Bubble Markets Inventory Tracking

A Tale of Three Closings in San Elijo Hills

noreply@blogger.com (ocrenter) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:18:00 +0000

What an eventful week. We got David Lereah's confessions to Cheney's unrepentant ways. Making it that much harder for an addicted blogger to walk away.

But anyhow, I did promise you guys I'll try to finish "A Tale of Three Closings." We'll start things off with San Elijo Hills since there's been much talk about it getting close to the bottom. The community didn't really get started until 2001. But lots of folks bought pre-construction and therefore 2001 pricing may actually reflect 2000 pricing. Let's take a look at three homes that closed in late 2001:

1682 Archer Rd, San Marcos, CA 92078
--4 beds, 3.5 baths, 2,482 sq ft
--11/2001: from builder at $387,000 ($156/sqft)

1475 Crystal Ct, San Marcos, CA 92078
--5 beds, 3.5 baths, 2,975 sq ft
--12/21/2001: from builder at $480,000 ($161/sqft)

1440 Misty Sea Way, San Marcos, CA 92078
--5 beds, 4.5 baths, 4,100 sq ft
--12/2001: from builder at $645,000 ($157/sqft)

Despite differences in size and location, these homes all sold within the range of $156/sqft to $161/sqft. Let's check out just how close recent closings are to these prices.

1566 Glencrest Dr, San Marcos, CA 92078
--4 beds, 3.0 baths, 3,173 sq ft
--08/29/2002: bought from builder for $476,000 ($150/sqft)
--01/06/2009: purchased as REO for $555,000 ($175/sqft)

The purchase price here for this REO is a mere 10-15% above 2001-2002 level. Recall the crazy yesteryears when similar homes in the same neighborhood went for $302/sqft, current pricing is just 8% away from that elusive 50% decline from peak.

But are everyone scoring good deals in San Elijo?

1692 Trenton Way, San Marcos, CA 92078
--4 beds, 3.0 baths, 2,978 sq ft
--07/14/2004: bought from builder for $920,500 ($309/sqft)
--12/29/2008: purchased as REO for $650,000 ($218/sqft)

Yes, the house is upgraded with the typical stainless appliances, granite, and travertine. But at $100k difference? This is a typical example of buyer falling in love with the upgrades and willing to give up that $100k to get that house.

So far we looked at two REOs, with the barebone REO on Glencrest driven within 10-15% of 2001 pricing but the loaded REO on Trenton managing to distract the buyer into paying $100k more.

Now what about the builders? There is no question builders are hurting these days. So some of the best bargains may be from a builder. This next closing is a sale from the builder Richmond American:

887 Chandelier Ct, San Marcos, CA 92078
--5 beds, 3 baths, 2,493 sq ft
--12/19/2008: bought from builder for $579,000 ($232/sqft)

Wow, talk about complete lack of ability to bargain. Here is a builder hurting and stumbling along the way (Richmond American started this tract just as the market went bust), with a home that they've built but can't seem to find a buyer. Yet this guy walked in, bent over, took the asking price and allowed the builder to pad the sales price with a couple of overpriced options.

Guys and Gals, you see how important it is to have that historical prospective on the neighborhood of your choice. Knowing what you know about 2001 pricing in San Elijo Hills, why in the world would you pay $232/sqft on a standard tract home on a 4,396 sqft lot? The seller, be it a builder, a bank, or a homeowner, are in direct competition with each other. Insist on a price that you are comfortable with and make them an offer they can't refuse. If they won't budge, just walk away. It really is that simple.

More On the Purchase

noreply@blogger.com (ocrenter) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:00:00 +0000

I saw the latest Case-Shiller Graph posted on Calculated Risk over the weekend and thought this was extremely timely to once again discuss why "inflation adjusted 1997/nominal 2000 pricing."

You see from my altered graph here how real estate started to increase in typical cyclic fashion in 1997 to 2000. This is why inflation adjusted 1997 pricing is important. The reason why nominal 2000 pricing is picked is for two reasons. Number 1, after accounting for inflation from 1997 to 2008, we actually get roughly 2000 pricing. Number 2, it is typically still ok to buy at the peak of a "normal real estate cycle." Recall a few years back during the bubble peak a lot of folks were using the prior cycle and said, "well, we bought at the peak then and we did ok." Well, that is because the swing from bottom to peak was not very high and after just a few years inflation compensates.

Take a look at this old favorite from Jim the Realtor:

You see how even if someone bought at peak of the "normal cycle" back in 2000, after adjusting for the last 8 years of inflation things are "ok" for them now. Even folks that bought in 2001 should be ok as inflation will soon bring their purchase price back into the typical pricing trend line. But obviously we can't say the same for the folks that bought during the Great RE Bubble once it was fully unleashed. IrvineRenter did a excellent analysis in his book and figured if someone bought at the peak of the Great RE Bubble, it would take about 20 more years for inflation to bring them back in line.

A long time pigg sdrealtor said on piggington.com that if someone purchase even at 10% above bottom, he view that as a win. I would agree also. Because if you set your bottom pricing at nominal 2000, then 2001 pricing is right about within that 10% mark. If you factor in future inflation over the next 2 years, 2001 pricing should be perfectly fine.

Jim the Realtor's latest post is on purchasing strategy. It matches up to my strategy in my purchase quite well. Given that he pretty much said everything that needed to be said on the subject, do visit the link and give the post a good read.

Happy New Year, A Time to Reflect and Look Forward

noreply@blogger.com (ocrenter) — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 10:20:00 +0000

Wow, another new year is upon us. This will make the fourth new year since I started this blog in late 2005. So why did I blog? Well, every bubble blogger has their own angle. Ben Jones came from a freelance writer background, and so he collected articles upon articles. Rich Toscano has a solid economic background and works as a financial adviser, thus you see the numerous graphs and diagrams. Jim Klinge provides the experienced realtor prospective without the sugarcoating and NAR party-line. IrvineRenter provides a unique prospective as a renter who works in the building industry. Then there are the mortgage insiders like SoCalMtgGuy of yesteryears as well as Mr. Mortgage.

So where does OCRenter and BMIT fit in? What was my angle? Seriously, BMIT was an attempt at therapy. OCRenter in 2005 was a thoroughly fustrated young professional that found himself unable to provide a home for his family despite well over 20 years of education and training. This was why I blogged.

The blog since its start has been constantly evolving. We journeyed from inventory numbers to extreme flippers. From tracking rampant speculation to uncovering jaw dropping fraud. From family fraud rings to the danger of knife catching. The blog helped me stay out of the market. It helped educate me about the danger of purchasing during the Great Housing Bubble. Along the way, I hope this blog was successful in helping some of you as well.

Despite the changes in focus, the central message of this blog has been the same, don't buy, don't buy, and don't buy. Well, until recently.

Over the last few months that message has changed. No longer is this blogger out there holding a giant STOP sign.

Why? Because OCRenter is finally a homeowner.

We thought we would be waiting until late 2009, but despite that projection, we kept our ears and eyes open and we did a lot of digging. An opportunity arose and we jumped on it. We had very strict criteria and they all had to be met:

--premier area with excellent schools

--proximity to work

--2000 pricing

--1997 inflation adjusted pricing

--50% off peak pricing

--must cash flow if rented

and most importantly...

--my wife must love it

The house satisfies all of the above except the 50% off peak criteria. Pricing was more at 45% off peak. The final sales price was 25% off the initial asking price.

