condo market will open up a bit. It sort of stands to reason that it would.

  72. Posted by noseeum

    The simple fact is that a well informed real estate purchaser in San Francisco has to understand there is significant downside risk right now. That doesn’t mean you’re an idiot to buy. You just need to be willing to accept that risk. Perhaps you’ve always dreamed of living on a certain street and something’s available. Who cares if it drops 5% if you can afford it?

  73. Posted by il_guru

    BTW there is another reason why metropolitan areas are defined as such and it is substitution cost.
    Many readers might find this amazing but the fundamental microeconomic concept of tradeoff applies also to the real estate market in the Bay Area.
    A person working in SF might have to make a decision between buying a one bedroom apartment in the city or a house in Contra Costa County.
    And when prices in contingent areas move in different direction or at different speeds that tradeoff might influence demand.

  74. Posted by logscaler

    I second vox’s request for a log scale. I do love the drama of the “volcanic eruptions and apocalyptic meltdowns”. But I’d also like to see a usable comparison with previous peaks and valleys.

  75. Posted by tipster

    The overwhelming majority of homes in CoCo county are in the CS lower tier, in which there are practically no SF SFRs. So, in a way, the CoCo county stats really are reported separately from the SF stats. The number of homes sold in CoCo that are IN the upper tiers is not that great.
    Danville is the only real exception, and their psf prices have declined very slightly more YOY (about 8%) than the SF MSA upper tier as a whole (down 6%) and far less than the MSA middle tier (down 20%), so their inclusion in the MSA is likely not having that great of an effect on the mid to upper tiers: if anything, it’s likely to be propping up the middle tier.

  76. Posted by ex SF-er

    “Coco to SF is like Inland Empire to LA.”
    yeah, but that doesn’t erase its validity.
    Pittsburg is only 40 miles to Embarcadero.
    Google Headquarters are about 37 miles to Embarcadero. Yahoo 41 miles.
    it takes 53 minutes by Bart from Pittsburg to Embarcadero… hardly a killer commute by SF standards.
    so if one argues that Contra Costa is not relevant to SF then one should argue that Google/Yahoo/Silicon Valley are also not relevant
    that said, obviously further eastern Contra Costa county is further away (like Brentwood)…
    but people who live in Contra Costa county in general work in Contra Costa County or the Inner Bay Area Counties. (SF, Alameda, etc)

  77. Posted by SocketSite

    And back by popular demand, the San Francisco price tiers plotted logarithmically (see UPDATE at the end of the post).

  78. Posted by Dude

    “Forget about the Richmond. That market has actually gotten even more expensive. There are no good deals anywhere central right now, not even for fixers in the Sunset.”
    Here comes fluj with the non sequiturs and baseless generalizations again. Remember how you were once adamant there was nothing for sale in Sunset for under $750K, until I posted about 20 addresses to the contrary? Want me to find some places in Richmond or Sunset selling for less than last sale?

  79. Posted by fluj

    The problem we realtors have with MSAs is that they ignore the tenet that is “location location location.” Brentwood is not Bernal Heights. San Bernadino is not Beverlywood. This is a San Francisco real estate site, by and large. “Plug in to San Francisco” is its motto. It is not a SFMSA real estate site.
    Every month these numbers come out and every month posters take them and stretch, ignoring the city that we are “plugged into.” It’s like clockwork.

  80. Posted by fluj

    @ Dude.
    Baseless generalization? No. I posted YoY numbers for the Richmond? What’s baseless is you only reading part of this thread and saying stuff like that to me.
    In this thread someone actually said the opposite about the Richmond district. Using the Case Shiller as a jumpoff to try to make some sort of sweeping statement, and I challenged that.
    So yeah, do find some Richmond properties that have sold for less. I’m curious to see whether you can or not. I keep showing YoY gains for that area.

