patrick.net

I think any data that shows a price rise of ~40% from Sept '11 to Dec. '11 has to be taken with a large grain of salt.

Not that I consider Redfin a one-all source for housing information, but they are reporting their first month-over-month median drop for San Francisco since February of this year.

Take what you will from that.

errc says

I'm just glad we hard working folks here in flyover country are priviliged enough, to help fund that fucking madness.

Just curious how you guys help fund the SF madness? Besides buying sourdough bread.

I honenstly don't understand why rents and home prices are so high in S.F. Considering that if you really want the entertainment of S.F., you can always BART in in 1 hr tops and then go back to the suburb and not deal with all the noise, dirt, panhandlers, parking inconveniences and myriad of other issues. The rents in SOMA for instance are around 2600 a month for a horrendous small 1 bd apartment and then you have to pay for parking on top of that. Why would someone subject themselves to such nonesense - so that they can say that they "live in the city" and take a cab to a restaurant that's open to 1 a.m.? If I were to live in the city, the only way I would do it would be to get a rent controlled apartment in sunset district, that's about it.

evilmonkeyboy says

Just curious how you guys help fund the SF madness? Besides buying sourdough bread.

Actually, the people in flyover country do in fact fund the SF madness by being forced to guarantee much higher Fannie and FHA loans than they themselves can get.

Another way to say it: jumbo loan limits are much higher in SF due to the forced imposition of risk on people in flyover land. Conforming loan limits are unfairly different. SF buyers get lower interest rates on loans above $419K because the risk is pushed onto the flyover taxpayer.

So some farmer in Iowa has his tax money used to guarantee $729,000 loans in SF when the farmer himself is eligible for low rates only for $419,000 max loan.

Actually, the people in flyover country do in fact fund the SF madness by being forced to guarantee much higher Fannie and FHA loans than they themselves can get.

Makes sense.

dublin hillz says

I honenstly don't understand why rents and home prices are so high in S.F. Considering that if you really want the entertainment of S.F., you can always BART in in 1 hr tops and then go back to the suburb and not deal with all the noise, dirt, panhandlers, parking inconveniences and myriad of other issues. The rents in SOMA for instance are around 2600 a month for a horrendous small 1 bd apartment and then you have to pay for parking on top of that. Why would someone subject themselves to such nonesense - so that they can say that they "live in the city" and take a cab to a restaurant that's open to 1 a.m.? If I were to live in the city, the only way I would do it would be to get a rent controlled apartment in sunset district, that's about it.

It's a lifestyle decision that a lot of people are making. You may prefer to live in the suburbs and commute when necessary. Many many other people (especially the younger generation) would rather take a smaller, more expensive rathole and be in the "middle of it all" It's a trend that's occurring worldwide. If you're happier living the the suburbs then be thankful that the price of your suburban living costs is lower because of your contrarian view.

zesta says

Many many other people (especially the younger generation) would rather take a smaller, more expensive rathole and be in the "middle of it all"

Not me. I like having a working toilet.

Interesting! Tweeted!

And yet the number of Realtards on SFGate forums who claim SF Prices have not fallen remains high.

That rag is like an official orifice of the NAR, house for sale ads top front page, daily real estate "blog" topics.

Business section selectively picks stories for discussion that soft peddle bad economic news, Goebbels would be proud.

Heh. One important difference of note mite be that Patrick is not a bedfellow with any RE enterprise.

Don't really care if SF is more expensive. We already bought in the east bay so for starters I no longer care in general and secondly, if people want to pay more to live somewhere- let em'. Its their choice.

Well alls I know is all my houses are rented and I am looking to buy some more. I got a feeling mortgage rates is going down again before year end and we will see more buying frenzy, so I wanna move fast before more primary residential buyers snap them up first!

edvard2 says

Don't really care if SF is more expensive. We already bought in the east bay so for starters I no longer care in general and secondly, if people want to pay more to live somewhere- let em'. Its their choice.

You sure was bellyaching about it before!

SFace says

Ask SFrenter if prices are falling?

Not in the last 6 months, but we're hoping/expecting that this is a Spring/Summer bump: the bottom that has been called every Spring since 2009.

Apples-to-apples comparisons show an increase. Here is a perfect example:

146 Athens Street Listed 399K, sold 415K http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/146-Athens-St-San-Francisco-CA-94112/15168054_zpid/don't know

138 Athens Street Listed 480K, relisted at 465K, sold for more than 430K (how much we won't know until after it closes, but when we put a lowball offer on it last month (415K per comps) it was rejected, as also was the highest bid of 430K.

Look at it this way:

Inventory is down 45%. Of the 55% of places for sale, almost 30% of sales were all-cash (investors).

Interest rates are lower than they have ever been, so regular folks who are just looking for a place to live have a shot at the remaining 1/4 of properties left. Of course prices are rising. How sustainable this is, I don't know.

Doesn't need to be sustainable. Just as long as it pays a commission and makes the game look legit instead of bankrupt.

Prices have not been falling in SF; nor have they in SC, SM, or Marin over the same period in question. Yes the CAR and NAR are pimping this to all hell, but CraigsList is not a reliable source of information as it does not capture even 10% of activity, and it suffers from self-selection bias (it's only sought out by a particular ilk of realtor or fsbo). I expect prices will stall and that $2mm will likely fall come late autumn, but even at that probably not by much unless we get another full on recession by then.

Also, flyover are the net beneficiaries of subsidization, not net donors. One only need look at aggregate federal tax flows to determine that. This is not a new phenomenon either -- it's been true for over a quarter century.

