Monday, March 03, 2008

Sacramento Real Estate Market - February 2008 Statistics



Change in median asking price (year-over-year): -27.9%



Change in median asking price (since August 2005): -35.2%
Source: Housing Tracker

AgentBubble has posted some numbers for February over at the Sacramento Real Estate Statistics blog. Year-over-year change:

  • Sales: -14.7%
  • Median $: -26.3%
  • Median $/SF: -29.5%
  • Average $/SF: -28.9%
  • Average $: -29.2%
From Reuters:
"Price declines are spreading and accelerating," Radar Logic, a data and analytics business based in New York, said in a news release. "December 2007 brought to a close a year in which the housing bubble burst."
...
The nine markets with double-digit losses compares with six such markets in November...Sacramento had the biggest drop, at 23.7 percent, followed by 21 percent for Las Vegas.
More from Radar Logic's press release [pdf]:
Five cities show recent increases in volume that could foreshadow a closing of the bid-ask spread and possibly the beginning of the recovery. These five cities are Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, Sacramento, and San Diego.

Sacramento and San Diego…are prime examples of speculative markets that rode the housing bubble to great heights. They are also two of the markets that have fallen the furthest, ranking 22 and 25 on this month’s chart of year-over-year appreciation, and having been in the bottom half since April 2005. The increase in volume that these five cities are experiencing could indicate that a correction may have occurred and the bottom may be in sight.
More from Business Week's Hot Property blog:
If you’re selling a home in any of these markets, don’t get too excited. [Radar Logic's Jonathan] Miller says that if he’s right, home prices in these cities would only start stabilizing in about 15 months.
From the Modesto Bee:
Two Stanislaus County irrigation districts are caught in the same national credit crisis that's driving up interest rates on Modesto bonds. Rates doubled in the past month on some Modesto Irrigation District and Turlock Irrigation District bonds, costing the agencies hundreds of thousands of dollars...The districts and the city issued the bonds through auction-rate securities that until the past month offered government agencies lower interest rates than traditional, fixed-rate bonds. But as the market for auction-rate bonds has softened, the interest rates have skyrocketed.
...
"This is not a reflection on the MID's financial health or the MID's creditworthiness," [MID spokeswoman Kate Hora]...said. "It's just a reflection of the crazy conditions in the housing market and the mortgage market.

10 comments:

sacramentia said...

The median and average stats are starting to diverge. It looks like buyers are using the reduced prices to buy larger homes rather than just buy the same home for a lower price.

SacramentoCrash said...

Jingle Mail:

"“There’s a whole lot of people who would’ve been stuck as renters without these exotic loan products,” Professor Sinai said.

“Now it’s like they can do their renting from the bank, and if house values go up, they become the owner.

If they go down, you have the choice to give the house back to the bank. You aren’t any worse off than renting, and you got a chance to do extremely well.

If it’s heads I win, tails the bank loses, it’s worth the gamble.”"

norcaljeff said...

The increase in volume that these five cities are experiencing could indicate that a correction may have occurred and the bottom may be in sight.

Well if you read this chart like a stock chart, you may be able to start talking about a bottom forming but RE is different from stock. For one, the median home price v. median family income in both SD and Sacto are still way out of whack so until that happens, and credit becomes as free as it did in 2005, we won't see a bottom in either (SD, Sac) market anytime soon.

Sippn said...

Norcal, really? You assume the buyers are local without cash. . . .not the case...some buyers, especially now, have more than 10% down, in fact there is a large % of all cash buyers out there now....a different type of investor vs the prior 100% LTV speculator.

If fact, thinking back to my first purchase around 1980ish, I've always bought about 5:1 price to income, always at least over 4:1.

I think a few economists, Shiller, etc. tripped up with the "3:1" optimal ratios thinking about loans and inadvertantly applied this to total price. In the Sac region, our prices are skewed by imported Bay Area and SOCal equity. Too bad if you didn't bring any.

THe ratios likely work perfectly in Nowheresville, Nebraska, but not here.

Lander, thank you for recognizing some non negative information out there.

Its real mixed right now.

mopar777 said...

You're right about that Sippin.
I'm almost an all cash buyer for my next neat and clean little duplex in a good part of Fair Oaks, Orangevale or Folsom. But right now the rent to asking price ratios are still out of whack compared to my first three purchases. Maybe we'll have some good rent inflation in '09 and 2010 to make the ratios better.
The duplexes for sale in the aformetioned markets seem like they are flippers or serial refinancers in trouble trying to negotiate a short sale with the bank so they won't be forced into a judgement foreclosure. Only time will tell. But hell, I'd rather get a lousy interest rate at the bank for a year or two than over pay $50-70K.

Jacob said...

It looks like buyers are using the reduced prices to buy larger homes rather than just buy the same home for a lower price.

That's exactly where I am right now. When I buy I know I will want to stay put for a long time so I want the best house I can get.

My price range has stayed the same for the past couple years so I am able to get better and better homes now than a few years back.

If more people skip the entry level homes, what does that do to the market?

People can call the bottom each month and eventually someone will be right. When I see that the bottome was 6 months past I will be starting to look for a place.

norcaljeff said...

Well Sippin I'm sure you make your facts up because banks back in the 80s didn't lend money that way. Why don't you talk about the property you bought at the end of 2006 and confess to how much you've lost on that, or did you think we forgot about that? Stop spreading false information. This market sucks and smart money is staying away, both local and non-local.

Sippn said...

Yes, they do lend on loan:income ratios, NOT price:income ratios.

You put 20% down (common then) and a 3:1 loan: income ratio loan and you get ....bingo.... 4:1 just like Mopar said.

Within 7 years, my home went up 50%, equity 3x, and with the equity, the next home was price:income 4.6:1

That was the 80s.

regarding my 2006 purchase, a flipper on my street closed one 2-3 months ago for 50% more than he bought it for a few months after me, which is more than he put into it, not much, but a good sign. The zip has remained less than 6 months inventory and its close in.

So I'm not really sure I've lost $$ on it yet, I'll let you know.

Had I known then that 17 months later, when the housing market was just showing signs of stability, that the whole lending system would collapse in Aug 2007, I wouldn't have done it until I achieved some other goals, but what the heck, got to work through it now.

Then again, my payment is less than local rent.

Review the lending practices above, thats where its heading again (real down payments - skin in the game). Why - the computer models didn't work properly. Poor modeling. Poor assumptions.

norcaljeff said...

You must use different lenders who aren't regulated by US laws. Anytime I go in for a loan they ALWAYS wanna see 3:1 on income to loan value AFTER the 20% is down. And this is what it will be going forward, which is why people can't qualify.

dvobell said...

Sippn: "Had I known then that 17 months later, when the housing market was just showing signs of stability, that the whole lending system would collapse in Aug 2007..."


who coulda seen THAT comin' huh?
outta the BLUE, I tells ya.

luckily, the BOTTOM'S comin' soon, huh?
real SOON, I tells ya.