  81. Posted by The Bunk

    CoCo county includes:
    Kensington (about 20 min by car to downtown SF)
    Walnut Creek
    Only parts of this county are anything like the Inland Empire (but I agree those further out are similar). Too broad a stroke is being applied when talking about this county, there are many very upscale towns in CoCo county that are certainly part of the Bay Area. Lafayette and Orinda are as close to downtown SF as Burlingame is. The argument that this county should not be counted makes no sense. I can’t see anyone not including this county in the SF MSA.

  82. Posted by vox

    Thank you, editor!
    On log scale, it’s interesting to see how the gap between haves and havenots widened and then contracted (amongst owners let alone bitter renters). Most of the late volatility is in the category of the havenots-but-have-a mortgage.
    The other categories seem to be trading flat– no pun intended.

  83. Posted by vox

    –trading flat that is, in nominal dollars, to 2005 pricing.

  84. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    Very nice log graph, thanks. I know this is asking for a bit much, but can you add a “least-squares” fit to it? It looks like we are back to the long term trend but the eyeball is notoriously inaccurate at this sort of thing.

  85. Posted by John

    Kensington (about 20 min by car to downtown SF)
    Has to be some amazing cars.
    Berkeley is 30 to 40 minutes to downtown SF during morning hours. Richmond is about 1 hour. I lived in Richmond (Marina Bar), so I know.
    Regarding inland empire vs LA…Pomona is considered the edge of inland empire, only 35 minutes to LA. I lived in Upland (10 minutes farther east from Pomona), so I know.

  86. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    “The simple fact is that a well informed real estate purchaser in San Francisco has to understand there is significant downside risk right now. That doesn’t mean you’re an idiot to buy. You just need to be willing to accept that risk…”
    Well put noseeum. I am sure that at least some buyers are putting their hard earned cash down with the expectation that short term appreciation may not materialize and that they should expect to hold for 5-10 years if they want any ROI.
    But then I wonder about the other not so analytical buyers. Those who may be putting a lot of energy towards selecting their dream home but are not doing careful analysis of the RE market future. Are buyer’s agents counseling their clients not to count on short term appreciation and only make an offer if they can afford their loan through a potential extended down cycle ?
    Are there any buyers or buyer’s agents out there who can comment on their experience with receiving /giving advice during these last 10 months or so ? What sort of hold periods are you recommending to reach positive ROI ?
    I was a buyer until I found a comfy spot on the fence. During the time I was actively making offers the market was appreciating rapidly. I had many conversations with my agent where I had expressed concern that the gains were not sustainable. So there was no real opening for my agent to counsel me (though my agent did respect my opinion and didn’t try to convince me otherwise aside from the reports of how much over asking certain properties sold for)

  87. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    The problem we realtors have with MSAs is that they ignore the tenet that is “location location location.” Brentwood is not Bernal Heights. San Bernadino is not Beverlywood. This is a San Francisco real estate site, by and large. “Plug in to San Francisco” is its motto. It is not a SFMSA real estate site.

    BWAAAAAAHahahahaha … BWAAAAAHahahaha

  88. Posted by The Bunk

    @ John – Why don’t you drive at noon and then tell me how long it takes to Kensington. It takes 20 minutes, I do it all the time. My car is not that amazing. There are virtually no suburbs geographically closer to downtown SF than Kensington. You have no point, except that there is traffic heading into the city during rush hour. We all know that, why don’t we just say Berkeley and Oakland also are not really in the Bay Area or SF MSA because it takes 30 minutes to cross the bridge at 8AM.

  89. Posted by Peter

    It is interesting how many are picking the SF MSA apart. The index was designed to be broadly based and to give a general idea of the city it covers.
    If you don’t take it for what it is, a general guide for a particular metro, then you can keep picking right on down to individual floors in downtown highrises.
    What I get from the Shiller MSA SF index is that ‘in general’ the area is rapidly deflating. As someone else pointed out, that does not mean that if I always wanted to live on the crooked part of Lombard or the walking paths of Telegraph Hill that I will be able to afford to anytime soon.

