Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco Home Prices Fell for the First Time in Four Years in March

redfin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 238 posts

Re: San Francisco Home Prices Fell for the First Time in Four Years in March

#51

Post by bluedino »

chollida1 wrote: post #41
yardie wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not exactly true. A lot of REIs are built on complex structures. The SF estate market might be fueling other investments. Once one starts to collapse it can have a domino effect. Basically if investors were expecting 10% annual return and you tell them this year might be 1-2% they'll take that money and move it elsewhere. Now you have to raise money or sell. When I used to live in downtown Miami there were hig…

> When I used to live in downtown Miami there were high rises going up everywhere with prices starting at 500k-1mm. These same places would later be short sales for 150-250k after the GFC. This sentence doesn't make any sense to me. The definition of a short is to sell something you dont' own with the explicit intention of buying it back later at a lower price. How can you sell a condo you don't own? and then why pla…

In real estate a short sale is when the bank allows the borrower to sell the property for less than what they owe on it.

I buy a condo for $500k, sell it for $250k in a short sale but I need the agreement of the lienholder in order for this to happen.

Re: San Francisco Home Prices Fell for the First Time in Four Years in March

#52

Post by tortilla »

ryanSrich wrote: post #43

It's always hard to believe the numbers, but I trust Redfin since I used them to purchase my home. I think the problem is comparing what's turn key and not. For example they say: > Portland, OR had the nation’s highest price growth, rising 16.1% since last year to $325,000... The problem is you're fighting 100's of people for that one house in Portland that is livable at $325,000. Most houses that cheap need a ton of…

A bit off topic, but how was your experience with Redfin? I'm thinking of using them.

Re: San Francisco Home Prices Fell for the First Time in Four Years in March

#53

Post by adventured »

mladenkovacevic wrote: post #35

Meanwhile in Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/crea-house-prices-march-1.35...

Pretty incredible bubble price increases, given the growth rate of the Canadian economy. How can that end any other way but in a massive crash?

"The average price of a Canadian home hit $508,567 in March, a jump of 15.7 per cent compared to the same month a year earlier."

vs

"IMF downgrades forecast for Canada's economy in 2016 and 2017"

"Canada's GDP will expand by 1.5 per cent this year and by 1.9 per cent next year. That's better than the 1.2 per cent performance clocked in 2015, but a pullback from what the IMF was expecting in January, which was 1.7 this year and 2.1 per cent next year. The unemployment rate is expected to rise to 7.3 per cent by the end of this year before ticking up to 7.4 per cent next year, the IMF now says."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/imf-canada-forecast-1.353186...

Re: San Francisco Home Prices Fell for the First Time in Four Years in March

#54

Post by deegles »

epimetheus wrote: post #14

A bit of an anecdote because the article mentions my town specifically - Tacoma: We put our house on the market Friday, April 8th, a bit below the "redfin estimate" - I saw it had gone live by 11am and we already had an interested party set up a viewing by 12pm. We showed the house 11 times by Monday morning and had 5 offers, some 12k above asking price. We accepted an offer by Tuesday (April 12). My head is still sp…

Out of curiosity, do you know how many of your offers were from foreign nationals? I've seen some articles talking about how overseas investors are driving up property prices and was wondering if it was true in your case.

Re: San Francisco Home Prices Fell for the First Time in Four Years in March

#55

Post by deegles »

kspaans wrote: post #37
reverend_gonzo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And sometimes the stock market crashes and takes everything with it. See: every ten years. At least with a house, even if the value goes down, you still have a home.

You say "stock market crashes", I say "dividend yields go way up!". The losses are usually paper losses (hello tax-loss harvesting!), which don't bother long-term investors (whether they are home owners or stock investors). (I don't think you can tax-loss harvest a home though...)

Only after you own enough homes to create a publicly traded REIT :)

Re: San Francisco Home Prices Fell for the First Time in Four Years in March

#56

Post by rspeer »

avn2109 wrote: post #15
mdorazio wrote: post #2

The article seems to imply some meltdown in housing is around the corner, but it seems more like the housing market is just leveling off as a result of market forces. You can only drive home prices so high before there aren't enough people who can afford them anymore. Hopefully that means that rent prices will also level off in the area in the near future.

