San Francisco Listed Inventory: 3/30/09 (www.SocketSite.com)
Inventory of Active listed single-family homes, condos, and TICs in San Francisco rose 3.3% over the past two weeks (versus an average of 4.7% for the same two week period over the previous three years) and is now running 26.8% higher on a year-over-year basis (up 18.2% for single-family homes and 32.7% for condos/TICs) and 72.6% higher than at the same point in 2006.
Twelve percent (12.1%) of listed inventory in San Francisco is known to either be bank owned (REO) or seeking a short sale including One Rincon Hill (425 1st Street) #2307, 1870 Jackson #701 in Pacific Heights, and 2510 Jackson (which we profiled last year when asking $14,900,000).
The standard SocketSite Listed Inventory footnote: Keep in mind that our listed inventory count does not include listings in any stage of contract (even those which are simply contingent) nor does it include listings for multi-family properties (unless the units are individually listed).
SocketSite’s San Francisco Listed Housing Update: 3/16/09 [SocketSite]
∙ Listing: 425 1st Street #2307 (1/1) – $649,000 [MLS]
∙ Listing: 1870 Jackson #701 (2/2) – $975,000 [MLS]
∙ Listing: 2510 Jackson (7/6.5) – $13,495,000 [MLS]
Fortunes Can Be Fleeting (And Mansions Can Be Foreclosed Upon) [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by diemos

    Short sales!
    Of a $15M mansion in pacific heights?!
    Inconceivable!
    I was assured that everyone in SF was just using loans as a sophisticated money management tool and could easily afford to pay cash.

  2. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Short Sale? I show REO on the MLS listing. Still a shocking sight for the many of us who believed the rich could always find financing. I guess money and debt are now 2 very different things.

  3. Posted by nowonderitcostssomuchhere

    Not quite what you think it is (he didn’t take out a loan to buy the darn thing):
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/05/08/BU142137.DTL It all went down right around the time the president and all the other yahoos were trading on inside information…
    In January 2001, all three homes were pledged as collateral against a $23.6 million loan tied to Hayden’s margin account at Robertson, Bartko says.
    [Editor’s Note: Actually, it's exactly what we thought and wrote a year ago (note the link above).]

  4. Posted by LMRiM

    LOL about that article about Hayden. It’s worth reading the whole thing, especially the part about “sophisticated hedging strategies”. I can’t tell you how much the Wall Street fraudsters loved the Bay Area execs in the dotcom bubble (I had a number of friends who worked in equity derivatives in satellite offices out here at the time).
    Coincidentally, I posted about this whole phenomenon of monetizing illiquid assets in this very context just a few days ago. See post at March 26, 2009 12:24 PM here:
    http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2009/03/coming_soon_and_a_prime_data_point_to_be_2306_broadway.html

  5. Posted by jessep

    Could we see the number of active listings in SOMA/South Beach?
    That I find very curious since it’s mostly new and high priced.
    If anyone has any data please post! =)
    Thank you

  6. Posted by eddy

    It would be nice to link back to SS’s thread on inventory to -1, -2 years on the same week just to revisit the old comments, etc.. from prior periods. Just a thought.

  7. Posted by nowonderitcostssomuchhere

    Rank speculation here so please correct me if I’m wrong – I imagine that the house was put up as collateral as a result of the stock price drop. They had disappointing earnings and then it was revealed that there were “some improper accounting practices.” So was he trading on his inflated Critical Path shares and then had to put up the house to cover before the ugliness became apparent?

  8. Posted by San FronziScheme

    eddy, drilling down is pretty easy. 10 seconds into the “March 2008″ link (bottom right of the site) brought me this:
    http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2008/03/socketsites_san_francisco_listed_housing_inventory_upda_12.html#comments
    I could find March 2007, but here’s April:
    http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2007/04/san_francisco_housing_inventory_update_43007.html#comments
    [Editor's Note: March 2007 (via the Google search above).]