Did I mention my wife absolutely loves it? Boy, if there was ever a woman that deserves this home. Over the last 5 years we moved 4 times. That maternal instinct to get a house was strong, but boy did she resist it well. And yes, she was denied the chance to paint our daughter's room pink for 4 years running. And lastly, let's just say renting really sucked big time.

So what is the future of this blog? Unfortunately I simply don't have the time to keep up with frequent postings. I think the latest posts "A Tale of Three Closings" are helpful for the readers in gaining prospective of pre-bubble pricing structure. I'm going to try to finish that series with a few additional zip codes around San Diego. But after that, this blog will likely revert back to monthly inventory tracking. I have not made a firm decision on the future of the blog and I am open to suggestions.

Meanwhile, there are a few folks I need to thank here:

Ben Jones. He never returned the couple of e-mails I sent him. He never linked my blog to his site. But he was the first guy that got the word out about the bubble. I even started tracking inventory numbers on his site. So thank you.

Jim Klinge. We actually started blogging around the same time and a great guy to know and be friends with. Great depth of knowledge and that willingness to go the extra mile really just make him the go-to-guy if one of you ever need a realtor.

Richard Tiscano. Professor Piggington himself. Love the first rate analysis and those graphs really come in good use during those moments of weakness when we just felt like giving up and taking the plunge.

Dr. Keeler. BMIT's very own deep throat, this is the man who provided the bulk of the mortgage information. His help was crucial in piecing together large scale fraud cases.

MtgFraudMan. Another real estate professional that provided valuable information on several San Diego area fraud cases.

Chris Bagley and Kelly Bennett. We all know the media dropped the ball big time with the housing bubble. These two are constant reminders that fine professional investigative journalists are still out there.

Mr. Mortgage Jeff Bowman. Jeff provided me with a lot of solid advice and up-to-date rate information. Check out his TheGreatLoan.com if you need some mortgage help.

Metro Phoenix Inventory (Sales) 2008

noreply@blogger.com (ocrenter) — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 07:45:00 +0000

Tracking Maricopa & Pinal Counties, Arizona

Population 2007: 4.1 million
01/01/2007 Listing per population ratio 1:85
10/31/2007 Listing per population ratio 1:63

01/2007: 51,913 (4,520)___01/2006: 32,512 (5,260)
02/2007: 53,598 (4,280)___02/2006: 36,176 (5,460)
03/2007: 57,615 (5,385)___03/2006: 39,852 (7,265)
04/2007: 59,616 (4,855)___04/2006: 44,290 (5,980)
05/2007: 60,800 (5,220)___05/2006: 47,187 (6,870)
06/2007: 61,876 (4,910)___06/2006: 50,974 (5,460)
07/2007: 61,877 (4,330)___07/2006: 52,662 (5,545)
08/2007: 63,655 (4,240)___08/2006: 53,253 (5,685)
09/2007: 64,552 (3,050)___09/2006: 54,731 (4,875)
10/2007: 65,048 (3,610)___10/2006: 54,629 (4,985)
11/2007: 64,521 (3,280)___11/2006: 53,264 (5,040)
12/2007: 61,431 (3,290)___12/2006: 50,477 (4,620)

Population 2008: 4.2 million
01/10/2008 Listing per population ratio 1:70
05/15/2008 Listing per population ratio 1:68

01/10: 59,882
01/31: 63,279 (3,350)___01/2007: 51,913 (4,520)
02/29: 64,046 (3,710)___02/2007: 53,598 (4,280)
03/31: 64,078 (4,335)___03/2007: 57,615 (5,385)
04/30: 62,965 (3,760)___04/2007: 59,616 (4,855)
05/31: 60,992 (4,265)___05/2007: 60,800 (4,915)
06/30: 60,540 (4,565)___06/2007: 61,876 (4,910)
07/31: 62,816 (4,695)___07/2007: 61,877 (4,330)
08/31: 60,504 (4,210)___08/2007: 63,655 (4,240)
09/30: 60,301 (4,625)___09/2007: 64,552 (3,050)
10/31: 61,563 (4,465)___10/2007: 65,048 (3,610)
11/28: 62,684 (xxxxx)___11/2007: 64,521 (3,280)
12/31: 61,180 (xxxxx)___12/2007: 61,431 (3,290)

All-Time Record high inventory: 65,179 homes, Oct 2007.
Previous Record high inventory: 43,000 homes, ~1995.
Arizona Republic 6/10/06

Population 1995: 2.7 million
Listing per population 1995 1:63
Population adjusted record high inventory: 65,079

Inventory numbers are listed first followed by sales figures in parenthesis, with corresponding inventory and sales information from prior year to the right. Inventory include SFR, Condos, MFR, and land parcels, data obtained from ZipRealty. Sales information obtained from The Arizona Real Estate Center and includes only SFR and Condos.

Riverside County Inventory (Sales) 2008

noreply@blogger.com (ocrenter) — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 07:30:00 +0000

Tracking Riverside County, California

Population 2007: 2 million
01/01/2007 Listing per population ratio 1:83
10/31/2007 Listing per population ratio 1:62

01/2007: 24,931 (3,089)___01/2006: 16,846 (4,695)
02/2007: 26,157 (3,057)___02/2006: 18,767 (4,796)
03/2007: 28,451 (3,680)___03/2006: 20,334 (6,986)
04/2007: 30,277 (2,987)___04/2006: 21,388 (5,444)
05/2007: 31,515 (3,307)___05/2006: 22,952 (6,054)
06/2007: 31,962 (3,359)___06/2006: 24,490 (6,361)
07/2007: 31,796 (2,769)___07/2006: 25,359 (4,763)
08/2007: 32,097 (2,834)___08/2006: 26,052 (5,292)
09/2007: 32,024 (2,208)___09/2006: 26,597 (4,730)
10/2007: 32,380 (2,463)___10/2006: 26,594 (4,408)
11/2007: 32,600 (2,503)___11/2006: 26,135 (4,406)
12/2007: 30,421 (2,503)___12/2006: 24,062 (4,542)

Population 2008: 2.09 million
01/10 Listing per population ratio 1:70
05/15 Listing per population ratio 1:74

01/10: 29,829
01/31: 30,469 (1,939)___01/2007: 24,931 (3,089)
02/29: 30,476 (2,147)___02/2007: 26,157 (3,057)
03/31: 30,456 (2,691)___03/2007: 28,451 (3,680)
04/30: 29,627 (3,186)___04/2007: 30,277 (2,987)
05/31: 27,791 (3,444)___05/2007: 31,515 (3,307)
06/30: 27,023 (3,757)___06/2007: 31,962 (3,359)
07/31: 26,205 (4,116)___07/2007: 31,796 (2,769)
08/31: 25,252 (4,078)___08/2007: 32,097 (2,834)
09/30: 24,878 (4,551)___09/2007: 32,024 (2,208)
10/31: 25,130 (4,619)___10/2007: 32,380 (2,463)
11/28: 24,748 (3,719)___11/2007: 32,600 (2,503)
12/31: 23,114 (xxxxx)___12/2007: 30,421 (2,503)

Inventory numbers are listed first followed by sales figures in parenthesis, with corresponding inventory and sales information from prior year to the right. Inventory include SFR, Condos, MFR, and land parcels, data obtained from ZipRealty. Sales include new and resale homes from DataQuickNews.

