0
0

"N. Calif home sales drop 23 percent in July"


 invite response                
2010 Aug 19, 3:17am   12,701 views  68 comments

by Theo   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/08/19/financial/f093706D36.DTL&tsp=1

Home sales in the San Francisco Bay Area plummeted 22.8 percent last month from the previous year to reach their lowest level in 15 years, a tracking firm reported Thursday.

San Diego-based MDA DataQuick said the drop from 8,771 homes in July 2009 to 6,773 homes last month came as the market adjusted to the end of federal tax credits for first-time buyers.

Last month was the slowest July since 1995, when just under 6,666 homes were sold in the nine-county region, the firm said. Sales were also down 19.1 percent from around 8,373 in June.

"There was more to last month's sales drop than expiring federal home buyer tax credits, but we think they were the main reason the decline was so sharp," DataQuick president John Walsh said. "As the boost from the credits waned, low mortgage rates just weren't enough to outweigh the weak economic recovery and low consumer confidence."

The median home price in the region declined 2 percent to $402,000 last month from $410,000 in June.

However, the median price last month was up 1.8 percent from $395,000 in July 2009.

#housing

« First        Comments 63 - 68 of 68        Search these comments

63   thomas.wong1986   2010 Aug 24, 6:38am  

Just the market correction one again.... move along not much to see here....

sybril, the deflation i speak of is on the top revenue line due to increase in competition and price cuts. Moores law never forsaw international competition with favorable lower cost could impact domestic producers near pricing monoply.

You have have declining revenues per unit shipped to end user, vs increases in cost to produce. To combat rising costs.. mfg, and now pretty much everthing else is moving out. ... This is deflation I speak off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

Relation to manufacturing costs
As the cost of computer power to the consumer falls, the cost for producers to fulfill Moore's law follows an opposite trend: R&D, manufacturing, and test costs have increased steadily with each new generation of chips. Rising manufacturing costs are an important consideration for the sustaining of Moore's law.[33] This had led to the formulation of "Moore's second law", which is that the capital cost of a semiconductor fab also increases exponentially over time.

Materials required for advancing technology (e.g., photoresists and other polymers and industrial chemicals) are derived from natural resources such as petroleum and so are affected by the cost and supply of these resources. Nevertheless, photoresist costs are coming down through more efficient delivery, though shortage risks remain.[36]

The cost to tape-out a chip at 90 nm is at least US$1,000,000 and exceeds US$3,000,000 for 65 nm

64   B.A.C.A.H.   2010 Aug 24, 10:40am  

Thomas,

"The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year."

That is Moore's Law, as he defined it, in his own words, from his 1965 Solid State Technology paper that's on the Intel website, it is cost reduction and it is deflationary.

A whole lotta low hanging fruit went into that cost reduction, like the economies of scaling from a niche component industry to mainstream, cheap cost of capital during the Greenspan years in the USA and in Japan by the investment dynamics there in the late 1980's, more of it during the spillover of dot.com mania into hardware stocks in the late 1990's, planned obsolescene by team Wintel in the days of incessant upgrades, giveaways and local subsidies from local governments like in the SW of the USA, and later on regional gov'ts in places like Hsinchu and Communist China.

These "innovations" may also have been key in the Deflationary Moore's Law as are the technical innovations.

65   woggs1   2010 Aug 24, 10:58am  

tatupu70 says

woggs1 says

Great time to buy, you had better buy now or be priced out forever right marko? LMAO!!! You bulls are killing me!

Woggs–You are completely ridiculous. Marko posted nothing even remotely implying that now was a good time to buy. All he said was that the graph that was posted was still open to interpretation and he questioned some of the conclusions from it. Are you that closed minded that you can’t even listen to other views?

It was clear what his point was. The data was clearly spelled out right in front of him but refused to see it. The beauty of the bull/bears debate is that time will show who is right. BTW I agree I am ridiculous. Not being ridiculous is just boring.

66   knewbetter   2010 Aug 24, 11:24am  

APOCALYPSEFUCK says


Bottom line: DEAD MEAT. Anyone buying a house in the next 20 years is committing suicide.

Oh yeah? Well I say FIFTY YEARS! Do I hear sixty, sixty, going once. Sold! to the new Bearmarket.

67   tatupu70   2010 Aug 24, 11:28am  

woggs1 says

It was clear what his point was. The data was clearly spelled out right in front of him but refused to see it

The point of the graph was clear, no doubt. He was questioning one of the implicit assumptions though. I like people who question the obvious...

68   tomme12   2010 Aug 25, 3:53am  

schmitz_kris says

Well, duh.
You’re still doing better than the exurbs of Minneapolis - our sales are down much more significantly m-o-m. Then again, the moral fabric of California being what it is, your real estate officials are probably just lying.

Im a newbie and apparently I need (3) posts to create a new one.. but I saw your.... thinking about dumping our n. cali home (tops schools, good neighborhood, town, etc) and moving to MSP. Edina or somewhere in that neck of the woods.

« First        Comments 63 - 68 of 68        Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions