February 22, 2012

San Francisco Prestige Index Down 0.3% In Q4 2011, Down 3.1% YOY

San Francisco Prestige Index: Q4 2011 (www.SocketSite.com)

The First Republic Prestige Home Index for "San Francisco" homes valued at more than $1 million, and averaging $2.52 million, fell 0.3 percent from the third to fourth quarter of 2011, down 3.1 percent year-over-year versus a 1.4 percent YOY decline in the third quarter, down 18.2 percent from a third quarter 2007 peak and back below the third quarter of 2004.

As always, keep in mind that the "San Francisco" index includes "a cross-section of luxury homes in Alamo, Atherton, Belvedere, Danville, Healdsburg, Hillsborough, Lafayette, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mill Valley, Moraga, Orinda, Palo Alto, Piedmont, Portola Valley, Ross, St. Helena, San Francisco, Saratoga, Sonoma, Tiburon and Woodside."

First Republic Prestige Home Index: San Francisco [firstrepublic.com]
San Francisco Prestige Index Up 1.0% In Third Quarter, Back To 2004 [SocketSite]

First Published: February 22, 2012 10:00 AM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

If you draw a straight line from the first two inflection points at 1985 and 1997 it points toward the next recovery around 2020 or 2025 assuming that the market stays flat. Sooner if the market continues to drop.

There's no basis for this conclusion, just throwing it out there as an observation. In any case 1998 onwards doesn't seem to fit any pattern.

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at February 22, 2012 2:24 PM

These graphs would be more accurate on a log scale. Going from 100 to 200 is not the same as going from 400 to 500.

Posted by: lol at February 22, 2012 2:39 PM

I agree a log scale makes more sense. The straight line extrapolation I used really isn't valid on a linear Y scale.

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at February 22, 2012 2:41 PM

I wonder where the drop is coming from, the farther out places such as Alamo and Danville? Cities like Atherton and Hillsborough are at 2007 price levels.

Posted by: unwarrantedinlaw at February 22, 2012 4:57 PM

^^^

While that's a true statement, they are also at 2000 price levels, given that their prices seem to have remained fairly flat over the last decade or more (at least according to trulia).

Posted by: lyqwyd at February 22, 2012 5:14 PM

To clarify, my comment was specifically in relation to Atherton and Hillsborough price changes.

Posted by: lyqwyd at February 22, 2012 5:33 PM

unwarrantedinlaw wrote:

> Cities like Atherton and Hillsborough are
> at 2007 price levels.

I would say we are closer to 2004 prices on average than 2007 prices for Hillsborough and Atherton.

There are some fancy remodeled homes selling at real high prices in Hillsborough and Atherton, but I have not seen any "apples" that have sold for more than they sold for in 2007 (can anyone give me one?).

Hillsborough & Atherton (and Portola Valley & Woodside) are unique in that they have homes that sell for over $20 million and also have homes that sell for under $2 million (so "average" price and price/sf data is not a great way to see where prices as a whole are going).

Posted by: FormerAptBroker at February 22, 2012 8:58 PM

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:

« Existing U.S. Sales Pace Up As Supply Drops And Median Does As Well | HOME | Glass Tower To Rise Over SF Mining Exchange Building On Bush »