You wouldn't know it from reading stories planted by the California Association of Realtors and Dataquick (which gets all its income from realtors), but San Francisco prices have actually been falling lately:
San Francisco prices fall again
By Patrick Follow Thu, 5 Jul 2012, 9:23am 7,696 views 79 comments
In Menlo Park CA 94025
Watch (1) Share
Quote
Permalink Like Dislike « First « Previous Viewing Comments 40-79 of 79 Last » See most liked comments
|
Premium member Patrick is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Goran_K says
No it hasn't. Real Estate is extremely strong and prices are pushing new multi-year highs in several areas including San Francisco. (according to Redfin)
If you're looking at listing prices, I wouldn't worry about it since most homes are getting much higher than asking now.
http://www.redfin.com/county/340/CA/San-Francisco-County
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
iwog says
But why the enormous difference between city and surrounding counties? Is the traffic THAT bad?
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
wthrfrk80 says
Dunno, but most of the Bay Area is participating in this mini bull run. Here's my county:
http://www.redfin.com/county/309/CA/Contra-Costa-County
Follow
Befriend
4 threads
2,115 comments
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.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
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. ;-)
Follow
Befriend (3)
21 threads
1,522 comments
Victorville, CA
Premium
wthrfrk80 says
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.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
I can't wait to sign up for voluntary slavery.
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
iwog says
no, NAR data is biased and was found to be unreliable due to errors on their part.. this was in the news more than a few times. As far back as 2003 the Govt and much of the financial news stopped using the NAR news due to independence concerns and questions. that is why Case Shiller is considered more reliable and independent.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
thomas.wong1986 says
Soooooooooooo..............you think the NAR data and the Case-Shiller data has radically diverged then?
Because it hasn't. Just sayin.
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
NAR data isnt independent, nor has it been verified by independent parties.
Follow
Befriend (3)
21 threads
1,522 comments
Victorville, CA
Premium
Peter Case is a butthead. He has stated emfatically in many interviews that he is really sorry to be the harbinger and he always seems drunk in his interviews. He is gonna go with the flow IWOG because he knows manipulation of data for the greater good is paramount.
I'm not saying he is wrong, just that he things what he is doing is best for the country. He might come out twenty years form now with a mea culpa.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
thomas.wong1986 says
That's irrelevant. If the data is biased, that bias will very clearly show up over time. The errors will multiply and eventually you'll have the NAR saying up 100% over 10 years while Case-Shiller says down 50% over 10 years.
What's your explanation for why this hasn't happened? How do you explain the fact that NAR & Case-Shiller data is so closely correlated that both indexes show a bottom in 2009, a gain in 2010, and a gradual decline into January 2012?
I'm not defending the NAR because I really don't care and there are plenty of alternate sources of data, but the facts don't match your conclusion. At all.
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
iwog says
and the NAR was exposed after denying their info was wrong...as for SFBA we have additional correction to go through. Other parts of the nation already had their correction.
NAR: Sorry, But We're Revising Down All Of The Existing Home Sales Data Since 2007
Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-13/markets/30510947_1_home-sales-housing-market-nar#ixzz1zuGL57Az
Follow
Befriend (3)
21 threads
1,522 comments
Victorville, CA
Premium
Mr Wong speaks the truth
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
You mean sales data was intentionally corrected by an organization that was intentionally faking it? You're totally ignoring my point as I expected.
The realty is that NAR data is pretty close to CS data when it comes to prices. It's very unlikely that there's any intentional misrepresentation about sales from the NAR because it would be so easily discovered.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
thomas.wong1986 says
So what you're saying is that Case-Shiller will also have to make a correction because the Case-Shiller data was so close to the NAR data?
Or do all of the NAR corrections amount to pretty much nothing and the picture of past housing values will remain exactly the same?
"The benchmark revisions will be published next Wednesday and will not affect house prices."
There ya go!
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
iwog says
Two independent data sources... NAR and S&P.
Where does it say, they showed the same data. Even you disputed the S&P CS data since it didnt jive with your data from your Masters at the NAR. dont you recall how perplexed you were back then?
Even the NAR was calling a bottom EVERY YEAR since 2007.. and how wrong they were...
Follow
Befriend (8)
38 threads
1,606 comments
Mountain View, CA
bmwman91's website
Premium
iwog says
Like anything, the NAR data should be taken with a few grains of salt. They are a private entity whose continued existence is completely dependent on people being willing and able to buy/finance houses. It would be foolish for anyone to take their data at face-value. The NAR controls the MLS and data contained therein. They have a vested interest in generally presenting the data in a light that coaxes the average consumer into buying a house, regardless of what a more academic analysis of the data might conclude. Fox guarding the hen house, etc.
Remember just last year how they corrected all of their data down because they admitted that they were "counting it wrong"? Well, nobody can possibly know if they are using the "old" overly-optimistic calculations again this year and using a comparison to the downward-correction to the last 5 years' worth of data to proclaim that 2012 is the start of the up-swing. It was a totally transparent move on the NAR's part, and a smart one since relatively few people are aware that the NAR revised-down their figures for 2007-2011, and a lot of people that knew about it have already forgotten. Tons of average Joe's are convinced that 2012 is "the" time to buy. The data, as presented today, says so. It ends up being a gamble on whether or not the data is any good.