Las Vegas Inventory (Sales) 2008

noreply@blogger.com (ocrenter) — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 07:15:00 +0000

Tracking Clark County, Nevada

Population 2007: 1.9 million
01/01/2007 Listing per population ratio 1:86
09/30/2007 Listing per population ratio 1:61

01/2007: 22,748 (1,715)___01/2006: 15,744 (2,233)
02/2007: 24,068 (1,684)___02/2006: 16,978 (2,271)
03/2007: 26,794 (1,946)___03/2006: 18,418 (3,167)
04/2007: 27,620 (1,677)___04/2006: 19,871 (2,807)
05/2007: 28,577 (1,941)___05/2006: 21,168 (3,161)
06/2007: 29,646 (1,820)___06/2006: 22,479 (3,097)
07/2007: 30,445 (1,621)___07/2006: 23,221 (2,501)
08/2007: 31,178 (1,601)___08/2006: 23,957 (2,609)
09/2007: 31,334 (1,203)___09/2006: 24,300 (2,177)
10/2007: 30,961 (1,171)___10/2006: 24,103 (2,046)
11/2007: 30,270 (1,130)___11/2006: 23,634 (1,871)
12/2007: 28,575 (1,046)___12/2006: 22,208 (2,016)

Population 2008: 2.0 million
01/10/2008 Listing per population ratio 1:72
05/15/2008 Listing per population ratio 1:81

01/10: 27,694
01/31: 27,977 (1,151)___01/2007: 22,748 (1,715)
02/29: 27,210 (1,264)___02/2007: 24,068 (1,684)
03/31: 26,034 (1,676)___03/2007: 26,794 (1,946)
04/30: 25,180 (2,006)___04/2007: 27,620 (1,677)
05/31: 24,322 (2,292)___05/2007: 28,577 (1,941)
06/30: 24,403 (2,520)___06/2007: 29,646 (1,820)
07/31: 24,476 (2,950)___07/2007: 30,445 (1,621)
08/31: 24,290 (2,930)___08/2007: 31,178 (1,601)
09/30: 24,285 (3,169)___09/2007: 31,334 (1,203)
10/31: 24,689 (3,132)___10/2007: 30,961 (1,171)
11/28: 25,130 (2,575)___11/2007: 30,270 (1,130)
12/31: 24,721 (xxxxx)___12/2007: 28,575 (1,046)

All-Time Record high inventory: 31,334 homes, Sept 2007.
Previous Record high inventory: 20,217 homes, June 1995.
www.realestatedecline.com

Population 1995: 1.32 million
Listing per population ratio 6/1995 1:65
Population adjusted record high inventory: 29,230 homes.

Inventory numbers are listed first followed by sales figures in parenthesis, with corresponding inventory and sales information from prior year to the right. Inventory include SFR, Condos, MFR, and land parcels, data obtained from ZipRealty. Sales information obtained from LasVegasRealtor.com and includes only SFR and Condos.

San Bernardino Inventory (Sales) 2008

noreply@blogger.com (ocrenter) — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 07:00:00 +0000

Tracking San Bernardino County, California

Population 2007: 2 million
01/01/2007 Listing per population ratio 1:129
09/30/2007 Listing per population ratio 1:85

01/2007: 16,310 (2,373)___01/2006: (3,321)
02/2007: 17,081 (2,274)___02/2006: (3,316)
03/2007: 18,801 (2,476)___03/2006: (4,633)
04/2007: 20,253 (2,049)___04/2006: (3,841)
05/2007: 22,149 (2,220)___05/2006: (4,148)
06/2007: 22,637 (2,190)___06/2006: (4,385)
07/2007: 22,923 (2,008)___07/2006: (3,500)
08/2007: 23,468 (2,096)___08/2006: (3,970)
09/2007: 23,492 (1,509)___09/2006: (3,437)
10/2007: 23,136 (1,603)___10/2006: (3,547)
11/2007: 22,750 (1,719)___11/2006: 17,245 (3,309)
12/2007: 20,934 (1,518)___12/2006: 15,758 (3,357)

Population 2008: 2.06 million
01/10/2008 Listing per population ratio 1:102
05/15/2008 Listing per population ratio 1:106

01/10: 20,234
01/31: 20,458 (1,111)___01/2007: 16,310 (2,373)
02/29: 20,241 (1,242)___02/2007: 17,081 (2,274)
03/31: 20,102 (1,534)___03/2007: 18,801 (2,476)
04/30: 19,821 (1,667)___04/2007: 20,253 (2,049)
05/31: 19,390 (2,075)___05/2007: 22,149 (2,220)
06/30: 19,431 (2,215)___06/2007: 22,637 (2,190)
07/31: 19,379 (2,521)___07/2007: 22,923 (2,008)
08/31: 18,950 (2,439)___08/2007: 23,468 (2,096)
09/30: 18,584 (2,831)___09/2007: 23,492 (1,509)
10/31: 18,363 (2,856)___10/2007: 23,136 (1,603)
11/28: 16,743 (2,385)___11/2007: 22,750 (1,719)
12/31: 16,211 (xxxxx)___12/2007: 20,934 (1,518)

Inventory numbers are listed first followed by sales figures in parenthesis, with corresponding inventory and sales information from prior year to the right. Inventory include SFR, Condos, MFR, and land parcels, data obtained from ZipRealty. Sales include new and resale homes from DataQuickNews.

Sacramento Inventory (Sales) 2008

noreply@blogger.com (ocrenter) — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 06:45:00 +0000

Tracking Sacramento/El Dorado/Placer/Yolo Counties, California

Population 2007: 2.1 million
01/01/2007 Listing per population ratio 1:178
08/30/2007 Listing per population ratio 1:116

01/2007: 12,480 (1,149)___01/2006: 10,582 (1,309)
02/2007: 12,947 (1,154)___02/2006: 11,215 (1,338)
03/2007: 14,272 (1,459)___03/2006: 11,833 (2,060)
04/2007: 15,755 (1,462)___04/2006: 12,989 (1,739)
05/2007: 16,553 (1,581)___05/2006: 14,824 (2,439)
06/2007: 17,484 (1,566)___06/2006: 16,505 (1,983)
07/2007: 17,706 (1,408)___07/2006: 17,314 (1,673)
08/2007: 18,162 (1,459)___08/2006: 17,342 (1,768)
09/2007: 17,900 (1,087)___09/2006: 16,668 (1,654)
10/2007: 17,546 (1,221)___10/2006: 15,638 (1,549)
11/2007: 16,721 (1,168)___11/2006: 14,264 (1,457)
12/2007: 15,602 (1,284)___12/2006: 12,285 (1,466)

Population 2008: 2.14 million
01/10/2008 Listing per population ratio 1:140

01/10: 14,962
01/31: 15,084 (1,158)___01/2007: 12,480 (1,149)
02/29: 15,029 (1,278)___02/2007: 12,947 (1,154)
03/31: 14,804 (1,582)___03/2007: 14,272 (1,459)
04/30: 14,184 (2,005)___04/2007: 15,755 (1,462)
05/31: 13,634 (2,558)___05/2007: 16,553 (1,581)
06/30: 13,221 (2,636)___06/2007: 17,484 (1,566)
07/31: 14,434 (2,586)___07/2007: 17,706 (1,408)
08/31: 14,190 (2,508)___08/2007: 18,162 (1,459)
09/30: 13,830 (2,856)___09/2007: 17,900 (1,087)
10/31: 13,674 (2,613)___10/2007: 17,546 (1,221)
11/30: 12,916 (xxxxx)___11/2007: 16,721 (1,168)
12/31: 11,970 (xxxxx)___12/2007: 15,602 (1,284)

All-time Record high inventory: 18,162 homes, Aug 2007.
Previous Record high inventory: 13,507 homes, April 1992.
Realty Times 11/20/2005

Population 1992: 1.55 million
Listing to poputation ratio 4/1992 1:115
Population adjusted record high inventory: 17,913.

