Reply
Platinum Trusted Contributor
elt1
Posts: 5,024
Registered: ‎01-04-2010

Interactive trend map from CNBC

[ Edited ]

This is from Diana Olick. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100424686

 

This is good to compare different areas...Not so good if you want to know how your neighborhood is doing.

Gold Contributor
mediaguru
Posts: 1,896
Registered: ‎03-03-2011
0

Re: Interactive trend map from CNBC

[ Edited ]

Great resource... it shows we are in bubble land.

 

How?

 

1) SF prices up the 2nd most year-over-year out of all metro areas shown, yet a bigger DECLINE in sales than any other metro over the past month.  Hmm... could it be that the peak has been met and people aren't willing to pay the jacked up prices?

 

2) There are many people (including elt1) who say "Inventory... inventory... yackety schmackety blah blah blah", but y-o-y inventory has declined much MORE in: LA, DC, Boston, Manhattan, San Diego, Seattle, Minneapolis... (heck, even Vegas, Miami, and Tampa have seen a bigger inventory decline than SF.)  Yet NONE of those has seen 22% price spike like SF.  [And, likewise, none of them are seeing a sudden DOWNWARD trend in month-to-month sales... hmmm, could there be a correlation??]

 

It all adds up to a lot of speculation and bag-holders over the course of the past year.

 

Not to say that this won't continue over the rest of this year, because there are always plenty of suckers who are late to the party and never seem to realize it...

 

But it's very interesting to note that the factors people keep citing to "support" the Bay Area prices -- employment rate, inventory, mortgage rates -- are the same (or more favorable) elsewhere and yet not resulting in the same ludicrous trends...

Platinum Trusted Contributor
elt1
Posts: 5,024
Registered: ‎01-04-2010
0

Re: Interactive trend map from CNBC

[ Edited ]

"Garbage in Garbage out, Lies, damned lies and statistics". Inventory drop is relative. Absolute inventory is what is important. Highest price rise nationwide was in Phoenix and Vegas, but they still have a long way to go to get back to 2006 prices..10 years maybe..especially if building booms again.

 

   In absolute terms the SF Bay Area(and especially the RBA) has the lowest inventory by far. Always has and always will... The barriers to entry make the real difference. The indisputable fact is the BA can not build enough housing and almost all new housing will be condos and rentals..... Coastal areas of SoCal have the same issues.

 

For example Discovery Bay is complaining about an inventory shortage with only 36 houses for sale and a population of 5,000. Redwood City with a population of 75,000 also only has 36 houses for sale. PA, SC, MP, all have even even less.

Regular Contributor
Rippling
Posts: 172
Registered: ‎12-27-2012
0

Re: Interactive trend map from CNBC

So inventory is down only 24%, compared to +40% in LA and San Diego?  Hummm...Prices shouldn't be this high up compared to 2012.

 

In my home searching, MOST of the home prices are going down every week (Looking at Danville, Blackhawk, Alamo, Lafayette, 1M homes).  Some 50K, some 100K.   I'm not buying it.  Comps sold for an additional100K less in Jun-Sept 2012.  There's room, and I can wait.   


 

 

Silver Contributor
malkito
Posts: 502
Registered: ‎04-07-2010

Re: Interactive trend map from CNBC

If you are going to use the word "bubble" in every post you make here, please endeavor to at least have a vague understanding of the word.  You meant overvalued.

 

The whole concept of a low volume bubble is laughably ridiculous.  ("when the bubble pops all 7 people who've bought recently are gonna sell and that's going to crush prices!")  

 

You need leverage/sloppy lending and short term holders (flippers) for a bubble.  We have neither.

Gold Contributor
mediaguru
Posts: 1,896
Registered: ‎03-03-2011
0

Re: Interactive trend map from CNBC

But what is "high volume" vs "low volume" for Bay Area?

 

According to elt1, Bay Area has ALWAYS been low-volume sales area... so does this mean there was never an "RE bubble" here? (2004-2007 wasn't a bubble, because SF area had fewer transactions than, say, LA?)

 

You really can't define something as "high volume" or "low volume" without setting a quota or metric for that.  I have seen no such number...

Platinum Trusted Contributor
elt1
Posts: 5,024
Registered: ‎01-04-2010

Re: Interactive trend map from CNBC

[ Edited ]

The bubble in the RBA was in 1999-2000 from the dot com boom bust..The 2006 bubble was artificially caused by the fed....and hardly affected the RBA...In fact if you bought in PA in 2006 you paid less than in 2000 and can sell for more now.... the RBA is different from the rest of the nation....prices will keep going up till at least 2017.... And maybe further unless the fortress cities start allowing mid to high rise residential towers....might happen in RWC, doubtful in PA. Here is more detail from Redfin..http://blog.redfin.com/?src=homepage

Silver Contributor
Buyer567
Posts: 382
Registered: ‎06-17-2011
0

Re: Interactive trend map from CNN


elt1 wrote:

 And maybe further unless the fortress cities start allowing mid to high rise residential towers....might happen in RWC, doubtful in PA.


And what then? Most people still prefer SFH to the apartment so I don't think it will change much, they have plenty of those towers in San Francisco. Land is land, land in RBA is only going to get more expensive and less affordable with time, that's been the trend for last 100 years at least, I don't see it changing unless something catastrophic happens.