  90. Posted by John

    Bunk, who wants to drive Kensington at noon?
    What’s your point? Did I even mention MSA? I just said “Coco to SF is like Inland Empire to LA”. It has nothing to do with MSA or what bay area is. Go read my posts…I had zero reference to MSA. I don’t care how they set the boundary. It is just a comment about geography.
    It is more a reflection about yourself.

  91. Posted by Rudolf Lightcap

    If you replace “SF MSA” with “food prices”, “energy prices”, “health care prices”, or any other consumption item, would everybody still describe the graph as being “scary”? Just a little perspective on how distorted our values are right now. Cheap housing is a good thing for the long-term well being of the Bay Area. That shouldn’t seem like a perverse statement, but it is nowadays.

  92. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    It takes 20 minutes, I do it all the time.
    No, it does not. For one thing, it is 17 miles, according to Google maps. Are you telling me you average 50 miles/hour, even including the part on Kensington and San Francisco streets.
    Automobile drivers are notoriously bad at estimating their commutes. Next time you do it, look at your watch when you leave your house and again when you enter your destination and tell us what your real door-to-door commute is.

  93. Posted by Adam Smith

    This really is an “only in San Francisco” debate you are all having about which suburbs should be part of the Bay Area vs. which should not. The FACT is that this small city called San Francisco is now part of a great sprawling region with the population and economic center about 40 miles south of the Golden Gate. Since we know San Francisco has one of the largest percentages of population who live off of un-earned income in the country, it is not suprising to see some turning up their noses as people who live 14 miles away and drive to WORK in the city. Imagine! How dare they try to be Bay Areans when they work and commute, instead of passing their hours in a coffee house in front of their laptop?

  94. Posted by Dude

    @ fluj at 12:00PM:
    Just saw your earlier comment. I really don’t want to turn this into another “battle of the anecdotes.” Every time some clown makes a “Sunset is HOT!!” comment, I post stats showing ordinary Sunset homes that have recently sold at or below their ’06 prices. Then somebody counters with some stats on a renovated or unique property selling for more. Someone proclaims mix, someone else denies mix, and the cycle repeats.
    In Richmond, there are currently 23 NODs, 3 foreclosures, and 2 recently auctioned properties. Same stats for Sunset yield 25, 6, and 9, respectively. Same stats for 94123 are immaterial. My summary point: Sunset is not hot. Richmond is faring better, but I don’t think it’s rising outside the “beauty pageant” mix effects we’ve all talked about. Flat at best. Pac Heights/Marina seem to remain relatively immune, but who knows how long.
    If you want to decry the Shiller numbers as being too macro, that’s fine. But don’t make sweeping generalizations like “There are no good deals anywhere central right now, not even for fixers in the Sunset.” Because we both know there are.

  95. Posted by fluj

    “BWAAAAAAHahahahaha … BWAAAAAHahahaha ”
    What was so funny about that to you?

  96. Posted by nonanon

    ^ that’s actually a very interesting point. as the economic base widens for workers and technology enables more to virtually commute from where they chose to live/buy you could argue that the surrounding counties are now more relevant with regard to the local housing market rather than less.

  97. Posted by The Bunk

    I was only making a point that CoCo County is not all far away. Some of it is quite close to downtown SF and has affluent and older, established neighborhoods, nothing much like the Inland Empire. Excluding it from the conversation makes the same amount of sense as excluding Marin county.
    Not sure why my math of drive times had to be repudiated because it was not calculated during rush hour or because it was not door to door, but rather city to city. I do the drive often, it is painless unless it is rush hour, whatever Google maps says, I get there in 20-25 minutes.