Inventory numbers are listed first followed by sales figures in parenthesis, with corresponding inventory and sales information from prior year to the right. Inventory include SFR, Condos, MFR, and land parcels, data obtained from ZipRealty. Sales information obtained from golyon.com and includes only SFR and Condos.

Ventura County Inventory (Sales) 2008

noreply@blogger.com (ocrenter) — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 06:15:00 +0000

Tracking Ventura County, California

Population 2007: 825,000
01/01/2007 Listing per population ratio 1:150
08/30/2007 Listing per population ratio 1:117

01/2007: 5,641 (689)___01/2006: (804)
02/2007: 6,234 (737)___02/2006: (882)
03/2007: 6,658 (999)___03/2006: (1,326)
04/2007: 5,320 (890)___04/2006: (1,008)
05/2007: 5,759 (861)___05/2006: (1,145)
06/2007: 6,219 (886)___06/2006: (1,227)
07/2007: 6,566 (784)___07/2006: (941)
08/2007: 7,057 (789)___08/2006: (1,146)
09/2007: 7,034 (582)___09/2006: (1,137)
10/2007: 6,892 (538)___10/2006: (961)
11/2007: 6,637 (516)___11/2006: 6,593 (901)
12/2007: 5,981 (590)___12/2006: 5,677 (1,023)

Population 2008: 832,000
01/10 Listing per population ratio 1:142
05/15 Listing per population ratio 1:148

01/10: 5,854
01/31: 6,001 (423)___01/2007: 5,641 (689)
02/29: 5,980 (495)___02/2007: 6,234 (737)
03/31: 5,849 (549)___03/2007: 6,658 (999)
04/30: 5,661 (771)___04/2007: 5,320 (890)
05/31: 5,645 (708)___05/2007: 5,759 (861)
06/30: 5,556 (767)___06/2007: 6,219 (886)
07/31: 5,314 (870)___07/2007: 6,566 (784)
08/31: 5,116 (850)___08/2007: 7,057 (789)
09/30: 4,761 (808)___09/2007: 7,034 (582)
10/31: 4,467 (802)___10/2007: 6,892 (538)
11/28: 4,368 (729)__11/2007: 6,637 (516)
12/31: 3,946 (xxxx)__12/2007: 5,981 (590)

Inventory numbers are listed first followed by sales figures in parenthesis, with corresponding inventory and sales information from prior year to the right. Inventory include SFR, Condos, MFR, and land parcels, data obtained from ZipRealty. Sales include new and resale homes from DataQuickNews.

San Diego County Inventory (Sales) 2008

noreply@blogger.com (ocrenter) — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 06:00:00 +0000

Tracking San Diego County, California

Population 2007: 3.10 million
1/01/2007 Listing per population ratio 1:191
09/30/2007 Listing per population ratio 1:131

01/2007: 17,109 (2,772)___01/2006: 16,161 (2,898)
02/2007: 17,544 (2,863)___02/2006: 17,262 (3,035)
03/2007: 18,638 (3,218)___03/2006: 18,261 (4,367)
04/2007: 20,122 (3,436)___04/2006: 19,480 (3,974)
05/2007: 21,169 (3,385)___05/2006: 21,175 (4,480)
06/2007: 22,268 (3,510)___06/2006: 22,588 (4,533)
07/2007: 22,551 (3,106)___07/2006: 23,385 (3,584)
08/2007: 23,518 (3,104)___08/2006: 23,381 (3,853)
09/2007: 23,649 (2,152)___09/2006: 22,710 (3,336)
10/2007: 22,790 (2,327)___10/2006: 21,692 (3,449)
11/2007: 22,239 (2,400)___11/2006: 19,831 (3,248)
12/2007: 20,326 (2,468)___12/2006: 17,223 (3,823)

Population 2008: 3.15 million
01/10/2008 Listing per population ratio 1:158
09/30/2008 Listing per population ratio 1:167

01/10: 19,964
01/31: 20,581 (1,826)___01/2007: 17,109 (2,772)
02/29: 20,848 (1,954)___02/2007: 17,544 (2,863)
03/31: 21,222 (2,108)___03/2007: 18,638 (3,218)
04/30: 21,257 (2,809)___04/2007: 20,122 (3,436)
05/31: 21,232 (2,979)___05/2007: 21,169 (3,385)
06/30: 20,572 (3,077)___06/2007: 22,268 (3,510)
07/31: 20,595 (3,431)___07/2007: 22,551 (3,106)
08/31: 19,778 (3,148)___08/2007: 23,518 (3,104)
09/30: 18,917 (3,366)___09/2007: 23,649 (2,152)
10/31: 18,507 (3,598)___10/2007: 22,790 (2,327)
11/28: 17,972 (2,673)___11/2007: 22,239 (2,400)
12/31: 16,414 (xxxxx)___12/2007: 20,326 (2,468)

All-time Record high inventory: 23,715 homes, Sep 2007.
All-time low inventory: 2,301 homes, March 2004.

Previous Record high inventory: 19,250 homes, July 1995.
North County Times 4/12/06

Population 1995: 2.66 million
Listing per population ratio 7/1995: 1:138
Population adjusted record high inventory: 22,174 homes.

Inventory numbers are listed first followed by sales figures in parenthesis, with corresponding inventory and sales information from prior year to the right. Inventory include SFR, Condos, MFR, and land parcels, data obtained from ZipRealty. Sales include new and resale homes from DataQuickNews.

Orange County Inventory (Sales) 2008

noreply@blogger.com (ocrenter) — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 05:15:00 +0000

Tracking Orange County, California

Population 2007: 3.10 million
01/01/2007 Listing per population ratio 1:244
09/30/2007 Listing per population ratio 1:155

01/2007: 13,302 (2,400)___01/2006: 8,430 (2,868)
02/2007: 13,704 (2,449)___02/2006: 10,420 (2,928)
03/2007: 15,324 (3,130)___03/2006: 11,762 (4,203)
04/2007: 17,094 (2,682)___04/2006: 13,268 (3,563)
05/2007: 18,353 (2,675)___05/2006: 15,048 (3,762)
06/2007: 19,263 (2,641)___06/2006: 16,692 (3,862)
07/2007: 19,470 (2,391)___07/2006: 17,458 (2,982)
08/2007: 19,996 (2,281)___08/2006: 17,758 (3,456)
09/2007: 20,039 (1,643)___09/2006: 17,475 (2,919)
10/2007: 19,599 (1,700)___10/2006: 16,650 (2,929)
11/2007: 18,731 (1,567)___11/2006: 15,188 (2,867)
12/2007: 17,161 (1,731)___12/2006: 13,220 (2,985)

Population 2008: 3.12 million
01/10/2008 Listing per population ratio 1:187
05/15/2008 Listing per population ratio 1:180

01/10: 16,673
01/31: 17,151 (1,286)___01/2007: 13,302 (2,400)
02/29: 17,140 (1,471)___02/2007: 13,704 (2,449)
03/31: 17,434 (1,663)___03/2007: 15,324 (3,130)
04/30: 17,385 (2,166)___04/2007: 17,094 (2,682)
05/31: 17,000 (2,266)___05/2007: 18,353 (2,675)
06/30: 16,599 (1,930)___06/2007: 19,263 (2,641)
07/31: 16,398 (2,799)___07/2007: 19,470 (2,391)
08/31: 15,460 (2,713)___08/2007: 19,996 (2,281)
09/30: 14,677 (2,667)___09/2007: 20,039 (1,643)
10/31: 14,361 (2,833)___10/2007: 19,599 (1,700)
11/28: 13,796 (2,177)__11/2007: 18,731 (1,567)
12/31: 12,425 (xxxxx)___12/2007: 17,161 (1,731)

Inventory numbers are listed first followed by sales figures in parenthesis, with corresponding inventory and sales information from prior year to the right. Inventory include SFR, Condos, MFR, and land parcels, data obtained from ZipRealty. Sales include new and resale homes from DataQuickNews.

