Inventory of Active listed single-family homes, condos, and TICs in San Francisco dropped 8.1% over the past three weeks on new sales, a slowdown in new listings and a seasonal culling of listings that haven’t moved. On average, inventory has only dropped 2.6% during the same three weeks over the past four years.
Current inventory levels remain up 13% on a year-over-year basis and up 18% versus the average of the past four years, up 20% if you exclude 2009, up 30% as compared to an average of 2006 and 2007.
The inventory of single-family homes for sale in San Francisco is up 13% on a year-over-year basis versus a 20% increase for condos.
41% of active listings in San Francisco have undergone at least one price reduction and the percentage of active listings that are either already bank owned (94) or seeking a short sale (174) is up to 16%, up 6% on an absolute basis over the past three weeks but down 7% on an absolute basis over the past seven days.
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 Inventory: 7/12/10 [SocketSite]
∙ A New High For Distressed Listings In San Francisco [Socketsite]
“the percentage of active listings that are either already bank owned (94) or seeking a short sale (174) is up to 16%, up 6% on an absolute basis over the past three weeks but down 7% on an absolute basis over the past seven days.”
What’s interesting though is the on a percentage basis, it’s the same as last week, since inventory dropped 8%, and this dropped 7%.
Guess it’s time to wait for the Indian Summer bump in inventory…
This chart is not relevant unless it includes pre-dot.com and credit bubble years.
If you can show an honest chart for 1994 then I will give you a grain of salt…
overall, the drop in inventory is a positive for RE bulls especially if it is paired with an increase in sales. it’ll be interesting to see how far the inventory drops the next few months before the fall bump.
I’ll be especially interested in 2011’s chart
====
If you can show an honest chart for 1994 then I will give you a grain of salt…
many on this blog would say that 1994 is not very relevant to SF of 2010 because of the massive change the city went through due to the tech boom. The would argue that SF has had a structural change over that time.
I say put it up (if the data exists). never hurts. I’d be more interested in seeing 2002 (post dot com and pre credit bubble) and maybe 1998 or 1999 (during dot com) to compare those two types of markets.
I like 1996 better than 1994 as well, as many would argue 1996 was during the recession.
the issue, it would seem, is that SF has become a boom/bust market
duh… many would argue 1994 was during the recession, thus I like 1996 better than 1994.
I am not sure 1994 would qualify as a recession. Nationally, the recession was 3-4 years before that. 1994 was more a “jobless recovery” where many companies were mending their balance sheets while preparing necessary technological upgrades that led to the 1996-2000 tech boom.
Locally, SF did suffer at that time for other reasons. It lost a few key economical elements while trying to recover from the 1990-1991 recession: military spending in particular. There was no replacement in sight at that time, which depressed RE. The tech boom took care of that 2 years later.
next time this chart ought to go up without commentary from the editor because the caveats and comments just all seem so ridiculous in the face of this being such a limited number of years. it starts one year before peak pricing in SF and that’s not a caveat? it misses ’01, ’02 and ’03 which are probably much more comparable to 2010 and certainly far more informative than pointing out listings are up 18% over the avg of the past 4 years.
so i think hkjhkhk’s point is that it isn’t just 1994 we need, it’s all the years in between if we’re to find any real meaning in this data. in past charts follow on comments were that it was a record number of listings in SF. but we DON’T know that. Where is that caveat?
Rolling 10 years would be nice. I’d like to see the data back to 1999. But it really doesn’t matter in the long run. Given the data we do have, I’d personally just like to see it in a single line with a 500 to 2000 unit min / max. And I’d merge this line with a similar chart showing SFARMLS closed sales by month.
There used to be some good data (see below) but the source seems dried up. As is, the data here is nearly as insightful as it could be presented.
https://socketsite.com/archives/2007/01/san_francisco_homecondo_sales_historical_context.html
apparently the editor did not like my comment pointing to another site with better statistics in sacramento, perhaps they thought it was spam? It wasn’t, but I can understand how they might have thought it was, so I’ll leave out the link this time.
