April 12, 2011

San Francisco Listed Sales Volume Up 3% In March As Medians Drop

The sales volume of listed single-family homes in San Francisco fell 8% on a year-over-year basis in March, down 17 sales from 220 in 2010 to 203 in 2011 as the median sales price fell 3 percent, from $789,500 in March 2010 to $765,000 in March 2011.

As we wrote last month following a 7 percent decline in median, or the 13 percent drop the month before, expect proponents of representing changes in median as changes in value to quickly find religion (at least for a month or two).

With respect to condos, listed sales volume increased 12.6 percent on a year-over-year basis in March, up 28 sales from 222 in 2010 to 250 in 2011 as the median sales price fell 3 percent from $655,000 to $632,500.

As total listed sales volume in San Francisco increased by 11 units (2.5%) on a year-over-year basis in March, as plugged-in people know listed housing inventory ended the month up 34 units (2%) versus the year before.

UPDATE: The rereport's May reporting for condo sales incorrectly reported a decline in condo sales volume, the results above have been restated to correctly report an increase.

Real Estate Matket Trends Report [rereport.com]
SF Listed Sales Volume Up 1.5% In Feb As Medians Continue To Fall [SocketSite]
SF Listed Sales Volume Up 15% In January Driven By Low-Cost Areas [SocketSite]
Medians Are Up, But Don’t Confuse That With Increasing "Prices" [SocketSite]
San Francisco Listed Housing Inventory Update: March 28, 2011 [SocketSite]

First Published: April 12, 2011 10:15 AM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

Here is the monthly update for months of inventory. The columns are month, inventory as determined by SocketSite on MLS closest to mid-month, MLS sales as reported by rereport.com, months of inventory, trailing 3 months of inventory, and trailing 12 months of inventory:

May-07 1091 529 2.1
Jun-07 1152 513 2.2
Jul-07 1157 470 2.5 2.3
Aug-07 1187 464 2.6 2.4
Sep-07 1408 346 4.1 3.0
Oct-07 1532 452 3.4 3.3
Nov-07 1393 408 3.4 3.6
Dec-07 1077 355 3.0 3.3
Jan-08 1053 215 4.9 3.8
Feb-08 1159 292 4.0 4.0
Mar-08 1329 318 4.2 4.3
Apr-08 1381 382 3.6 3.9 3.3
May-08 1491 478 3.1 3.6 3.4
Jun-08 1496 426 3.5 3.4 3.5
Jul-08 1470 478 3.1 3.2 3.6
Aug-08 1388 393 3.5 3.4 3.7
Sep-08 1544 332 4.7 3.8 3.7
Oct-08 1789 381 4.7 4.3 3.8
Nov-08 1788 241 7.4 5.6 4.1
Dec-08 1405 265 5.3 5.8 4.3
Jan-09 1189 141 8.4 7.1 4.6
Feb-09 1500 192 7.8 7.2 4.9
Mar-09 1648 238 6.9 7.7 5.2
Apr-09 1622 277 5.9 6.9 5.4
May-09 1685 328 5.1 6.0 5.5
Jun-09 1630 389 4.2 5.1 5.6
Jul-09 1569 452 3.5 4.3 5.6
Aug-09 1352 495 2.7 3.5 5.6
Sep-09 1448 392 3.7 3.3 5.5
Oct-09 1460 435 3.4 3.3 5.4
Nov-09 1346 395 3.4 3.5 5.0
Dec-09 1131 412 2.7 3.2 4.8
Jan-10 909.5 226 4.0 3.4 4.4
Feb-10 1116 247 4.5 3.8 4.2
Mar-10 1361 414 3.3 3.9 3.9
Apr-10 1491 317 4.7 4.2 3.8
May-10 1599 480 3.3 3.8 3.6
Jun-10 1697 446 3.8 3.9 3.6
Jul-10 1799 385 4.7 3.9 3.7
Aug-10 1594 360 4.4 4.3 3.8
Sep-10 1797 341 5.3 4.8 4.0
Oct-10 1936 372 5.2 5.0 4.1
Nov-10 1834 326 5.6 5.4 4.3
Dec-10 1408 404 3.5 4.8 4.4
Jan-11 1255 275 4.6 4.6 4.4
Feb-11 1399 276 5.1 4.4 4.5
Mar-11 1443 409 3.5 4.4 4.5

Posted by: sfrenegade at April 12, 2011 11:10 AM

Btw, it looks like sales were pretty strong compared to other winters. We didn't have the usual March peak in trailing 3 months of inventory. Instead, there was a normal peak in November, and it went flat for March.