Los Angeles Inventory (Sales) 2008

noreply@blogger.com (ocrenter) — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 04:45:00 +0000

Tracking Los Angeles County, California

Population 2007: 10.27 million
01/01/2007 Listing per population ratio 1:288
09/30/2007 Listing per population ratio 1:175

01/2007: 36,715 (6,805)____01/2006: 27,732 (7,309)
02/2007: 41,251 (6,300)____02/2006: 29,420 (7,089)
03/2007: 42,057 (8,353)___03/2006: 31,819 (10,805)
04/2007: 45,918 (7,225)____04/2006: 34,032 (9,284)
05/2007: 52,198 (7,426)____05/2006: 37,847 (10,714)
06/2007: 52,769 (7,580)____06/2006: 42,317 (11,234)
07/2007: 54,166 (6,809)____07/2006: 45,315 (8,844)
08/2007: 57,432 (6,647)____08/2006: 46,781 (10,140)
09/2007: 58,973 (4,361)____09/2006: 47,369 (8,636)
10/2007: 58,731 (4,368)____10/2006: 45,780 (8,451)
11/2007: 59,108 (4,468)____11/2006: 43,103 (8,274)
12/2007: 53,475 (4,430)____12/2006: 37,165 (8,479)

Population 2008: 10.36 million
01/11/2008 Listing per population ratio 1:196
05/15/2008 Listing per population ratio 1:192

01/11: 52,619
01/31: 53,722 (3,398)___01/2007: 36,715 (6,805)
02/29: 53,520 (3,468)___02/2007: 41,251 (6,300)
03/31: 54,290 (4,263)___03/2007: 42,057 (8,353)
04/30: 54,098 (5,016)___04/2007: 45,918 (7,225)
05/31: 53,216 (5,445)___05/2007: 52,198 (7,426)
06/30: 53,058 (5,678)___06/2007: 52,769 (7,580)
07/31: 51,906 (6,592)___07/2007: 54,166 (6,809)
08/31: 50,124 (6,138)___08/2007: 57,432 (6,647)
09/30: 48,113 (6,274)___09/2007: 58,973 (4,361)
10/31: 47,017 (6,824)___10/2007: 58,731 (4,368)
11/28: 45,216 (5,037)___11/2007: 59,108 (4,468)
12/31: 40,810 (xxxxx)___12/2007: 53,475 (4,430)

Inventory numbers are listed first followed by sales figures in parenthesis, with corresponding inventory and sales information from prior year to the right. Inventory include SFR, Condos, MFR, and land parcels, data obtained from ZipRealty. Sales include new and resale homes from DataQuickNews.

Metro Seattle Inventory (Sales) 2008

noreply@blogger.com (ocrenter) — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 04:30:00 +0000

Tracking King & Snohomish Counties, Washington

Population 2007: 2.50 million
01/01/2007 Listing per population ratio 1:231
09/30/2007 Listing per population ratio 1:110

01/2007: 11,888 (3,062)___01/2006: 8,425 (2,468)
02/2007: 12,230 (3,022)___02/2006: 8,527 (3,391)
03/2007: 13,210 (4,444)___03/2006: 8,724 (4,772)
04/2007: 14,608 (4,451)___04/2006: 9,284 (4,585)
05/2007: 16,295 (4,892)___05/2006: 10,018 (5,027)
06/2007: 18,546 (5,052)___06/2006: 11,415 (5,597)
07/2007: 19,604 (4,678)___07/2006: 12,172 (5,063)
08/2007: 21,382 (4,490)___08/2006: 12,933 (5,684)
09/2007: 22,804 (3,492)___09/2006: 14,333 (4,661)
10/2007: 22,788 (3,206)___10/2006: 14,395 (4,432)
11/2007: 21,292 (3,022)___11/2006: 13,603 (3,925)
12/2007: 18,775 (2,537)___12/2006: 11,851 (3,720)

Population 2008:
01/11/2008 Listing per population ratio 1:133

01/11: 18,825
01/31: 19,672 (xxxxx)___01/2007: 11,888 (3,062)
02/29: 20,802 (3,014)___02/2007: 12,230 (3,022)
03/31: 23,018 (2,839)___03/2007: 13,210 (4,444)
04/30: 24,608 (2,752)___04/2007: 14,608 (4,451)
05/31: 25,972 (2,856)___05/2007: 16,295 (4,892)
06/30: 26,917 (2,887)___06/2007: 18,546 (5,052)
07/31: 27,381 (2,760)___07/2007: 19,604 (4,678)
08/31: 27,110 (2,743)___08/2007: 21,382 (4,490)
09/30: 26,705 (2,564)___09/2007: 22,804 (3,492)
10/31: 25,331 (2,335)___10/2007: 22,788 (3,206)
11/28: 23,864 (1,528)___11/2007: 21,292 (3,022)
12/31: 21,396 (xxxxx)___12/2007: 18,775 (2,537)

Record high inventory: 25,660 homes, August 1991.
NWMLS per research from Tim of Seattle Bubble.

Population 1991: 2.0 million
Listing per population 1991 1:78
Population adjusted record high inventory: 32,051.

Inventory numbers are listed first followed by sales figures in parenthesis, with corresponding inventory and sales information from prior year to the right. Inventory include SFR, Condos, MFR, and land parcels, data obtained from ZipRealty. Sales include new and resale homes from Northwest Real Estate.

Greater San Jose Inventory (Sales) 2008

noreply@blogger.com (ocrenter) — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 04:00:00 +0000

Tracking Santa Clara County, California

Population 2007: 1.81 million
01/01/2007 Listing per population ratio 1:548
09/30/2007 Listing per population ratio 1:243

01/2007: 3,575 (1,606)___01/2006: 2,838 (1618)
02/2007: 3,774 (1,654)___02/2006: 2,921 (1,776)
03/2007: 4,498 (2,052)___03/2006: 3,353 (2,632)
04/2007: 5,184 (2,009)___04/2006: 3,734 (2,424)
05/2007: 5,866 (2,179)___05/2006: 4,259 (2,496)
06/2007: 6,234 (2,163)___06/2006: 4,835 (2,763)
07/2007: 6,426 (1,910)___07/2006: 5,200 (2,059)
08/2007: 7,053 (1,908)___08/2006: 5,183 (2,252)
09/2007: 7,436 (1,235)___09/2006: 5,412 (1,986)
10/2007: 7,400 (1,381)___10/2006: 5,039 (2,125)
11/2007: 6,997 (1,317)___11/2006: 4,402 (2,028)
12/2007: 6,308 (1,265)___12/2006: 3,431 (2,106)

Population 2008: 1.84 million
01/11/2008 Listing per population ratio 1:287
05/15/2008 Listing per population ratio 1:219