My comment was that I’d like to see more, and more consistent statistics from socketsite, then I posted the link to the site that I think has better statistics, and is more consistent in their frequency.
Here is a fairly pessimistic market report from thefrontsteps that adds a (very) little granularity. Note figures 4 and 6 — showing, as I’ve been noting for a while, that the “rebound” has been concentrated at the very low end, and higher-end SFRs and condos continue to see weakening.
http://thefrontsteps.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Market_Focus_Report_07_2010.pdf
The language in that report is not generally pessimistic, it is generally optimistic. They are actually going as far as predicting apprecition.
Agree w/ realtorman, the article states: Confident that the housing market is in the early stages of recovery, we expect a sustainable and modest rise in San Francisco home prices from this half-way point in 2010.
Confident does not = pessimistic.
That said, they go on to use the phrase “full recovery” which sort of kills any credibility or lack of understanding to use that phrase. Perhaps they weren’t indicating a full recovery to peak prices, but a full recovery in the context of whatever their expectations of recovery are… but, I didn’t really read the whole thing..;)
I was speaking tongue in cheek, somewhat. For a realtor report on a realtor’s website, this report is quite gloomy compared to the standard fare.
The report says that IF we get a big jobs boost then they expect a recovery. Don’t hold your breath for that. Then it says:
“Into the second half of 2010, we expect a noticeable retraction in the pace of homes sales activity.”
“As the year progresses, distressed properties will likely add to the for-sale inventory, restraining price appreciation through the remainder of the year.”
“The increase in mortgage delinquency rates among prime borrowers observed in recent months should continue to restrain improvements in the market.”
I see the “confident” comment. But when one views the underlying data and assumptions in the report, the only way one gets an optimistic read is to ignore them and bank on big job gains and pent-up demand that will appear from . . . somewhere.
It’s easy backin up, inserting a realtor diss, and then copying various lines.
The report begins with a summary. It’s not hard to digest. The only negative in the summary is the talk of the volatility at the high end pricing. But that is tempered by saying that those sales will gain traction, and medians will continue to rise.
The report doesn’t say “If” about jobs either. It says that it anticipates growth, and it even attaches a figure, of 4,000 jobs.
I think it’s a rather sunny report, actually. I think you misread it, threw it up with a mistaken reading, were called out, and inserted a realtor slam and a couple other reaches, all to make yourself look good.
Fine, have it your way fluj-the-mindreader. I was not speaking tongue in cheek. And it’s wholly inaccurate and unfair to point out that observations and predictions posted by realtor marketing associations or on realtor websites tend to be of the rose-colored variety. The prediction on page 1 that “[i]nto the second half of 2010, we expect a noticeable retraction in the pace of homes sales activity” screams of optimism and confidence in the market trends. Obvious for all to see.
realtormon or realtorman?
OK. “Tongue in cheek” = “excuse for being wrong” in your world. And exit with a coda of a few more unearned realtor slams and a plucked line from the report you mischaracterized. Whatever you like.
OK. Providing verbatim quotes “mischaracterized” it. Got it.
No, the mischaracterization occured when you called the report that you introduced “pessimistic.” Further mischaracterizations happened when you placed a big IF about jobs they confidently put an exact figure on, and then also when you inserted quotes out of contest. Providing verbatim quotes here and there is providing verbatim quotes here and there, out of context, and not in keeping with the SUMMARY THAT BEGINS THE PIECE YOU LINKED TO.
Let’s take a look at what they say about SF area jobs and see if you’ve accurately characterized it by describing the comments as “about jobs they confidently put an exact figure on” —
“Rebounding from the loss of more than 75,000 jobs in this recession, the San Francisco metropolitan area is expected to create approximately 4,000 jobs in 2010.”
I guess you’re right that they “confidently” put an exact figure on a very pessimistic point. And, as I accurately noted, the basis for any “confidence” in the report was this possible scanty job creation to overcome all the negative trends I quoted verbatim. Fairly pessimistic pretty much captures it.
