February 17, 2008

SF and Daly City: Market Performance Luster and Lackluster

I feel like a broken record here, but yes, still, despite melt down in other parts of the country and even in neighboring counties, SF’s real estate market remains strong. Here’s a snapshot of properties sold as of Feb 5, where, and for how much (you can see the complete sales record at sfgate.com):

 SF and Daly City: Market Performance Luster and Lackluster

Such data are more enlightening when extrapolated, so take a look at this information from SFHomeBlog.

73 Properties Changed hands in the San Francisco Real Estate Market during the two week period of January 23rd – February 5th 2008

SFH Single Family Homes
17 sold Over Asking ↑
13 Sold Under Asking ↓
7 Sold At Asking ↔

Condos
9 Sold ↑
12 Sold ↓
10 Sold ↔

2-4 Unit buildings
1 Sold ↑
3 Sold ↓
1 Sold ↔

Note also that these data do not include condo sales in the newer developments that manage their own sales since those sales hane not been entered into tax record yet. The upshot of all of this information is that  ”even though we are down on the volume of sales year over year we still have over 61% of properties that are selling at or over their asking prices.”

As a comparison, though I do not have the more extrapolated data for Daly City, here’s the entire sales record for that area. Note (a lot) less sales, (considerably) lower prices, etc. This comfirms SF’s bubble status, since poor DC is her closest neighbor, yet the bad luck there hasn’t much penetrated.
 

 SF and Daly City: Market Performance Luster and Lackluster


  • scott

    Actually there seems to be some debate here. No one is debating the market in SF is comparitively well off, but it has softened, and frankly, we have not seen the bottoming out yet. Anyone who says otherwsie is not paying attention.

  • Isellhouses

    Frankly, I do not see how the extrapolation changes our agreed conclusion that the market is alive and well in the city by the bay!

  • I got the update from Meredith at SF Home Blog that addresses David Gordon's comment. Here it is (drumroll...)

    There were 6 total listings that dropped their price and consequently sold over asking. Of those six, 5 closed for only $5000 or less over their revised asking prices. Additionally, there were several that dropped price and still sold for under their asking price.

    22 sales were reported posthumously during that time period that I did not re-calculate into the equations (for a total of 95 sales rather than 73). As stated it's really a snapshot.

  • Certainly land use restrictions play in to development costs- I saw an interesting article about the delays on construction around Octavia in Hayes Valley based on city squabbling... You're right that the topic deserves a blog posting, especially with the local angle. Thanks for the tip, David.

  • David

    Sure thing, "Isellrealestate." We can make a bet. These restrictions were in place 15 years ago too, and that didn't stop R.E. from going down. In fact, if you read the paper referenced, the restrictions ADD to boom&bust cycles. We're going to bust, and SF is not immune.

    Again, prices went down from 1989-1996. Why is this time different? Prices went up even more during the run-up, interest rates can't fall much further, income isn't going up, and there certainly isn't an economic boom right around the corner. So, how will this help R.E. prices here?

  • Isellrealestate

    Prices will not be going down much in SF- sorry, David. The same restrictions you allude to are part of what helps keep them high, and we don't expect any changes there!

  • David

    Not really relevant to this post, but has anyone blogged on this finding:
    http://www.cato-at-liberty.org...

    Land-use planning (restrictions) add $200,000 to the price of a home in Seattle. You can be sure it's at least as much around here.

  • David

    Interest rates dropped in general from 1989 (10.8%) through 1996 (7.32%), and prices still went down.

    Rates cannot drop 3.5% as they did then. Rates are barely a half point or so below what they were last year (and jumbo rates are still higher than they were). How will a smaller rate drop now help home sales more than a bigger rate drop back in the early '90's? When houses are even more overvalued (on a price/rent or price/income basis) than they were in 1989?

    Sales will pick up, when prices drop.

  • Isellhouses

    Keep in mind, people, that the low interest rate available now, even for 30 yr fixed, makes buying a more expensive home such as you find in San Francisco more possible. That will help sales stay steady and perhaps even pick them up.

  • David

    Yep. SF is doing fine. All the "good" areas on the Peninsula are too. The East Bay is getting hammered. This R.E. bust is playing out like all the others: the marginal areas get hit first and the hardest in percentage terms, the bust moves its way into the "center"--the "good" areas. This process takes about 4 years usually. Then the good areas are hit while the marginal areas hit rock bottom. Then the recovery starts in the "good" areas (which were never hit quite as hard as the marginal areas) and ripples on back out.

    So don't worry, SF will get hit too. It's just a matter of time and degree. Best case, it's flat for a few years, losing money to inflation. Worst case (for the minority who are current owners at least), it drops 10-20% until prices are more in-line with rents.

  • anna

    In that case, SF (on the whole) is doing just fine then, no?

  • David

    No. All that really matters is price/sq ft trends.

  • anna

    True, Toady. So would you take issue with the realtor-esque statement ”even though we are down on the volume of sales year over year we still have over 61% of properties that are selling at or over their asking prices” being a sign the market is still strong?

  • Toady

    Even considering David's very cogent point, I think this data looks very much like a softening market. 27 listings sold for over and 42 at or under asking. Six months ago, that ratio would have been inverted. A year ago, nearly everything went for over.

  • anna

    Good point, David. So the data can be skewed, kind of like foreclosure data can be skewed. I'll keep an eye on SFHomeBlog to see if she does in fact report back; I'll even let her know that readers are waiting for the information.

  • david gordon

    Nice post Anna.

    What I am skeptical about (in addition to the fact that the #s are coming from a realtor) is the # of properties sold in relation to asking price. We all know realtors are de-listing properties quite often and then relisting with a new price. This happens all the time and can skew the numbers. I see on her blog, Meredith was asked this same question and is supposedly going to report back on her findings. Waiting to see that...

blog comments powered by Disqus
close