Delinquency Rates

Foreclosure rates

Loans at or near negative equity

Related articles by Zemanta

• Here’s Why Jumbo Mortgage Delinquencies Are 50% Above Average And Rising (businessinsider.com)

Since for most of us our homes represent our biggest asset, that’s pretty good news when you consider how bleak things looked back in March of 2009.  Just think of how you were feeling about your 401(k)s.

But before you break out the champagne, consider that national home prices have now “recovered” to levels last seen in Autumn 2003.  That’s over six years of appreciation wiped out.

The San Francisco Metropolitan Statistical Area (that’s 5 of the 9 Bay Area Counties, folks) is up 15.2% from its trough value. Case-Shiller does not break out San Francisco proper from the much larger MSA.  However, I calculate that median prices in January were up just 10% from the lows reached in March 2009.  (I use 3 month moving averages, which approximates the seasonal adjustments the CS Index uses.)  To see how SF did through 2009, check out my blog and charts here.

First, a look back (in anger?) at the make-up of Noe Valley sales in 2009.

Note that there were more than twice as many condos sold as TICs, and more homes sold than condos and TICs put together. (What’s a TIC?  — Check out my series of posts on Tenancy-In-Common Interests, starting here.)

Also, that absurdly long DOM for TICs was distorted by 3 TICs at 201 Hoffman that took 410 days to sell.  Still, without those sales, DOM for TICs (tired of the acronyms yet?) was still 99 days.  And I’d be somewhat skeptical of the whopping difference in price between TICs and condos as well:  TICs sales often don’t have a price per square foot listed, so there are very few data points — and there are very few sales to begin with.

Here’s how condos and TICs have been doing as a combined group, versus their all-time highs.

That precipitous plunge (actually a huge increase since the scale is reversed) in DOM at the end of 2009 was also due to the lingering effects of 201 Hoffman.

For a shorter term view, prices through February 2010 are up 11% from January 2009 and are up a whopping 31% from the trough of June 2009.  Since I use trailing 3 month averages, I think this is a belated reflection of the deep credit freeze of Spring 2009 when we thought the world might come to an end.

And here’s how condos and TICs stacked up against homes.

For what it’s worth, it feels like spring has really sprung.  Nice-looking condos/tics are swarming with people and are moving fast — no kidding.  Whether it will last is anybody’s guess.

Condo/TICs hit their all-time highs about a year later than homes did — in July 2008.  But they’ve fallen from their highs almost exactly as much as homes have.  Condos/TICs were down 17%, just one percent better than single family homes.

For those who prefer their data on a per square foot basis, the picture is pretty much the same.  The all-time high was $711 — reached in November 2008 and the price per square foot stood at $592 at year’s end, also a drop of 17%.

While condos/TICs ended the year at the same point, the pattern has not been the same. Condos/TICs have been stuck near the bottom of their 2009 range after bouncing up in the first quarter. Homes, on the other hand, appear to have bounced up and stayed up.

What’s in store for 2010 remains anybody’s guess, but on the streets it certainly feels like spring is in the air.  There are more listings coming onto the market and more people looking at them.  Will that translate into sales and higher prices?  That’ll depend on macro-economic trends I’ve discussed elsewhere, but one thing’s pretty clear:  interest rates are heading higher, as evidenced by the Fed’s recent increase in the discount rate. If the economy continues to strengthen, that trend will continue.  And, for many people, that will result in less buying power and reduced affordability.

It’s hard to remember just how close to the brink of catastrophe we seemed to be just a year ago.  Major financial institutions – failed.  Credit – impossible to get. Sales—anemic.

With the benefit of hindsight, not to mention survival, some are now criticizing Paulsen, Bernanke, et al., for their haste in rescuing the financial system, but I, for one, will reserve my scorn for the appalling judgment of the likes of Morgan and Goldman and their obscene bonuses.

How did the San Francisco market do?  Here’s where we are for single-family homes (click to enlarge).

We ended the year still down 18% from our all-time high of June of 2007.  That puts us at around the price levels of the spring of 2005.  Not great, but during those scary first months of the year when there was no bottom in sight, we were down to price levels not seen since early 2004.

It’s also interesting to see how Days on Market (DOM) inversely correlates with price, at least over longer periods.  In addition to the very regular seasonal dips in price every December/January, it’s easy to see that as DOM lengthens over time, prices decline.  While DOM remained less than 40 days, prices stayed high.  The correlation isn’t perfect – and certainly not on month-to-month time-scales — but it looks pretty good to me.

