Monday, December 03, 2007

Preliminary November Sales Stats (Updated)

UPDATE: I'm including some stats comparing Nov 06 to Nov 07....

Avg $/SF
2006 - $234
2007 - $198

Median $/SF
2006 - $226
2007 - $187

Avg Sales Price
2006 - $419,543
2007 - $360,271

Median Sales Price
2006 - $375,000
2007 - $320,000

Note: Avg/Median homes sizes were nearly identical

Early numbers for November are not good. We had 1158 closings for the 4 county area, down from 1710 this time last year. Maybe Santa will bring sellers some good news for December...

14 comments :

Max said...

Ouch! And they can't even blame it on the weather this time. :) Unless... "The weather has been so pleasant in Sacramento, nobody wants to visit open houses."

Darth Toll said...

"The weather has been so pleasant in Sacramento, nobody wants to visit open houses."

LOL! Max, I see over on CR's blog that you believe that the foreclosure meme is gaining momentum, and I agree. Care to expand upon this thought?

Gwynster said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gwynster said...

I've been seeing REOs fall out and come back on the market along with listings that expired in the summer and are back on the market as REOs already.

Couple that with the people who purchased REOs early last year to flip. I have a few of those I track for giggles. They are sitting for months and months and cutting prices with no interest. These Trumpettes have to be sweating bullets.

smf said...

Gwyn:

I have seen listings be marked as 'Pending Sale', drop off, and then come back again.

smf said...

When was the last time November sales were so low?

I mean, if November 2001 sales were about the same, would this not indicate that sales #s are not really dropping, but 'returning to mean'?

Darth Toll said...

smf, I think a strong case could be made that 2001 was the "normal" market cycle peak for RE around here - in other words what would have been a pretty strong year. I'm basing this on a market bottom of around 1994 with a good 7 year run up. This would be within historical norms. Of course, 2001 also had dot-bomb, recession, and 9/11 extraneous factors suppressing the numbers so this may not be a good yardstick to use.

Have you guys considered what the implications are of a bubble ON TOP of a normal cycle peak? That could very well be what we have seen here. If that's the case, sales numbers (and prices) should return to about 1997 levels, prices adjusted for INCOME inflation of around 3% a year, minus the negative mean-reversion effect. This would represent the TYPICAL re-trace in the housing cycle before the cycle would turn up again. Hopefully I'm making sense here.

I mean, it's one thing to have a housing bubble, and it's something else entirely to have a bubble that BEGINS right at the normal cycle PEAK. We all may be way off in terms of gaging how far down the market goes and I fear it may be much, much worse than many imagine.

Sippn said...

Are you sure that by 12/3 you have all the data?

Max said...

Have you guys considered what the implications are of a bubble ON TOP of a normal cycle peak?

A younger and more naive Max thought prices were too high in 1999. :)

Seriously, I think you could probably tease out the point in time where the GSEs pulled back and the hedgies took over. In 2004 it looked as though the shenanigans at Fannie and Freddie were to blame. Remember when the conforming limits kept going up and up? I should post a graph of this data for reference purposes:

Historical Loan Limits (pdf).

Year 1 Unit
1998 227,150
1999 240,000
2000 252,700
2001 275,000
2002 300,700
2003 322,700
2004 333,700
2005 359,650
2006 417,000
2007 417,000
2008 417,000

Gwynster said...

Max,

I was actively shopping in 99 and 00 as well. I stopped once the dot.com burst was being felt and I'm glad I did as pink notices began.

I think Darth nailed it. 01 should have been our peak.

smf said...

"smf, I think a strong case could be made that 2001 was the "normal" market cycle peak for RE around here"

In that case, would it not be safe to say that the current sales numbers are the real numbers. In other words, under a normal market that is the number of sales to expect per month.

Am I explaining myself well?

I think that sales figures cannot be assumed to be at a low point, they are at the correct point.

AgentBubble said...

Sippn said...
Are you sure that by 12/3 you have all the data?

Note the word "preliminary" in the title.

As you know, agents have 2 days to get a listing recorded in MLS. However, nearly 200 listings made there way onto the November 2006 count from December 2006 through today...

wrong moves said...

SMF - -"In that case, would it not be safe to say that the current sales numbers are the real numbers. In other words, under a normal market that is the number of sales to expect per month"

Ya mean IF we are seeing normal numbers now, AND there are still X number of foreclosures happening and in the pipeline, THEN my debtor friends might be wrong that now is a great time to buy?

Sippn said...

Yea, already seen 11-07 grow by about 100 - I expect by the "feel" of the market that Nov would be better than Sept - and with 11/30 on a Friday, with end of the month closings and so on, it may be better to grab a number Friday.

Yea SMF I'm thinking that 2007 sales volume numbers prior to August are the "normal". Pre credit crisis and post bubble. Volume is seeming to recover again the last 60 days.

". . As you know, agents have 2 days to get a listing recorded in MLS. . " what are they going to do? Mace sounds good. I'd count 5pm today as 2 days.