  98. Posted by fluj

    “There are no good deals anywhere central right now, not even for fixers in the Sunset.” Because we both know there are”
    No, I don’t know that. What’s a good deal to you? ~575 to 650 a foot is not a very good Sunset deal to me. And that is pretty much what they all cost right now. It’s more expensive than it was two years ago. Now, granted they aren’t all selling. I do take your point there. The Sunset has seen a lot of properties languish.
    But the properties that actually do sell — typically the better ones or the ones with untapped potential — are very pricy. This for an area with what I believe are very thin margins for potential improvement and appreciation, even over a long period of time. So “good deal” ? Maybe you can get a worse house for slightly less than you could a few years ago. Not so with anything worthwhile.
    As for the Richmond it is across the board outperforming last year’s sales data. From 11/1/6 to today’s date last year there were 84 sales. They listed for $601 a foot and sold for 610. They took 46 days to sell and sold for $1.411M avg.
    Compare to this year 11/1/7 to today:
    94 sales. Selling for $1.594M avg. 41 DOM. Listing for 676 a foot and selling for 685 a foot.

  99. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    What’s a good deal to you? ~575 to 650 a foot is not a very good Sunset deal to me.

    and this is the problem, it comes down to individual perspective.

  100. Posted by Dude

    ….sigh….let the pissing contest begin. I swear this is the last time I’m doing this.
    “~575 to 650 a foot is not a very good Sunset deal to me. And that is pretty much what they all cost right now.”
    1719 9th Ave. Listed at $628K, or $483 psf.
    1283 34th Ave. Listed at $749K, or $499 psf.
    1722 45th Ave. Listed at $799K, or $500 psf.
    1747 33rd Ave. Listed at $799K, or $513 psf.
    1491 43rd Ave. Currently listed at $720K, or $501 psf. This was the only one that sold near the bubble peak, from what I could find. Last sold in May of ’05 for $875K. Currently listed for $155K less, or 18%, than last sale.
    So they don’t all cost $575-650 psf, do they? And I wouldn’t say prices are up over 2005, either, because I remember looking at that time and $750K was pretty much the minimum to get into this area. You can now find places for under $700K, and the outskirts are flirting with high 5s. Give it a few more months. And these are all in 2 C, E, and F. I didn’t even look in Parkside.
    Although I will agree these still aren’t good deals – or I’d actually buy one. Count me in at around $350-400 psf out here because, as you pointed out, there’s limited upside potential. Especially when I can buy a similar house in Daly City for $200K less and a shorter commute via BART.
    Regarding Richmond, I admit I don’t track it as closely as Sunset so can’t provide addresses, but I’d wager there are similar patterns unfolding out there, albeit more slowly.

  101. Posted by fluj

    Cooper I do not recall telling anybody to go back to Texas. Are you sure it was me? Are you even from Texas?
    9th Avenue just hit the market and it is a probate, a Tim Hawko -listed probate. If you don’t know what that means I’ll tell you. It means the following “big time initial teaser price, higher bid price jump off to follow, potentially even higher in probate court.”
    1383 34th had a very rigid showing schedule and they were to take offers today. We can deduce they expected it to be a teaser price. We’ll see.
    45th Avenue has tenants both upstairs and downstairs. That’s problematic for an OMI, and that’s definitely gonna keep the price down. They initially wanted 829K. All that said, this is sort of a big house for the Sunset. If somebody could figure out a way to get the tenants out it might be a decent buy at ~500 a foot.
    33rd Avenue also had a very tight showing schedule with offers due tomorrow. We’ll see. Again it also indicates teaser price but we won’t know right away. Looks like a good little house, tho, and properties up on that hill tend to perform rather well.

  102. Posted by Dude

    I looked quickly at bayareasoldhomes.com and searched for all homes sold in 94122 year to date. Know what the average $ psf was? $514. Not $575, and certainly not $650. Please feel free to check my numbers.
    Last comment for today, this one actually on-topic for a change: the Shiller data does not include foreclosures. So for those of you calling this uberbear info, the fact is the precipitous drop in prices in the MSA is likely understated given the amount of REOs in CoCo.