01/11: 6,302
01/20: 6,522 (869)____01/2007: 3,575 (1,606)
02/29: 7,162 (984)____02/2007: 3,774 (1,654)
03/31: 7,774 (1,105)___03/2007: 4,498 (2,052)
04/30: 8,222 (1,440)___04/2007: 5,184 (2,009)
05/31: 8,232 (1,467)___05/2007: 5,866 (2,179)
06/30: 8,311 (1,626)___06/2007: 6,234 (2,163)
07/31: 8,096 (1,660)___07/2007: 6,426 (1,910)
08/31: 7,786 (1,648)___08/2007: 7,053 (1,908)
09/30: 7,598 (1,607)___09/2007: 7,436 (1,235)
10/31: 7,621 (1,520)___10/2007: 7,400 (1,381)
11/28: 7,217 (1,120)___11/2007: 6,997 (1,317)
12/31: 6,449 (xxxxx)___12/2007: 6,308 (1,265)

Inventory numbers are listed first followed by sales figures in parenthesis, with corresponding inventory and sales information from prior year to the right. Inventory include SFR, Condos, MFR, and land parcels, data obtained from ZipRealty. Sales include new and resale homes from DataQuickNews.

A Tale of Three Closings in 92129

noreply@blogger.com (ocrenter) — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 14:56:00 +0000

Hopefully all of you are having a happy holiday season. We last left off in 92131 where we are starting to see bottom in the condos but persistantly inflated prices in the upper tier result in pricing differentials significantly greater than pre-bubble era differences.

Moving across the I-15 to the working class neighborhood of PQ, can we also see the same phenomenon? Here we have a condo complex near the freeway along busy Carmel Mountain Rd. In 2000 these condos were at just $118/sqft, they peaked up to $337/sqft in 2005 (a 186% jump in value), but with the latest comp we are now seeing a 51% drop from peak at $164/sqft. But remember, current price is still 39% over the 2000 mark.

10451 Caminito Rimini San Diego CA 92129
--2 beds, 1.0 baths, 882 sq ft
--04/03/2002: sold for $140,500
--11/21/2008: sold for $145,000 ($164/sqft)

Here's the pre-bubble and peak comps:

10438 Caminito Rimini San Diego CA 92129
--2 beds, 1.0 baths, 882 sq ft
--02/01/2000: sold for $104,500 ($118/sqft)

10420 Caminito Rimini San Diego CA 92129
--2 beds, 1.0 baths, 882 sq ft
--11/15/2005: sold for $297,000 ($337/sqft)
--06/11/2008: sold for $170,000

Now let's look at lower end SFRs. These are homes built in the 70's, now just north of Route 56. Homes here started off at $147/sqft in 2000, they saw an 80% gain at peak in 2006 at $266/sqft, and the lastest comp shows only a 11% drop from peak value, with the current valuation still at 62% over 2000 pricing.
13077 Trail Dust Ave, San Diego, CA 92129
--5 beds, 3.0 baths, 2,518 sq ft
--08/30/1985: sold for $161,000
--02/01/2002: sold for $375,000
--12/22/2008: sold for $600,000 ($238/sqft)

Here's the pre-bubble and peak comps:

13132 Old West Ave San Diego CA 92129
--5 beds, 3.0 baths, 2,518 sq ft
--05/08/1986: sold for $154,000
--08/30/2006: sold for $670,000 ($266/sqft)

13109 Trail Dust Ave San Diego CA 92129
--5 beds, 3.0 baths, 2,518 sq ft
--10/31/2000: sold for $370,000 ($147/sqft)

Lastly, we head over to the premier view homes of the neighborhood. Homes on Ragweed overlook the Los Penasquitos Canyon Preserve and they started off in 2000 at $164/sqft, peak pricing in 2005 was an increase of 126% to $371/sqft, with 2008 pricing showing a drop of 22% from peak at $290/sqft. Current pricing is still 77% over 2000 pricing.

12295 Ragweed St San Diego CA 92129
--5 beds, 3.0 baths, 2,700 sq ft
--03/13/2000: sold for $443,000 ($164/sqft)
--10/17/2008: sold for $785,000 ($290/sqft)

Here's the peak comp:

12105 Ragweed St San Diego CA 92129
--4 beds, 4.0 baths, 2,639 sq ft
--06/01/2005: sold for $980,000 ($371/sqft)

In summary we have the following:

Low End: $118/sqft (2000) to $337/sqft (2005) to $164/sqft (2008)
Mid Level: $147/sqft (2000) to $266/sqft (2006) to $238/sqft (2008)
Top Tier: $164/sqft (2000) to $371/sqft (2005) to $290/sqft (2008)

Looking at pre-bubble differences, the % difference was 29% from the lowly freeway close condo to the view home overlooking a nature preserve. That % difference is currently at 44%. Again, a significant increase in spread between lower end homes vs the upper end.

Remember, the freeway noise remains the same, the view of the nature reserve has not changed, the pricing difference reflects the stickiness of upper end pricing on the way down, buyers beware.

A Tale of Three Closings in 92131

noreply@blogger.com (ocrenter) — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:26:00 +0000

Recently in late November to early December there are three closings in Scripps Ranch. These three homes range from a lower end condo to a highly upgraded SFR with a view. The $/sqft range is dramatic, with the lowly condo at $164/sqft and the upgraded home at $312/sqft. In essence, almost a 50% difference in $/sqft from one end of the market to the other end.

But you might protest, "OCRenter, granted these homes are all in the same zipcode, but they are dramatically different homes in very different segments of the market, you are comparing apples to oranges..."

Well, humor me and let's take a look, we'll first look at the condo:

10343 Caminito Aralia #63, Scripps Ranch 92131
--1 bed, 1 bath, 719 sqft
--06/07/2005: sold for $250,000 ($348/sqft)
--12/05/2008: sold for $118,000 ($164/sqft)

Here's a 2000 comp from the same complex:

10333 Caminito Aralia #70 Scripps Ranch 92131
--1 bed, 1 bath, 656 sqft
--10/11/2000: sold for $100,000 ($152/sqft)

So the low end of 92131 has almost gone full circle. From $152/sqft in 2000, it spiked by 129% to $348/sqft in 2005, and now we are down to $164/sqft, a mere 8% above nominal 2000 pricing.

What about large SFR tract homes without views or fancy upgrades?

11711 Aldercrest Pt, Scripps Ranch 92131
--3 beds, 2.5 baths, 2,753 sqft
--12/23/1999: sold for $421,140 ($153/sqft)
--06/24/2005: sold for $875,000 ($318/sqft)
--11/24/2008: sold for $685,000 ($249/sqft)

Here's a 2000 comp just a block away:

11585 Alderhill Ter, Scripps Ranch 92131
--4 beds, 2.5 baths, 2,927 sqft
--10/31/2000: sold for $515,500 ($176/sqft)

In 2000, the $/sqft of these homes was about 15% higher than the Scripps Woods condos. Amazingly the condos actually jumped a lot further at the peak. These single family homes didn't do too bad either, bumping from $176/sqft to $318/sqft, a 81% appreciation.

But unlike the 53% freefall the condos have suffered from, the slide here has been rather limited. From peak pricing to the most recent transaction, we are seening just a 22% decline so far.