You left out the second part, which is, “The anticipated near-term growth will support continued home sales …”
The report is an optimistic one, AT. It is not pessimistic. They’re predicting appreciation. I’ve not seen a report do that in quite some time, so that’s what is so glaring about you trying to call it pessimistic, and trying to insert quotes out of context.
I mean, read the first sentence again.
Jeez dude. It is OK to admit you’re wrong. I do it all the time.
Fluj, you’ve simply made my point. They list a host of adverse trends, then they opine that all of those will be offset by (hoped for) job growth that even their own numbers say should be minimal. Optimistic? Sure, whatever you say.
Oh, so we’re not discussing the report and its language. We’re discussing your take on what the report means, in your worldview. I think we’ve taken this far enough then. You’ve made that point.
Realtormom is Fluj!? I thought Fluj was a guy?
I thought too. Well, this being SF, nothing surprises me.
BTW, someone called Tipster “she” the other day. What’s up with that?
I just thought realtormom was sorta funny, knowing you all know I am a guy. And it was a natural progression from realtorman to realtormon (Jamaican pronunciation) to realtormom.
For old times sake, some pent up housing supply numbers. Currently, 1437 homes are in some state of foreclosure (NODs, NOTS, bank owned) in Ess Eff.
EBGuy, that seems lower than I remember. Wasn’t it closer to 1700 before? I wonder if it’s because of HAMP, or because some of the inventory is actually starting to move through the system, or the greater number of sales, or something else.
EBGuy, that seems lower than I remember.
Cough, cough… I’m using this as a new baseline going forward to monitor trends. The data source underwent a wholesale scrubbing of the database a couple of months ago (down to a couple of hundred homes which is why I stopped posting for a while). It seems to be back at an equilibrium, so we’ll see if any trends emerge. The rising pent up supply (from 1 year ago) seems to be born out by SS’s inventory numbers which show an increase in distressed listings.
Thanks for posting the numbers. Good to note that this pent up supply number is not directly comparable to the prior numbers you gave us. Too bad there’s no easy way to tell how many NOD stage houses go to NOTS, and how many NOTS stage houses are foreclosed, and then how many of the REOs are actually listed and sold.
what’s your source Eddy? I ask because Realtytrac which is notoriously wrong and far higher than reality is quoted in the SFAR report as only having 415 in May.
as for rosy or not, the SFAR report just seems wrong to me. the one market that seems to be doing quite well is the high end luxury where cash buyers seem to abound and are far happier with their stock portfolios this year vs last. meanwhile the low end condo market is in the toilet. my feet on the street take just feels a LOT different than SFAR’s report.
then again, re-reading the condo section of the report – they are comparing first 6 months of armageddon 2009 to first 6 of this year – and go on to admit that first 6 months of this year are 13% lower than last 6 months of last year. i’m certain prices are lower this year than last 6 months of last year too.
unfortunately as a realtor i HATE realtor generated reports. i must agree with the realtor haters on here in that regard – our Associations do us no favors when it comes to adding rosy commentary on top of not so rosy stats and the only worthwhile thing we get from them is the MLS. to think they quote realtytrac in their own report when they could easily generate a far more reliable report on their own. good grief
Here are the July listed sales figures (fluj has claimed these are not accurate, but he has never supported that claim to my knowledge, and these are the best data on this I know of):
http://www.rereport.com/sf/index.html
Best data?
Just last week you said MLS derived medians and averages weren’t worthwhile, AT.
That’s what the Rereport is. MLS derived medians and averages.
You’re a troll. Post less and this site gets much better, in a hurry.
@hangemhi, I think you have me confused with EBGuy.
fluj, 192 SFR sales in July (down 47 from ’09) and 193 condo/TIC sales (down 20 from ’09). You don’t need to calculate any medians or averages.
What I criticized a while back was your flawed attempt to mix and match medians and averages to make some invalid point. Also, you should look up the definition of “troll” — then think a little bit about to whom that term best applies.
You criticized specific price range and specific area(s) performance, as evidenced by median, average, etc. ReReport displays those same things.