From the article: >> "...historically low inventory" >> "...many sellers are sitting this year out." >> "...The median sale price ... fell by 1.8 percent..." The article's authors are confused. Their explanation for falling prices consists entirely of "Supply is down." That's exactly the opposite of how supply, demand, and prices are related. If they wanted to claim that low prices are scaring sellers out of the mark…

In Cambridge, a faction of candidates for city council promises that they will make housing affordable by opposing the construction of new housing.

Apparently you can just tell people that supply and demand work the opposite way in the housing market, and people will believe you.

Re: San Francisco Home Prices Fell for the First Time in Four Years in March

#57

Post by gmarx »

avn2109 wrote: post #15
mdorazio wrote: post #2

The article seems to imply some meltdown in housing is around the corner, but it seems more like the housing market is just leveling off as a result of market forces. You can only drive home prices so high before there aren't enough people who can afford them anymore. Hopefully that means that rent prices will also level off in the area in the near future.

From the article: >> "...historically low inventory" >> "...many sellers are sitting this year out." >> "...The median sale price ... fell by 1.8 percent..." The article's authors are confused. Their explanation for falling prices consists entirely of "Supply is down." That's exactly the opposite of how supply, demand, and prices are related. If they wanted to claim that low prices are scaring sellers out of the mark…

I too found many of the facts stated difficult to relate. Every listing results in a bidding war-> prices are finally coming down?

Re: San Francisco Home Prices Fell for the First Time in Four Years in March

#58

Post by earlz »

KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #18
chadlavi wrote: post #13

As a Brooklyn resident (who rents), I hope this trend picks up steam and continues. Maybe I could be a homeowner some day after all!

As a foreigner, I don't understand this attitude. Why would you want all your wealth to be invested in a single leveraged asset that's also depreciating, requires your constant attention and ties you to a single locale?

Even without all of the financial aspects everyone else has mentioned, if you own the home you can do whatever (well, with approval from the local homeowner committee if applicable). Don't like a wall separating the kitchen and living room? Tear it down. Want to rip up your yard and install new grass and a garden? Go ahead.

My current landlord allows pretty much no modifications to anything, just recently cut down the only 2 (40+ year old) trees around the house (for insurance purposes apparently), and won't allow anything to be planted in the yard except for flowers in a garden. I want an actual vegetable garden, and I would've never cut down those two trees. All of this is on top of the financial aspects of actually owning the house and paying rent to contribute to an asset (which at least in my area is about 40% cheaper, sans maintenance and taxes) and when it's paid off, I don't have any more rent...

Re: San Francisco Home Prices Fell for the First Time in Four Years in March

#59

Post by OldSchoolJohnny »

jschwartzi wrote: post #19
KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a foreigner, I don't understand this attitude. Why would you want all your wealth to be invested in a single leveraged asset that's also depreciating, requires your constant attention and ties you to a single locale?

Because it means you don't have to pay rent after you retire.

There are untold retired people who have been forced to move due to rising property taxes. Many of the benefits of owning evaporate when you take into account everything.

Re: San Francisco Home Prices Fell for the First Time in Four Years in March

#60

Post by smitherfield »

avn2109 wrote: post #15
mdorazio wrote: post #2

The article seems to imply some meltdown in housing is around the corner, but it seems more like the housing market is just leveling off as a result of market forces. You can only drive home prices so high before there aren't enough people who can afford them anymore. Hopefully that means that rent prices will also level off in the area in the near future.

From the article: >> "...historically low inventory" >> "...many sellers are sitting this year out." >> "...The median sale price ... fell by 1.8 percent..." The article's authors are confused. Their explanation for falling prices consists entirely of "Supply is down." That's exactly the opposite of how supply, demand, and prices are related. If they wanted to claim that low prices are scaring sellers out of the mark…

With very illiquid assets, like San Francisco real estate, it's often not so much how high or low prices are but whether the market even exists.
Post reply on HN