So for the “half-empty” crowd, the bottom line is that we’re still down 18% from our all-time highs.   The story looks much more positive, however, if you look at 2009 in isolation.

Now a 23% gain for the year ought to be making people feel pretty good.  Note that median prices have been in the $700,000 to $800,000 bandwidth for the last three quarters.  The dip in the waning months of the year can be attributed to seasonal factors.

I can already hear the nay-sayers arguing that looking at year end numbers is arbitrary  or, worse, distorts the picture.  (These are the same people who don’t believe in celebrating their birthdays!).

I’m certainly not arguing that happy times are here again.  But , if nothing else, that 23% increase confirms just what a wild ride the last two years have been.

As for 2010, I confess I’m beginning to feel a bit more optimistic than I was a few months ago.  Manufacturing seems to be continuing to expand.  There are some signs of job growth.  Still, Europe is now looking shaky and, closer to home, one should never discount the ability of our politicians to screw up the recovery.

All things considered, though, I’ll take my glass half-full please.

Catching up on the endless paper-work the other night, I came across that rare thing:  a property that sells twice in a relatively short time with no major renovations performed in the interim.

This “sales matching” technique is what the folks at Case-Shiller use to create their Indexes of property values across the country.  Part of the reason they can is that their indexes are generated for large Metropolitan Statistical Areas with lots of house sales.  And even so, they use a lot of fancy foot-work to “match up” properties.

So now comes 714 Duncan Street, a beautiful 2,000 sf view home on a steep hill with fantastic city views.  Listed at a disarming $1,195,000, it sold for $1,415,000 in January 2008.  That was pretty much the top of the market for Noe Valley.  (You can see the chart here.)

Fast-forward 18 months.  The same house sells for $1,095,000 in June 2009.   That’s a drop of  22.6%.  My analysis of all Noe Valley sales for the same period shows a drop of just under 25% for the same period.

There’s something of a “duh, so what” to this story.   But I’ve seen enough nay-sayers  (on other blogs, of course!) who argue that tracking statistical medians are meaningless that I thought it was worth posting this as a powerful—and sobering —  case to the contrary.

That’s useful if you’re looking at an average-priced TIC and you’re curious about how much of a premium you’d have to pay for an average-priced condo.  But how about reducing that to a per square foot premium?

For those who just want the bottom line, here’s the answer, but it’s worth reading on for the caveats.

$37 a foot doesn’t sound like much of a condo premium to me, that’s for sure.  And as my astute readers will note, the drop in price on a per square foot (from around $225 per sf) is obviously much more than the drop in median sales prices shown in the previous chart.

What’s going on?  It’s really simple:  there’s a lot less information on sales price per square foot for TICs.

All my data comes from the MLS (Multiple Listing Service) that real estate brokers use to find and market properties.  When a sale’s completed, they are required to enter the sales price.  If there’s information on the square footage of the property — provided by the owner or more frequently from the property records — the database calculates a per square foot price.  Roughly 80% of condo sales have a recorded price per square foot in the MLS.  Only 45% of TIC sales have a recorded price per square foot. How bad is that? In September 09, there were just 27 TIC sales.  Only 9 of them had a recorded price per square foot.  For all of 2009 through September, there were 275 TIC sales.  Only 113 – 41% – show a per square foot price.

There are lots of people — mostly on other blogs   — who love to trash statistics and say they’re meaningless.  Medians don’t reflect home values, etc etc.  I disagree.  Provided you have enough data  and you understand what you’re measuring, statistics help make sense out of what is otherwise undifferentiated data.  But I am afraid that in the case of measuring the condo premium on a per square foot basis, we are in dangerous low on data.

One final reminder:  For this series of posts, my TIC data includes the handful of stock cooperative sales that occur in this market.

And thanks for sticking with me on this long series of posts….

Look at that!  Excluding those wonderfully regular dips every Xmas, condo sales are generally at around 200 units per month.  TICs rarely break 40.

Here’s how TIC and condo median prices stack up against each other on a monthly basis.

Dueling spaghetti you say?  That was my reaction, too.  The huge variability in prices from month to month on the TIC line is a direct result of the paucity of sales.  And this chart certainly doesn’t help get at the key question, which is this:

Given that TICs are riskier and less flexible than condos, what’s the premium that you pay for buying a condo vs.  a TIC?

In fact many TIC buyers do so with the hope of being able to realize this “premium” by converting their TICs into condos down the road.  Fat chance unless you’re buying a TIC in a two unit building which — for now at least — remain exempt from San Francisco’s byzantine annual lottery system.