Let's look at our last example, the one with the view:

12291 Libelle Ct, Scripps Ranch 92131
--3 beds, 3.0 baths, 2,286 sqft
--11/14/1997: sold for $256,000 ($112/sqft, or $151/sqft inf adj'd)
--11/26/2008: sold for $713,000 ($312/sqft)

And here's its 2000 comp nearby:

12173 Libelle Ct, Scripps Ranch 92131
--4 beds, 3.0 baths, 2,395 sqft
--08/29/1997: sold for $258,000
--11/03/2000: $425,000 ($177/sqft)
--09/26/2003: $575,000 ($240/sqft)
--05/04/2007: $775,000 ($324/sqft)

Out of the three transactions, this one was the most decked out. Not only does it have panoramic canyon view, but it also sports your typical granite counters, stainless steel appliances, and fine wood flooring.

These homes on Libelle are actually quite close to the Aldercrest/Alderhill examples, and in 2000 they were priced very similarly. Peak pricing between the two are also very similar. Yet because of all the bells and whistles, 12291 Libelle essentially sold for almost peak pricing.

Despite their differences, pre-bubble pricing in the 3 communities ranged from $153/sqft to $177/sqft, just a 15% difference from bottom segment to view homes. That's what you expect in a normal market within the same zipcode.

At the peak of the bubble, rampant speculation was especially prevalant in the lower end, creating an un-natural reversal in pricing with the condos leading the pack at $348/sqft. But even at that point, the $/sqft spread between the homes was only at 8%.

Yet today, we now have a 47% gap in $/sqft from the bottom to top segments within the same zipcode.

Two possibilities here. Either the condos are way undervalued or the guys that bought Aldercrest and Libelle just made really bad boo-boos here. With foreclosures heading back up, I think the conclusion is pretty self evident.

Price Rollback to 2001 in Poway

noreply@blogger.com (ocrenter) — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:28:00 +0000

13579 Del Poniente Rd, Poway, CA 92064
--3 beds, 5 baths, 7,614 sqft on 4.1 acres
--03/22/2001: purchased for $1,450,000
--12/16/2008: sold for $1,425,000 ($187/sqft)

While bargains in the middle of the pack remain hard to find, the giant squish down in currently in progress. A 7,700 sqft neighbor at 15190 Saddlebrook went for $2.9 million ($377/sqft) back in March of 2006. Granted 13579 Del Poniente can use some nice updating, but we are still looking at quite a fall here.

It Is Only Half Way Over...

noreply@blogger.com (ocrenter) — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 05:00:00 +0000

The bargains at inflation adjusted 1997/nominal 2000 pricing are still few and far between. In most of the desirable neighborhoods in San Diego, we are just starting to move into 2003 pricing. This 60 Minutes video is old news to us in the blogosphere. But it is an important video as it serves to remind us of the peril of catching a falling knife if you do not insist on that inflation adjusted 1997/nominal 2000 pricing.

With every drop things are looking more and more appetizing. But remember, we are just half way done in the Great Pricing Rollback to pre-bubble pricing. So insist on your bottom pricing, and walk if someone wants to start a bidding war.

2000 Pricing in Bressi Ranch

noreply@blogger.com (ocrenter) — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 06:24:00 +0000

2570 Discovery, Carlsbad, CA 92009
--5 beds, 5 baths, 4,608 sqft, 11,300 sqft lot
--05/23/2006: purchased from builder for $1,175,000 ($255/sqft)
--12/08/2008: sold for $840,000 ($182/sqft)

This is a neighbor of a Super Jenae Production in which a 3,480 sqft home went for $1.35 million in 3/2007 ($388/sqft). We'll throw that one out. We will use 2582 Discovery which is at 4,598 sqft and sold for $1.305 million ($283/sqft) back in March of '07 as the example for peak pricing.

It is extremely hard to come up with comps from 2000 when we are looking at communities that were recently built. Here's a couple I pulled from nearby neighborhoods.

6241 Paseo Alta Rico, Carlsbad, CA 92009
--5 beds, 4.5 baths, 4,476 sq ft
--10/19/2000: purchased from builder for $826,000 ($185/sqft)
--01/12/2006: sold at peak for $1,325,000 ($296/sqft)

6902 Mimosa Dr, Carlsbad, CA 92011
--4 beds, 2.5 baths, 2,734 sq ft
--05/24/2000: purchased for $490,000 ($179/sqft)

The Paseo Alta Rico home is about the same size but it is of better construction and not as tract-home-like. However, it suffers as part of the San Marcos School District. My feeling is the two points work out to be a wash.

The Mimosa home is much smaller but like our Discovery home in Bressi, it is a typical tract home and it goes to Carlsbad schools.

Both of them have 2000 pricing at ~$180/sqft.

And yes this is a cherry but cherries will gradually be rather plentiful in the coming year.

The Master Cherry Picker Defends His Position

noreply@blogger.com (ocrenter) — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 04:23:00 +0000

During my recent absence an anonymous reader mentioned this:

"I've been reading the blog for a long time and (until I looked at SDlookup.com) I assumed these cost per sqft prices were common place. They are not. :(

I'm looking to relocate to somewhere warm (SC area my 1st choice). I can promise you the MLS is FULL of steals in Florida (West coast FL anyways) while SD isn't anywhere near as sick.

So posts like "Knife Catching Even at $150 / sq foot" definitely deserves a question mark (or two) because it very well may never be the norm in that stated neighborhood but rather the exception."

I think clarification of the point of this blog and the homes featured are needed here.

This blog has always attempted to stay at the forefront of the housing trend. At its beginning, even with rising prices, this blog started to track the rapidly increasing inventory and downturning sales to build the case for the bursting bubble. This was followed by tracking of extreme flippers to demonstrate the massive amount of rampant speculation. Soon, it was on to tracking of the numerous mortgage fraud that permeated the system.

Once the burst became a reality, and bottom callers started jumping out of the woodwork every other day, this blog then turned its emphasis toward knife catchers. And now, we focus on bottom pricing. But remember, most of the market are still not at or even near bottom pricing. The goal here is to show you what to look for when you are out there looking for a home.

For a taste of what is also happening out there, check this out:

917 Missouri St, San Diego, CA 92109
--2 beds, 1.0 baths, 570 sq ft
--04/03/1996: purchased for $149,000 ($261/sqft)
--06/23/2008: REO to bank for $461,350
--11/20/2008: sold to flippers for $415,000 ($728/sqft)

--12/05/2008: after some lipstick and a new lawn, now listed for $599,000 ($1051/sqft)

This has got to be frustrating for some of you out there actively looking. But that is the reason why I search out the outlier out there approaching our inflation adjusted 1997 pricing/nominal 2000 pricing. Because the outlier of today will become commonplace tomorrow.

Again, inflation adjusted 1997 pricing/nominal 2000 pricing do require a lot of digging and very savvy and aggressive negotiating, but it is out there here in San Diego. But as this example demonstrates, maybe just not 2 blocks away from the beach for the time being...

Builder Foreclosure At The Crosby

noreply@blogger.com (ocrenter) — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:19:00 +0000

Sorry folks, I've been away and quite busy over the last couple of weeks.