  103. Posted by fluj

    Man. We’ve already been through this before. 94122 is just one part of the Sunset. The average sales price per foot for the 171 homes sold in the Sunset in the past six months –for all of area 2 in the MLS — is 570. If you want to begrudge me the tilda I placed in front of 575, that’s your prerogative. If I pare it down to all 113 sales this year the number becomes 569 a foot.
    Remember we were talking good deals. So if you don’t think the better homes within those sales were toward the high 600s a foot I would have to hear an explanation why not.

  104. Posted by John

    Dude, you made me look.
    Did you calculate the data yourself, or was it somewhere on that site?
    One example surely included in your calculation:
    1460 6th Avenue
    Closing Price: $350,000
    SqFt: 2,300
    Year Built: 1911
    Date: 01/27/2008
    City: San Francisco
    Zip Code: 94122
    $350K for 2300 sqft. The RE market definitely crashed.
    (Sarcasm intended)
    When it comes to concrete data, fluj has it nailed. There is no point of trying to find this or that website to debate him. The fun part is the intepretion and prediction.
    Sunset is very stubborn. Many houses are not selling, but the sellers won’t blink, despite the longer and longer DOM.
    Maybe it has something to do with the Asian population?

  105. Posted by dg

    @ Fluji,
    Shiller has called the last 2 asset bubbles way before anyone was calling them bubbles. Not only does that take balls, but he was right both times. When has he been wrong on something since you say he is so “uber-bearish”??
    And where are all the bullish economists? I can’t find any reputable ones…

  106. Posted by Trip

    From what I can discern from Altos’ MLS stats, the average listing price for SFRs in 92122 right now is $512/sf. And the most expensive quartile is at $496/sf.
    Citywide, we’ve seen a steady drop since last spring from over $600/sf to $523/sf today for SFRs (the lowest in at least two years).

  107. Posted by John

    Shiller called the stock bubble late 1996. The SP500 at the bottom of the last bubble (800) was higher than 12/1996 (750).
    If you don’t call him a bear, I don’t know what he is.
    That doesn’t mean the index is invalid. That’s probably the best index to accurately reflect the RE market, despite the arguments over its MSA.

  108. Posted by fluj

    Why not the SFARMLS? Why a ZIP code when it’s only half the area? Why not look at what things sell for, not list for? I gave you guys the numbers.

  109. Posted by fluj

    Trip, the average list price right now for SFRs in District 2, the Sunset, is $564 a foot. There are 594 listings city wide and the average is slightly higher @ $567 a foot. If you remove District 10 it shrinks by 245 listings, down to 349, and the average list price becomes $652 a foot.

  110. Posted by Clark

    These graphs are not for San Francisco home prices.
    From page 8 of the S&P/Case Schiller Home Price Indices Index Methodology available on the S&P web site, what this article refers to as the SF MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) is more accurately known as the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont MSA and in addition the the lovely cities of Oakland and Fremont, includes the price performance of all the cites in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Mateo, and San Francisco counties.
    This website should make more of an effort to let that be known.
    [Editor’s Note: Not only do we note “MSA” throughout the article (and even headline), we include a standard SocketSite footnote with every Case-Shiller release which includes the MSA breakdown along with a few other data constraints worth considering (see above).]

  111. Posted by Kathleen

    A career opportunity brought me to Charlotte. I walked around and found I rather not have a career than stay in Charlotte. Came right back here to San Francisco and started a new one.
    To me the best part of any vacation is coming home to this silly pretty city. It’s just like heaven, here.

  112. Posted by Spencer

    must be a lot of homeless people in heaven…..

  113. Posted by fluj

    Just like I thought they would both the 1747 33rd and 1283 34th Ave properties went right into contract after their two week showing windows. 9th Ave, the probate, takes offers tomorow. 45th ave, the occupied two unit, has expired.

Add a Comment

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