March 15, 2011
San Francisco Foreclosure Activity Climbs Outside Of District 10
It was two months ago that SocketSite first reported that despite trending down in California, foreclosure activity has actually been climbing in San Francisco and the biggest gains in activity have been outside of the oft maligned "District 10" which hasn’t represented the majority of San Francisco foreclosure activity for well over two years.
As we pointed out at the time, while 39 percent of San Francisco foreclosures last year were in District 10, that’s down from 48 percent in 2009, and down from 58 percent in 2008. And in January, the percentage of San Francisco's pre-foreclosure activity concentrated in District 10 was 34 percent.
Over the past two months the percentage of San Francisco pre-foreclosure activity concentrated in District 10 has dropped to 30 percent, down 5 percent in the absolute to 194 properties. At the same time, pre-foreclosure activity outside of District 10 has increased 8 percent to 656 properties.
First Published: March 15, 2011 3:30 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
These data are great, but they would be much more accessible if presented in a more organized form- say in a table, bar graph, etc. This would help to disambiguate the comparison of foreclosure data and pre-foreclosure data.
I'm sure many of us would appreciate knowing whether one district or another is leading the charge in the pre-foreclosure boom; It would be awesome if you could include district-by-strict data.
Posted by: PostIt at March 15, 2011 4:05 PM
I was just going to ask for the same thing - would love to see a breakdown by district.
Posted by: Gigi at March 15, 2011 4:07 PM
it isn't hard to guess.... soma/southbeach which was oh so bubblicious, and places like Oceanview and Ingelside which might as well be D10.
it's convenient to only compare to D10 since that makes the y-o-y comparison seem jucier. but D9 condos and D3 homes in foreclosure shouldn't be a surprise
throw in a D7 anecdote and boy oh boy is it spreading.
[Editor's Note: We actually included Oceanview, Ingleside and part of Sunnyside in our D10 counts. And we’d be willing to bet the level of District 9 foreclosure activity is coming as a bit of a surprise to thousands of buyers who were sold million dollar condos in hot, hot, hot buildings over the past five years.]
Posted by: hangemhi at March 15, 2011 4:25 PM
Per fluj at http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2011/03/san_francisco_listed_housing_inventory_update_march_14.html, D10 is about 40.5% of listings, so the foreclosure numbers are punching in below compared to that metric as well.
Agree that a chart of foreclosures and pre-foreclosure activity would be nice here.
Posted by: sfrenegade at March 15, 2011 4:32 PM
That's the percentage regarding SFR listings. There aren't that many condos in D10. And of course then tack on Ingleside and Oceanview SFRs plus SOMA condos. We've been seeing that, those three components together making up a greatly disproportionate amount of the distressed market, for years now.
[Editor's Note: As noted above, we actually included Oceanview, Ingleside and part of Sunnyside in our D10 counts.]
Posted by: [anon.ed] at March 15, 2011 4:41 PM
Yes, the declines are all in D3, D9, and D10.
We'll just pretend those half million dollar (or even double) hits we've seen in D7 never happened. Same for those declines we've seen all over the city.
It's all a single market continuum, folks. It doesn't really matter which specific neighborhoods the distressed sales are in. Nevertheless, the ed.'s post does pop a few myths floating around out there.
Posted by: A.T. at March 15, 2011 4:58 PM
I really appreciate the work it takes to gather and present this data. Thank you for putting it together.
But you've got to be more forthcoming with your methodology if you want to be credible. When you make statements like "we actually included Oceanview, Ingleside and part of Sunnyside in our D10 counts", it begs the question: what other unexpected inclusions/exclusions were made?
SocketSite has been great at piercing the edifice of realtor-manufactured selling points with cold, hard data. Don't succumb to the allure of selecting/massaging data to make your point. Don't slip down the same slope you've worked so hard to expose. Let the data speak for itself!
[Editor’s Note: It’s not about massaging data, it’s about trying to match data sets. In this case we’re counting 94124, 94134 and 94112 as "District 10." If anything, we’re actually over counting the level of activity in the Realtor defined District 10.]
Posted by: PostIt at March 15, 2011 5:05 PM
Sunnyside is in District 4, I thought. (District "4S.") Why is it included in D10 counts? Just wondering...
[Editor’s Note: Worth wondering and see note above.]