Someone wanted me to do an update on Crosby Estates. And of course I came across this notice of default filed by PFF Bank and Trust a week ago on December 3rd:

SITE ADDR: 7904 CLAMBAKE DR SAN DIEGO 92127
PARCEL#: 267-200-25 BR,BA,SQFT 4,4.5,4318
TRUSTOR: STONEFIELD CROSBY ESTATES III LLC, 23333 AVENIDA LA CAZA, COTO DE CAZA CA
NOD DATE: 12/03/2008
LOAN AMNT: $6,800,000.00
LOAN DATE: 04/12/2007
DELQ$: $4,100,597.00
NOD DOC#: 2008-0618237
BENEFICIARY: PFF BANK & TRUST
TRUSTEE: PFF BANK & TRUST: 9467 MILLIKEN AVE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91729

Back on December 3rd, 2003, exactly 5 years ago, Stonefield Development purchased 8 lots at the Estate for $3.6 million. So far the developer sold 3 homes. With the latest comp at $2.025 million ($462/sqft) at 7984 Clambake Drive back in October. Currently, it is trying to get rid of 7948 Clambake Dr at 4,318 sqft for $2.12 million ($491/sqft).

Remember, average mello roos payment per year is at $7,000, or $583/month. Adding the HOA fee of $510/month, that's basically $1,100/month before property tax and mortgage. With the builder foreclosing, we are far from bottom in this part of town.

Addendum: thank you to anonymous reader for pointing out error of the prior version. Looks like the developer purchased the lots in 12/2003, then obtained the $6.8 million construction loan in mid 2007. Assuming $450,000 per lot, and $500,000 in construction cost, replacement cost would be about $950,000. Sounds like this might be a perfect opportunity to submit an offer for $800,000-900,000?

Catching the Falling Knife Even At $150/sqft?

noreply@blogger.com (ocrenter) — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:48:00 +0000

How can you lose at $150/sqft? Sure you can, especially if you purchase in a tract developed during the peak of the bubble and is loaded with foreclosures.

Silver Crest is a gated community built by Centex Homes back in 2004-2005. These homes are conveniently located. They are close to Route 78 as well as the new Sprinter line and just minutes away from Cal State San Marcos. (the homes in question today do not back up to the track nor have freeway noise issues). The problem? A lot of speculator activities at the peak, causing this neighborhood to continuously be the pricing leader on the way down.

Let's take a look at a homeowner who recently purchased just 6 months ago at $150/sqft:

670 Saddleback Way, San Marcos, CA 92078
--4 beds, 4.0 baths, 3,172 sq ft
--02/01/2005: purchased for $681,500 ($215/sqft)
--07/15/2008: purchased for $475,000 ($150/sqft)

Wow, what a steal! A 30% price drop from the prior purchase! And in this neighborhood peak pricing actually got to $720,000 ($227/sqft) in May of '05 with 382 Edgewater. So the drop from peak would really be more like 34%. A couple of years ago I actually thought too that a 30-35% drop from peak would be the target. But that target did not factor in the recession and the financial meltdown soon to come. Let's take a look at our 50% off peak/nominal 2000/inflation adjusted 1997 formula.

A lot of the neighboring tracts are all post 2000. So I'm borrowing comps from a tract a little further down San Marcos Blvd:

984 Hawthorne Ct, San Marcos, CA 92078
--5 beds, 3.0 baths, 2,665 sq ft
--02/12/1998: purchased for $274,000
--04/18/2000: purchased for $365,000 ($137/sqft)
--10/13/2006: purchased for $700,000 ($263/sqft)

985 Hawthorne Ct, San Marcos, CA 92078
--5 beds, 3.0 baths, 2,665 sq ft
--06/30/1997: purchased for $272,500 ($102/sqft)
--10/02/2000: purchased for $367,500 ($138/sqft)
--03/13/2002: purchased for $395,000

For the subject 3,172 sqft home, here's what we got:

--50% off peak pricing: $114/sqft or $362,000
--nominal 2000 pricing: $138/sqft or $438,000
--inflation adj 1997 pricing: $138/sqft or $438,000

383 Edgewater Dr, San Marcos, CA 92078
--4 beds, 3.0 baths, 3,072 sq ft
--03/30/2004: purchased from builder for $487,000
--07/28/2004: resold for $630,000
--11/08/2006: sold at peak for $659,000
--11/11/2008: listed and lowered for $395,000 - $430,000 (averaged $137/sqft)

So is this bottom pricing in this part of San Marcos?

My Sincerest Condolences for Calculated Risk

noreply@blogger.com (ocrenter) — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:56:00 +0000

I'm saddened today to see the passing of the ever insightful Doris �??Tanta�?? Dungey at Calculated Risk.

My thoughts and prayers are with Tanta's family and CR during this difficult time.

Alan Nevin Calling Bottom in Downtown San Diego

noreply@blogger.com (ocrenter) — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:37:00 +0000

Mr. Alan "I did not anticipate the crash" Nevin is out there predicting away once again. This time he is bottom calling for the Downtown condo market.

He is basing his analysis on the seven completed projects and four remaining condo projects currently under construction in Downtown.

"That is the inventory of available new condominiums until at least 2012. In order for new construction to be justified financially, prices have to return to early 2006 levels and in some cases higher. Generally speaking, condominium prices have to increase $150-200 per square foot before anything new will break ground.

For that reason, buying at today�??s prices makes rather good sense. After all, we do live in a cyclical economy and we have been on a downward slope for three years. That�??s just about as long as we normally take to work ourselves out of a downturn in real estate. Therefore, this prognosticator is projecting that we have already hit bottom and are starting an agonizingly slow return to a normalized market."

But Alan, you mentioned in the same article that the seven projects completed in the past year still have a combined 538 units unsold, with many more the developers have taken out of the market as temporary rentals.

What about the 4 projects under construction? Using Alan's own stat, there's 742 units still unsold.

And so NOT counting units converted to rentals, there are a total of new 1,280 units in Downtown. Adding to this is another 508 units on the MLS, total inventory of Downtown condos is currently at 1,788 units.

We know the market is waking up. So how did Downtown do in October? Well, Downtown did well compared to the sales volume from October '07. Yup, we are looking at a 31.9% increase in year over year sales. So just how many units were sold in October??? Try 62 units.

Alan, that's a 28 month supply of Downtown condos. You sure you still want to be calling bottom?

Addendum:
Somebody wanted a good picture of Nevin, we here at BMIT have done one better. Above is a picture of Alan "I did not anticipate the crash" Nevin and George "Case-Shiller is only for Perma-Bears" Chamberlin. And here's the link to their interview video. Remember, this is extremely valuable source of information, just make sure you do exactly opposite to what they recommend.

Update: John and Suzanne's House of Love

noreply@blogger.com (ocrenter) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:47:00 +0000

Exactly a year ago we featured the story of John and Suzanne, a Fountain Valley divorcing couple forced to remain in the same house because no one wanted to buy their cramped house on a tiny lot for $1,045,000.

On national TV, Suzanne cried and cried for the children suffering because of mean spirited buyers that simply didn't show any interest for the home.

After a year in the making and another listing at a more reasonable price of $809,000, we finally have a happy ending.

17943 Point Reyes St., Fountain Valley, CA 92708
--5 beds, 4 baths, 2,905 sqft
--04/2004: originally purchased for $792,000
--01/2005: purchased by John and Suzanne for $900,000 ($310/sqft)
--xx/2007: listed for $1.045 million, taken off MLS late 2007 (wishing price of $360/sqft)
--03/31/2008: listed for $859,900
--Price Reduced: 06/05/08 -- $859,900 to $829,000
--Price Reduced: 06/12/08 -- $829,000 to $809,000
--10/2008: sold for $780,000 ($268/sqft)

Of course that sales price is still outrageously overpriced. But at least things are trending toward normalcy even in the OC. And John and Suzanne, if you guys are reading, that extra year of suffering together was completely unnecessary had you guys not have been so greedy with that initial $1.045 million asking price. Goes to show once again that there's nothing the price can't fix.