Wow. Those numbers are vastly different than what I would have expected especially considering that September’s close of sales contained August’s problems.
This is really interesting. San Francisco’s high end market is holding incredibly well, and is still increasing $$ wise. Los Angeles’s however – and specifically Santa Monica’s — is starting to have trouble. A lot of the high end stuff has been rolling back to ’06 pricing. Is that a precursor for the SF market, or will we ride through the next couple years unscathed?
[Editor’s note: Good question. We don’t think anyone has the answer to that.]
Kenny – That is exactlyt he confusion. I finally see people now saying 2006 was the high, and not 2005. We’re up 25% from 2005. But, depending on where you go, 2007 is the new high, or 2006 is the high.
Some people can’t see their way out of a paper bag. Trend lines folks, and common sense. Sales volume is down. DOM is meaningless with delist/delist (s/b days of manipulation). The big story is what would the 15% of houses that didn’t sell this year vs last have sold for if the owner got real. If volume is up and median is up then you got a stronger case, but when your entire median imcrease of 2.6% is dependent almost entirely on marina condos shooting up a frankly ridiculous 40%, then you start to get a more accurate picture: only homes in the upper reaches are selling well and with ridiculous increases, so median just went up.
If you have 100 houses, 50 sell for $700k and 50 sell for $900k then your median is 800k. Let’s say next year the market drops put of the market for the $700k houses and only 35 sell for $600k, the rest don’t sell at all. Guess what happpens? A bunch of people go post on TFS about how fricking healthy the market is and IN YOUR FACE to the bears because even though volume is down 15% the median has gone up to $900k so buy now or you’ll be locked out fo-evah. This despite the fact that $14 million dollars just evaporated from the market.
Want to wake up to reality? 6 out of 10 districts saw a decline in median. I guarantee that wasn’t true last year. In fact I bet that last year that number was zero.
The trendlines are what matter here, and they pretty clearly to a bunch of drunks in the bedroom who don’t realize everyone downstairs has left and the party is over.
Enjoy your beer.
[Editor’s note: No predictions have ever been made from theFrontSteps. Only pointing out the current state of affairs. We leave predicting to you.]
Yes, and to be clear I wasn’t accusing TFS of making predictions. My ire was directed primarily at HQ, but also boomtime, not because he posted here but because I know he was thinking it. :)
I love the site BTW, and the people on it. Get some coffee in me in the morning and I’ll rage against the machine, but good people all around, you know?
[Editor’s note: Good coffee, we hope. Glad you like the site. Tell some friends.]
Wow. Those numbers are vastly different than what I would have expected especially considering that September’s close of sales contained August’s problems.
District 7 – DOM lower, volume about the same, prices 40% higher. Hmm. Some crash.
This is really interesting. San Francisco’s high end market is holding incredibly well, and is still increasing $$ wise. Los Angeles’s however – and specifically Santa Monica’s — is starting to have trouble. A lot of the high end stuff has been rolling back to ’06 pricing. Is that a precursor for the SF market, or will we ride through the next couple years unscathed?
[Editor’s note: Good question. We don’t think anyone has the answer to that.]
I thought ’06 was higher anyway?
Kenny – That is exactlyt he confusion. I finally see people now saying 2006 was the high, and not 2005. We’re up 25% from 2005. But, depending on where you go, 2007 is the new high, or 2006 is the high.
Some people can’t see their way out of a paper bag. Trend lines folks, and common sense. Sales volume is down. DOM is meaningless with delist/delist (s/b days of manipulation). The big story is what would the 15% of houses that didn’t sell this year vs last have sold for if the owner got real. If volume is up and median is up then you got a stronger case, but when your entire median imcrease of 2.6% is dependent almost entirely on marina condos shooting up a frankly ridiculous 40%, then you start to get a more accurate picture: only homes in the upper reaches are selling well and with ridiculous increases, so median just went up.
If you have 100 houses, 50 sell for $700k and 50 sell for $900k then your median is 800k. Let’s say next year the market drops put of the market for the $700k houses and only 35 sell for $600k, the rest don’t sell at all. Guess what happpens? A bunch of people go post on TFS about how fricking healthy the market is and IN YOUR FACE to the bears because even though volume is down 15% the median has gone up to $900k so buy now or you’ll be locked out fo-evah. This despite the fact that $14 million dollars just evaporated from the market.
Want to wake up to reality? 6 out of 10 districts saw a decline in median. I guarantee that wasn’t true last year. In fact I bet that last year that number was zero.
The trendlines are what matter here, and they pretty clearly to a bunch of drunks in the bedroom who don’t realize everyone downstairs has left and the party is over.
Enjoy your beer.
[Editor’s note: No predictions have ever been made from theFrontSteps. Only pointing out the current state of affairs. We leave predicting to you.]
Yes, and to be clear I wasn’t accusing TFS of making predictions. My ire was directed primarily at HQ, but also boomtime, not because he posted here but because I know he was thinking it. :)
I love the site BTW, and the people on it. Get some coffee in me in the morning and I’ll rage against the machine, but good people all around, you know?
[Editor’s note: Good coffee, we hope. Glad you like the site. Tell some friends.]