  9. Posted by dub dub

    Just remember that every time this mansion is featured, it’s the same datapoint, not a different one :)
    Hayden is a particularly egregious example of a .com blow up — we all know this kind of thing happened, but just how common is this in SF? Sometimes lottery winners don’t fritter it all away!

  10. Posted by jj

    I see that realistically priced listings are now drying up. Home owners are encouraged about the bottom (thanks to Hank Plante and NAR’s propaganda campaign) and interest rate, they are are once again holding on to their delusional listings. I think the number of listings will continue to rise through out the summer till the reality sinks in once again.

  11. Posted by Tom

    Can someone shed some light on why there are spikes in listing in October? I always assumed spring would spike, but why fall?

  12. Posted by SFStager

    @ Tom there is always a season spike in SF real estate in fall. Mostly because that’s when the weather is good.

  13. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Tom,
    On the demand side, families typically try to buy at a time when it will less disrupt their kid’s schooling and october is not the best time. Spring is the best time to look for them so you can move early summer.
    On the supply side, I think some sellers will try to sell before the usual end-of-year RE hiatus. Anybody’s got another theory?

  14. Posted by Trip

    One indicator that I think will be useful to track market strength (or, really, lack thereof) is how the pattern of listings develops through the late spring and summer. In 2006 listings continued to grow into mid-summer while in 2005 and 2007 they basically leveled off after mid-spring. Either way we’re going to see a lot more listings than in recent years, but the pattern through mid-summer will drive the magnitude of the increase.
    And, of course, the sales trend is equally (or more) important. I prefer when the editor superimposes the listing and sales lines.

  15. Posted by ex SF-er

    Can someone shed some light on why there are spikes in listing in October? I always assumed spring would spike, but why fall?
    the typical reason given is that most people list their homes in spring wanting to sell so that they can move in summer which is less disrupting overall to families. (thus inventory rises in the spring)
    most sales close in the summer months, which causes inventory to plateau (you have new sellers but also buyers closing and they roughly balance each other out)
    in the early fall the sales rate drops. thus inventory climbs. (still have sellers but less buyers)
    later in the fall propsective sellers withdraw their listings as few want to move or have people traipsing through their property over the holidays, so inventory goes down in the later fall early winter.

  16. Posted by EBGuy

    The “unofficial” foreclosure* numbers from Trulia show that 754 properties are in the REO pipeline (NODs, NOTs, and bank owned). They are highly concentrated outside “real SF”.
    *Some of these defaults may be cured (but I doubt many will…)

  17. Posted by lolcat_94123

    I think we’re pushing the range limits here – by summer we’re going to need a taller chart.

  18. Posted by EBGuy

    fluj’s house closed on March 18. Congratulations! To a Stanford University professor and MD, no less. The only reason I point this out is because — well, there are certain types of buyers still in the market.

  19. Posted by chuckie

    How much over asking?
    :)

  20. Posted by anonn

    Eleventy four gazillion simoleons over asking, Chuckster. No. Slightly under and just about 5% exactly off the initial list back in September.
    So EBGuy, we know one another?
    [Editor’s Note: And now back to the inventory counts...]

  21. Posted by sfrob

    430 listings in the MLS for D9 – which obviously doesn’t include the gazillion not in the MLS but for-sale by the developer off the MLS.
    The 430 represents 26% of the 1673 count I just came up with for all of SF (29 must have gone into contract since the Editor did his run – time to call Hank Plant :)
    TIC’s are another problem. They represent approximately 1/3 of the listings in D1, D5 and D6 (16% of all listings).
    So TIC’s and D9 are cratering, and D10 already cratered so they’ve got a reasonable 10.4% of all active listings when they probably represented 30% this time last year.
    By the way, I love how one anecdote of a positive real estate news story is thrown under the bus by 99% of SS commenters, yet one Pac Heights REO is all the evidence they need to support their own story.
    So much for balanced view points and thoughtful analysis.

  22. Posted by 94114

    There is no balance on this site. It’s a lot of long winded clairvoyant pontificating armchair economists and realtor bashers.

