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

111–120 of 238 posts

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

#111

Post by sosborn »

marincounty wrote: post #85
tortilla wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't know anything about this company. I have an idea what market they are trying to crack. I can't believe it's taken this long. I've always felt paying a Realtor 3% on the biggest item most of us will buy in our lives is crazy. I just don't know what they do for that commission. I don't know what makes one successful--just because he/she sold more than the others? Pay them more because they know how to network?…

A good real estate agent you can trust is worth the 3%. They can foresee potential roadblocks, help you navigate the somewhat complicated process and really find you your dream home. The real trick is finding one of those agents.

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

#112

Post by techstrategist »

gorkemyurt wrote: post #102

Developers are finally building in SF.. http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/201... http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2016/04/san-franciscos-hu... This is very good news, my prediction is that this wave of supply is going to reduce the prices for a while. There is actually still a lot of space in SOMA/Mission Bay/Central Waterfront to build. New construction is all going to be condos rather than…

There's another nuance to black swan events, though. I don't recall whether this was from BS or Antifragile, but the maximum expected magnitude of an event such as a bubble pop would generally be considered to be the previous max. If the next event were 1.5x-10x larger, it would still be a black swan and could overwhelm the reasonable preparations that were made in anticipation of a repeat.

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

#113

Post by Retric »

gorkemyurt wrote: post #102

Developers are finally building in SF.. http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/201... http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2016/04/san-franciscos-hu... This is very good news, my prediction is that this wave of supply is going to reduce the prices for a while. There is actually still a lot of space in SOMA/Mission Bay/Central Waterfront to build. New construction is all going to be condos rather than…

FED raising interest rates is going to drastically lower inflation adjusted housing prices. This can be a good thing for people that owe a lot of money at a fixed rate or new buyers, but variable rate mortgages will crush some people.

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

#114

Post by scrumper »

refurb wrote: post #47
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.

True, but what is more risky? Having most of your money in a single, non-liquid asset with a very local market or having most of your money in a diversified, liquid asset? I'm not saying owning a home is a bad idea, just having 80%+ of your money in it.

Owning $300k of stocks is better than owning a single $300k property for the reason you give. The question becomes a lot fuzzier when you overlay your own need for housing on top of it.

What I mean is, if I had $300k cash in the bank and I was renting an apartment I enjoyed, I'd be smarter to invest the $300k in a diversified portfolio than spend all of it on a single rental house and playing landlord.

Equally if I had $300k cash and nowhere to live, I might very well be better off buying a house than renting a home and buying the portfolio. A vast amount depends on individual circumstances and stage of life.

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

#115

Post by ChuckMcM »

Reaffirming once again that if "nobody can afford to buy them" the actual prices start coming down. A more interesting thing for me however was that owner occupied (which is to say the person buying the house lives there) has not been growing[1]. Instead third parties are buying the houses as investments and renting them. That is a really risky strategy in a place like SF with rent controls as the floor can fall out of the market, and you're unable to raise rents to cover your balloon payment (or other over leveraged strategy) and that squeezes the investor to default.

[1] https://www.homeunion.com/blog/investment-home-prices-rising...

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

#116

Post by davidw »

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…

Relevant to SF housing and Portland:

http://www.oregonlive.com/front-porch/index.ssf/2016/04/yes_... - an interview with SFYimby.

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

#117

Post by kelukelugames »

tortilla wrote: post #52
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.

Yes please buy your house from Redfin so they can IPO and I can sell my worthless options.

Besides working there, I also bought my house from Redfin. They tend to do less handholding because each Redfin agent handles more clients at a time than a traditional agent. However, if you are a first time buyer then they will provide more attention. But if you use the Internet for searches then you probably don't need and might even be annoyed by traditional agents.

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

#118

Post by lubujackson »

phamilton wrote: post #11

"Plummet 22%" comes off as extremely alarmist. Median sales price dropped 1.8%. The number of sales dropped 22%. It's a signal, but of what? That's uncertain.

It's worth noting how tiny these numbers really are in a month like March. I just checked Zillow and 105 houses were sold in SF in the last 30 days.

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

#119

Post by underwires »

NDizzle wrote: post #9

Maybe it's just redfin not having this in their own data, but I'd really like to see these graphs from 1998 and up. Only going back to 2012 isn't very useful in my opinion.

Trulia has some of the more basic data going back to 2000 http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/San_Francisco-California/m...

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

#120

Post by Flammy »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #115

Reaffirming once again that if "nobody can afford to buy them" the actual prices start coming down. A more interesting thing for me however was that owner occupied (which is to say the person buying the house lives there) has not been growing[1]. Instead third parties are buying the houses as investments and renting them. That is a really risky strategy in a place like SF with rent controls as the floor can fall out…

A significant number are bought as investments, but NOT rented out, making the housing situation worse.

Investors from more volatile economies (China) really see a few % up or down as incredibly stable compared to their native currency fluctuations.

Post reply on HN