Posted by: sfrenegade at April 12, 2011 11:12 AM

Total sales were not down 7%, they were up 12 sales.

[Editor’s Note: Break down your counts by type (SFH versus Condo/TIC) and District and we’ll correct rereport and repost. Keep in mind the we don’t include multi-family sales nor listings on San Francisco’s MLS for properties outside the city.]

Posted by: [anon.ed] at April 12, 2011 11:23 AM

This is confusing. In the April update, Rereport says that sales for March 2010 were 220 for houses and 222 for condos (total 442). However, if you look at their original April 2010 update, the data for March 2010 added up to 414 (210 + 204) (which is what I have in my chart). Is there new sales data being added, or is there an error somewhere?

Posted by: sfrenegade at April 12, 2011 11:28 AM

Doesn't rereport include Daly City anyway?

Posted by: [anon.ed] at April 12, 2011 11:30 AM

"Doesn't rereport include Daly City anyway?"

Not 100%, But I believe they put Daily City in D11 so you can break out D1-10 seperately

Posted by: tc_sf at April 12, 2011 1:09 PM

Daly City is shown on a map as D11, but it's not part of this data set. Check it out for yourself -- it's all the City and County of San Francisco:

http://www.rereport.com/sf/

Posted by: sfrenegade at April 12, 2011 1:14 PM

OK. Then I don't know where the MLS /ReReport discrepancy comes from. MLS D1-10 March condo/TIC + SFRs, solely, shows slight YOY volume gain, not loss.

Posted by: anon.ed at April 12, 2011 1:26 PM

This discrepancy would be easy to resolve if both reports allowed you to drill down to the list of transactions that were used to compute the totals. Comparing two lists of length 400 or so wouldn't take too much time.

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at April 12, 2011 1:41 PM

I get the following (D1-D10):

SFRs

2010: 218
2011: 203

Condos/TICs

2010: 216
2011: 246

So SFRs down a little YOY, and condos/TICs up about 14% YOY.

Meanwhile inventory is up a bit YOY and pendings are down a bit YOY - basically flat with SFRs doing worse than condos by all of these measures.

Posted by: A.T. at April 12, 2011 3:11 PM

This discrepancy would be easy to resolve if both reports allowed you to drill down to the list of transactions that were used to compute the totals. Comparing two lists of length 400 or so wouldn't take too much time

transparent markets are not always profitable to select parties.

as far as I can tell, it's likely that we're finally in the "Great Sideways" phase of the downturn/upturn. My original guess 4 years ago was that we would have a "Great Sideways" phase for several/many years, but that was before I realized how insane our govt would become (which has lead to greater price instability IMO).

all that said, I still really dislike using Winter/early spring data to gauge the market, especially this year when we (supposedly) have QE2 ending this May/June.

I think May numbers (reported mid summer) will give us better understanding of things.

Posted by: ex SF-er at April 13, 2011 5:57 AM

Here is some more data and analysis on medians, draw your own conclusions.

"Distress home sales – bank-owned properties and short sales – have a major impact on the overall median sales price in San Francisco, even though the city is much less impacted by such sales than the greater Bay Area or California..."
http://www.helenazaludova.com/home/?p=1281

Posted by: Skirunman at April 17, 2011 11:52 AM

Post a comment


(required - will be published)


(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)


(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« Live By The Comp… | HOME | New Designs For Dwellings (And Retail) At Market And Sanchez »