  23. Posted by San FronziScheme

    sfrob,
    See it another way: the 13.5M property counts for 27-odd “42 offers” ones ;)
    I am just kidding, I agree, we need to have some balance and thanks for putting things into perspective.

  24. Posted by Trip

    But look at the post. SFR listings considered alone are up 18.2% over last year. So D9 is 26% of the listings, but what was the percentage last year — much different? And sfrob says that D10 is making up a much smaller percentage of the listings than it did last year, so the non-D10 component is presumably up even more. And sales are down across the board — down the most at the higher price-points, I believe (anyone have access to data?). I don’t think one can credibly say that the cratering is limited to D9, TICs, or any other isolated sub-market. If you’re going to complain about selective data you can’t support your argument by doing the very same thing.
    Sfrob may be right about the tanking being worst for D9 and TICs, but we need much more to assess it. How about the YOY numbers (listings and recent sales) for condos, SFR, and TICs in each district?

  25. Posted by EBGuy

    So EBGuy, we know one another?
    No. I have to admit the Internets do tend to creep me out. Your sale (or was this a fluj Jr. and fluj Sr. joint enterprise? Not really good with the online docs) finally showed up on the SF Recorder’s website. Noticed Stanford on the docs and did a quick Google search. I will make an effort mask your identity (which some already know) as your contributions are appreciated and your detractors many. Have to admit this sale was an eye-opener for me regarding the Ess Eff mystique and those who will pay for it. I believe it all comes down to REO (non?)capitulation. No brakes, hit the wall at 100 mph (or not at all… round the corner at 90 mph).

  26. Posted by DanD

    So D9 and TICs are no longer part of the “real SF” and don’t count as inventory? Sure seems like they were “real” a couple of years ago when SOMA condos were flying off the shelves and One Rincon and fractional TIC loans were all the rage.

  27. Posted by anonn

    SFRrob, do you really think D9 is cratering as a whole? Or are you mostly talking about SOMA? “D9″ is an enormous swath of land, you know? And just about denser than anywhere else too. I mean, 9-C is the Inner Mission, and things are still selling for maybe a little bit off peak there. Look at 4 Lexington for example. They dropped the price down to 949K and it got into contract. But I mean, it’s Lexington street and basically a million dollar condo. 1218 Treat is another example, and I think the really nice South Van Ness condos will also sell eventually. I feel as if potential buyers are more bullish on the Mission, a huge part of D9, than anybody would have thought at this late stage.

  28. Posted by sfrob

    I did mean SOMA, not Bernal or even the Mission. 4 Lex is a place I’d live in a heart beat over virtually any SOMA location/unit, and it was FAR cheaper than an Infinity comparable, maybe even 50% cheaper than if it were at the Infinity. SOMA/SB/MB are still ridiculouly over priced when you just look at the $949k price of 4 Lex.
    I also retract my D10 “probably” comment because I did not look it up, and don’t have the time to do a full analysis. But SOMA/South Beach/Mission Bay and TIC’s do make up an unusually large percentage of listings. You can draw your own conclusions.
    IMO SOMA condos have never been “real SF”. Maybe 10 years from now I’ll change my mind, but when the Beacon was selling at a premium to Pac Heights and Russian Hill places in 2005, it was pretty obvious there was a problem.
    One Rincon Hill? I’ve been a successful Realtor for a number of years and I have still never been in that building purely because of it’s location. Since that will never change, I will likely never bring a client there unless prices fall through the floor and it’s an obvious cash-flow investment play.
    SOMA has a supply and demand problem, and the majority of the buildings have a location problem. I’d consider the Infintity and the Brannan, and that’s about it. But not until they are priced at or below Pac Heights AND they have a water view, a balcony and a decent layout. Otherwise it’s hands off until they are 50% cheaper than D7.

  29. Posted by anonfedup

    “but when the Beacon was selling at a premium to Pac Heights and Russian Hill places in 2005, it was pretty obvious there was a problem”
    AMEN!

Add a Comment

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