Posted by: Sunnyside up at March 15, 2011 5:06 PM
Not sure if this is what the ed meant, but in general some data sets use geographic boundaries such as census tract or zip codes which need not align exactly with the Realator's district map.
Posted by: tc_sf at March 15, 2011 5:19 PM
"We'll just pretend those half million dollar (or even double) hits we've seen in D7 never happened. Same for those declines we've seen all over the city."
Nobody is asking you to pretend anything. So don't ask others to pretend that your same three comments belong in every single thread. This thread is about foreclosures in various areas. Yet you're talking about D7 for some reason.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at March 15, 2011 5:20 PM
Maybe would be good to have a standard "methodology" disclaimer like you do for inventory counts -- i.e. where you say it doesn't include any houses in contract.
It might also be better to name this category something other than D10. "Areas fluj thinks have high foreclosures" could work, but "high foreclosure areas in zip codes 94124, 94134, 94112 (D10, Ingleside, high foreclosure part of Sunnyside, Oceanview...)" could work too.
Posted by: sfrenegade at March 15, 2011 5:23 PM
Ever look at a foreclosure map of the city, sfrenegade? It's not opinion.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at March 15, 2011 5:28 PM
Chill out, fluj. It wasn't meant as an attack. If I had wanted to be snarky, it would have been "areas fluj wants to exclude from Real SF" or something similar.
Posted by: sfrenegade at March 15, 2011 5:31 PM
One disadvantage to using the actual Realtor district boundaries, is that they can be changed making comparisons to past years difficult.
Regarding rents, the last RealFacts data I saw last November was predicting a return to 2008 rents by end of 2011.
"Data from real estate research firm RealFacts show that San Francisco County's average asking rent for buildings of 50 or more units was $2,282 in the third quarter of 2010, only about $120 lower than the same quarter in 2008.
"Going forward, San Francisco rents will be appreciating for a while," said Sarah Bridge, co-founder of the Novato data collector. "More people are ready to rent. We'll be back to 2008 rents by the end of 2011.""
Posted by: tc_sf at March 15, 2011 5:36 PM
attack and chill out are both miles away from necessary
Posted by: [anon.ed] at March 15, 2011 5:37 PM
"you're talking about D7 for some reason."
Uh, fluj, it's because your buddy hangemhi mentioned D7. See? And, of course, in a thread about foreclosures, it seemed a bit relevant to point out that sale prices on a number of homes in D7 seem to have declined more in dollar terms than anywhere else in the city. That fact remains regardless of the numbers of D7 foreclosures.
Posted by: A.T. at March 15, 2011 6:31 PM
Yes, a couple houses on thoroughfares in D7 have taken huge losses. You've logged more miles on those roads than the average SF taxi driver. But your autoresponse to hangemhi's quick critique of editorial direction remains apropos of your own navel.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at March 15, 2011 7:29 PM
San Francisco Foreclosure Activity Climbs Outside Of District 10?
And we’d be willing to bet the level of District 9 foreclosure activity is coming as a bit of a surprise to thousands of buyers who were sold million dollar condos in hot, hot, hot buildings over the past five years.
what is the wager?
Posted by: Paul Hwang at March 16, 2011 12:53 AM
"Yes, a couple houses on thoroughfares in D7 have taken huge losses."
What a relief to know that the losses have been contained to a few houses on a few busy streets.
Posted by: diemos at March 16, 2011 6:36 AM
If there were half mill losses in D7 elsewhere, do tell.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at March 16, 2011 7:55 AM
Such is the miracle of comps.
When one house goes up, every other property goes up by the same percentage.
When one house goes down, it's an isolated example riddled with flaws that says nothing about any other property.
Posted by: diemos at March 16, 2011 8:00 AM
Not what I said. You're arguing with me because I took exemption to AT being unnecessarily expansive. It's not as if D7 hasn't lost value. Sorry, bud. Pick your spots. These guys are very silly and your words are better than theirs are.
Posted by: [anon.ed] at March 16, 2011 8:04 AM
Thanks for clarifying the methodology Ed! The zip code explanation makes a lot of sense. sfrenegades disclaimer suggestion would be be a helpful addendum.
And can you report the foreclosure/preforeclosure data for each SF zip code? :) One more methodological question- do your numbers line up with those available through realtytrac or propertyshark?
Posted by: PostIt at March 16, 2011 8:57 AM