Randy H says

Also, flyover are the net beneficiaries of subsidization, not net donors. One only need look at aggregate federal tax flows to determine that. This is not a new phenomenon either -- it's been true for over a quarter century.

If it makes you happy, we could go back to the days when railroads controlled the movement of farm commodities.

I don't mind paying for roads in states with high grain-to-people ratios.

Or maybe the blue states could just eat Soylent Green.

Overall, it looks to me, the housing price is kinda hanging there, small drop or small increment depending on your local market. For me, I rather wait until Europe blowing up and then make up my mind.

Well CA is generally a bad place to buy right now, too much speculation and government interference.

Patrick,

Experience should show us that the slowest time for real estate is around December while the hottest would be spring/summer. We should look at why your data does not fit this pattern.

To me it seems your data is very 1 dimensional by focusing only on the price which is collected from craigslist. Without having any meaning behind the price you can't tell if the market is going up or down. The examples that can distort the your numbers would be more high end homes listed or less low end homes listed. Maybe a 30 million dollar property was listed? One way to normalize the data would be to display dollars/square foot.

Do you remove data points that are extreme outliers?

Whether you believe Patrick's data or not, Redfin is showing a month-over-month decrease in the S.F market, the first since February of this year. I've seen other cities in the Bay Area where this is the case too, during a time when RE should be strong seasonally.

If it makes you happy, we could go back to the days when railroads controlled the movement of farm commodities.

I made no comment on the relative merit, only that it is a fact that capital is taxed away from "blue states" (as an approximation) and reallocated into flyover states. The degree to which this occurs is rather stark, in fact. Ostensibly, it is being done for rational reasons.

Good to see the quickness with which conclusions are assumed hasn't changed here over the past 7 years.

I agree that my data is limited because the MLS's won't share with anyone who is not in the business if maximizing debt (and therefore prices).

But at the same time as they forbid you from copying prices from their websites, realtors advertise prices publicly.

How can I get forum users to enter prices and addresses? I'm thinking of something like gasbuddy.com. Just don't know what would make it click and motivate people to do it.

Randy H says

Good to see the quickness with which conclusions are assumed hasn't changed here over the past 7 years.

The reason I was quick: quite a few people use those statistics to claim that the "red states" are deadbeats living off gummint cheese funded by the "blue states."

Much of it is just a testament to the efficiency of modern farming. You don't need many farmers per acre anymore, but you still need the roads to get the crops to market.

Maybe in the future, energy will be cheap enough that the crops can be airlifted. That'd be pretty sweet.

Wow, the return of Randy H! Are you still hunkered down in a rental, or did you buy?
FWIW, redfin (see ducky's link above) does show a month-to-month drop in median price of SF homes (April to May). Note that the condo market has heated up and combined condo & home median is up month-to-month. Also, DQ numbers do NOT show a month-to-month drop like redfin.

My goodness, that's just crazy that house prices can go from $165 to $235 in 6 months. Did they just discover gold in Contra Costa Co? Or does warm weather just loosen wallets?

I'll keep my stable Rust Belt RE market. ;-)

wthrfrk80 says

Did they just discover gold in Contra Costa Co?

You come into my shop. I say I want seven dollars for a cup of delicious frozen yoghurt. You tale me to go to hell, and I says, well. tell you waht buddy. I give you the six dollars what you aint willing to spend on and you pay me back very slowly over time with a tiny bit of interest and suddenly, since it ain't money coming out of your jeans right then that yoghurt starts looking pretty good. and it is hot outside. simple as that.

I can't wait to sign up for voluntary slavery.

NAR data isnt independent, nor has it been verified by independent parties.

Mr Wong speaks the truth

Christ all mighty! ... you and the NAR are made for each other...

Your the poster child of the of the RE industry in California!

I tend to not trust NAR. But I do generally trust Case-Shiller since he's not trying to sell me anything.

@EBGUY

Are you still hunkered down in a rental, or did you buy?

We bought in 2008 from a distressed investor. Got a good deal and, now that we're actually getting ready to sell again and move out of Marin, I'm happy that the worst likely outcome is that we have to sell for what we paid plus transaction costs.

Right now, depending upon your housing needs (school district, sq ft, # BRs, etc) you are significantly better off buying and servicing a mortgage than renting even when controlling for all other factors. Rents have inflated so much that it's a better proposition to buy even if you pay down zero equity simply due to tax distortions. Yes...even the bubblizer shows this. We live in interesting times...

It is really irrelevant what prices are doing, what is relevant that any increase in house prices, even a stall for that matter, cannot be supported by the average income as wage increases are mostly not happening and if they are they are so abysmal that after inflation most of them are still looking at a real income decline. So in the long run prices will crater (or the currency will be worthless), math just is (and can hardly be argued with) and on a long enough time-line you cannot spend more than you take in.

ptiemann says

everyone has an agenda. Case-Shiller does not try to sell you real estate, that's what you probably meant.

What is their agenda? Follow the money.

I'm assuming that you followed the money. Where does it go in the case of C-S? I'm actually interested to know. Maybe the guy does it for the same reason many academics do, to get grants and funding, as well as some notoriety?

ptiemann says

What is their agenda? Follow the money.

We'll I'm not about to make any major financial decisions based on C-S.

Are you suggesting that Yale somehow benefits if I buy (or don't buy) a house?

What is Patrick's agenda? :0)

E-man says

What is Patrick's agenda? :0)

Picking at the seams!