Luckily, I have a bona fide statistician mathematical genius phd for a wife, and she always lends a hand on methodology when I need it.  She suggested that where one set of data (condos) is so much larger than another, using averages provides a more reliable “apples to apples” comparison than medians.   Also, with so few monthly TIC sales, I decided to look at annual rather than monthly trends.

Here’s attempt number two.

Much more useful!  (By the way, the fact that TICs were more expensive than condos in 2003 and 2004 can be explained by a few massively (in excess of $8 million) expensive TIC sales in those years.  This is a great example of how using medians or averages can really affect the results.)

So, can we drill down further and come up with a condo premium per square foot? Stay tuned….

That was the title of an October 27 article in the New York Times, and, as one of my readers and clients pointed out, it’s what I’ve been tentatively suggesting as a possible scenario for this winter. See here, for example.

And, ironically, the gloomy head-line announced yet another “positive” month of data from the Case-Shiller Home Price Index. The little up-tick in the index from last month’s July data that I discussed as a possible “dead cat bounce” continued in August.

“San Francisco”  — remember, this is a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)  consisting of 5 of the 9 Bay Area Counties — improved 2.6% on a seasonally adjusted basis from July 09.  The New York Times has a cool inter-active chart that shows the CS Index for various MSA’s here.

So why so glum?  The NY Times article points to a number of factors that suggest the improvement may not continue:

• an unexpected fall in consumer confidence in October.
• the end of the stimulus provided by the first-time home-buyer tax credit (though there’s pressure to extend this).
• doubt about how long the The Fed will keep interest rates so low.

Especially troubling for California is “strong evidence that foreclosures may be spreading from sub-prime inland areas to the more exclusive coastal region.”

My view hasn’t changed.  If you’re thinking about buying, this is probably a good time to be out there looking, with a view to buying some time during the winter months when activity slows and prices tend to soften somewhat.  Nobody knows how long interest rates are going to remain low — and some economists think that they may well remain low for a while — but with the government having thrown so much money at the economy to keep us from the brink of disaster, it’s hard to argue that the long-term trend is going to be anything but up.

As for whether we’ve hit bottom yet, it’s anybody’s guess.  While Mr Case of Case-Shiller continues to think that the worst is over, the NY Times article quotes another eminent economist who thinks that the recent improvement in the CS Index is an aberration and who wouldn’t be surprised by another — if limited — down-leg.

It’s a fool’s game to try to time the market to the nth degree.  And in this environment, with so many contradictory signs pointing in so many directions, you might as well flip a coin, or an economist, and see whether he lands on his head or his arse.

Me, I’m dusting off my magic 8-ball.

However, others have been curious about whether there might be a discontinuity between the median price of homes and the median price per square foot, and what that might mean, especially in the context of how much each has fallen from its all-time high.  So I decided to take a look.

The first thing I did was check how often price per square foot was not reported in the MLS (Multiple Listing Sales database) that brokers and other real estate tracking companies use to compile their sales data.  Frequently agents don’t report this because they don’t have any reliable data on how big the house is that was sold or they’re afraid of being sued if they’re wrong.  (I recently learned that when you buy a house in France, the seller must tell you how big it is, and if it’s smaller than stated, the Buyer has the right to adjust the price downwards. I wonder what happens if the house is bigger than expected.)

It turns out that in my database, which goes back to October 2002, price per square foot is reported about 80% of the time on single family home sales.  That’s sufficient to be reliable, so here are the results (click to enlarge).

I would say that overall, and as you’d expect, price per home and per square foot have tracked pretty closely.  It is interesting that during the terrible market freeze of early 2009, the median home price dropped noticeably more steeply than the price per square foot.  There are several possible explanations.  One is that smaller homes were selling better than bigger ones.  Since home price can be reduced to the formula: Area (in square feet)  x Price per SF, if home prices are dropping out of step with a drop in price per square foot, then the Area multiplier must be getting smaller faster.  Furthermore, since smaller homes tend to be cheaper homes, this would give some support to the argument that the higher end of the market has been suffering more than the lower end.  Even if that’s true, it seems to have been a short-lived phenomenon given that both metrics are back in sync as of August.

But the truth is that a lot of factors determine the selling price of a house, not just its size.  Location, views, “curb appeal,” to name just a few.  So I don’t really know how much you can glean just from looking at the areas of disjunction.  For my part, I think this confirms that I’m on solid ground if I use median home prices to look at the state of the market over time.  On the other hand, it also suggests that price per SF could work just as well, and it would be more helpful for people looking to do a value calculation for a particular home.  So I might start using price per sf more frequently.  Please chime in with your thoughts and suggestions.