There are also some perma-bears out there that skew whatever data they encounter in the other direction. They don't really have anything to gain and I figure that they are putting the effort in out of frustration with the system. It's just as disingenuous as what the NAR is doing, although at least it doesn't lead people to financial hardships.
What are prices in SF doing? I would assume that they are rising on the properties that are being listed since inventories are down and demand is at least as high as ever. So sure, I bet things are selling for over asking solely because there are few good properties available. Thankfully, I have no interest in living in that dull gray splatter of concrete with feigned "culture" and a vast number of people with no sense of common decency. Every time I come to Asia I am brightly reminded of how much of a joke SF is when it is classified as a "major city." I'd take Hong Kong over it any time, which is where I am now at the tail end of a long business trip. Flame suit...on.
Follow
Befriend (3)
21 threads
1,522 comments
Victorville, CA
Premium
iwog says
What if it was deemed good for tne nation? What if it was deemed the lesser of the two evils in order to sway - people who are very subject to swaying anyway) in the here and now and then, when it is no longer a big deal, they will come clean one day. We did what he had to do to keep the economy from sh*tting the bed! they will say...think on it IWOG. Think abstract.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
thomas.wong1986 says
Maybe if you stopped being lazy and actually looked up the data instead of dismissing it without any reason whatsoever, you'd know what I already know. NAR price moves tend to be more exaggerated because they are using averages and not like for like sales. Otherwise the prices correlate very well.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
JodyChunder says
It doesn't matter. As far as I'm concerned, they all say basically the same thing. A flat market since early 2009 and a nice spike upward in the 2nd quarter of 2012.
Splitting hairs is useless because a house isn't a commodity and they are all estimates anyway.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
bmwman91 says
They were inflating sales numbers. The prices however stayed the same.
Follow
Befriend (3)
21 threads
1,522 comments
Victorville, CA
Premium
iwog says
house is a commodity just like labor is. You can commodify anything. come on now!
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
iwog says
thats a hell of spike.. make sure it doesnt pop out and hit you the eye!
looks like the same pimple we saw last summer! you call that a SPIKE!
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
iwog says
graph certainly shows NAR number was wrong and inflated on peak points.
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
iwog says
you just showed their number couldnt be the same since it showed going up in 08 and higher 09 and 10, and certainly not a recovery which NAR was talking about back then...
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
thomas.wong1986 says
It doesn't show anything of the sort. It's measuring something different than Case-Shiller and Core logic. Calling it wrong because it doesn't do what you want is infantile.
My point before and my point now is the same. NAR data cannot be as corrupt as you say it is, otherwise the graph would diverge over time. Nitpicking peaks and valleys doesn't change that.
The graphs do not diverge. The graphs stay approximately the same. Therefore NAR bias is either very small or doesn't exist.
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
Christ all mighty! ... you and the NAR are made for each other...
Your the poster child of the of the RE industry in California!
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
I tend to not trust NAR. But I do generally trust Case-Shiller since he's not trying to sell me anything.
Follow
Befriend (5)
44 threads
4,602 comments
Los Altos, CA
Premium
@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...
Follow
Befriend (5)
74 threads
1,400 comments
Premium
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.
Follow
Befriend (8)
38 threads
1,606 comments
Mountain View, CA
bmwman91's website
Premium
ptiemann says
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?
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
ptiemann says
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?
Follow
Befriend (31)
34 threads
2,608 comments
San Jose, CA
Premium
What is Patrick's agenda? :0)
Follow
Befriend (3)
21 threads
1,522 comments
Victorville, CA
Premium
E-man says
Picking at the seams!
Follow
Befriend (3)
41 threads
835 comments
San Francisco, CA
dublin hillz says
It's not about entertainment for me. It's about connection. I find that when I live away from noise and dirt, I start to think I deserve things like fresh water and a driveway. That's a very disconnecting way to think in that very many people in the world would not connect with that way of thinking. My thoughts are more calm and happy when I have that connection.
Follow
Befriend
4 threads
2,115 comments
Randy H said:Got a good deal and, now that we're actually getting ready to sell again and move out of Marin
Are you migrating out of state... or into the City?
Follow
Befriend (54)
5,235 threads
6,172 comments
46 male
Menlo Park, CA
Premium
E-man says
Mostly I just hate the current system that throws generations of new buyers to the wolves over and over again. I myself was in that situation and it bent my brain to the point where I had to do something about it.
Beyond that, I'd like to make money somehow. I just refuse to make money by cooperating with the evil current system of "everyone against the buyer". The buyers need someone on their side, and I think they'll pay something if they see the value.
Follow
Befriend (5)
44 threads
4,602 comments
Los Altos, CA
Premium
EBGuy says
We're moving back into the Valley grinder. Los Altos to be specific. My better half took a role as a CFO for a valley company and I'm able to work out of our 1 Market location in SF, so we split the commute.
Follow
Befriend (1)
18 threads
29 comments
San Francisco, CA
dublin hillz says
I used to have a rent-controlled apartment in the Sunset district. I traded that for a rent-controlled apartment in North Beach. It's noisy. I now pay for parking. Drunks are breaking bottles in the street on Friday and Saturday nights. But, somehow, I'm much happier. I think of noise as texture and rather enjoy city sounds.