Case-Shiller Reports Measureable Home Price decline in October 2010

I was awakened from my long winter nap by the predictable sensational reporting of the latest Case-Shiller home price indices.

The latest press release by Standard and Poor’s states:

New York, December 28, 2010 – Data through October 2010, released today by Standard & Poor’s for

Home Price Indices, the leading measure of U.S. home prices, show a deceleration

in the annual growth rates in 18 of the 20 MSAs and the 10- and 20-City Composites in October

compared to what was reported for September 2010.  The 10-City Composite was up only 0.2% and the

20-City Composite fell 0.8% from their levels in October 2009. Home prices decreased in all 20 MSAs

and both Composites in October from their September levels. In October, only the 10-City Composite

and four MSAs – Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco and Washington DC – showed year-over-year

gains. While the composite housing prices are still above their spring 2009 lows, six markets – Atlanta,

Charlotte, Miami, Portland (OR), Seattle and Tampa – hit their lowest levels since home prices started to

Fall in 2006 and 2007, meaning that average home prices in those markets have fallen beyond the recent

lows seen in most other markets in the spring of 2009.

The index showed a decline in the Bay Area from October to September’s numbers but a year-over-year increase for the same period.

What does this mean? It means that compared to last year home values are up in the San Francisco MSA (metropolitan statistical area) which includes San Francisco down to Redwood City. It also means that the values dropped from September to October. How much? 1.9% to be exact. Not what I would call earth shattering  and I certainly wouldn’t describe it as one of our local TV stations did as “Bay Area Prices Plummet”.

Later in the evening a competing station had the headline “Bay Area Prices up”, referring to the year over year statistic.

Neither news headline tells the whole story.

The much ballyhooed double dip in fact did occur but it was much more pronounced in other parts of the country and more akin to a glitch than a dip—and likely it was caused by the cessation of government subsidies which helped to prop up home values in 2009.

 

SF MSA

Case-shiller October 2010

 

The information contained in this newsletter is educational and intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute real estate, tax or legal advice, nor does it substitute for advice specific to your situation. Always consult an appropriate professional familiar with your scenario. 

 

Belmont Home Sales – November 2010

We love the holidays as much as anyone, but a little less red in the chart would be nice too.

Belmont home sales for November of 2010 continued the trend of the last two quarters with fewer sales and declining home values as compared to the same period in 2009. 

November 2010

(Click on the chart to see a full-sized image)

Clearly consumer confidence is woefully short of normal. While consumer confidence does not in and of itself control the direction of the economy it does reflect consumer sentiment. Consumer sentiment is well represented by consumer spending—when consumers are comfortable with their view of the future they tend to spend more. Considering that some estimate consumer spending to represent 2/3rds of our nation’s domestic product (GDP) suffice to say that consumer confidence is necessary for a sustained recovery. For consumer confidence to rebound there needs to be more jobs and of course the feeling that the job one has won’t go away soon either. On a positive note the consumer confidence index rose to 54.1 in November from a revised 49.9 in October. It was the highest level in five months. The index was benchmarked at 100 in 1985, a year chosen because it was neither a peak nor a trough in consumer confidence.

How does this affect the housing market? The tenuous job market is taking its toll on nervous home buyers. Buyers are still purchasing homes but fewer can qualify for a loan and when they do it’s usually for less home than before. Those who are willing to purchase a home seem to want only exceptional deals—building into their offer price a buffer against further price declines.

SALES

Home sales in Belmont remained fairly strong considering the aporetic feelings among buyers.

This November we saw 16 homes trade hands in Belmont as compared to 22 in 2009.

Of the 16 sales, six sold for on average $21,350 more than the seller’s asking price in 17 days, one sold at the asking price, and nine sold for on average $16,500 less and took 82 days to sell.

Six sellers also reduced the price they were originally asking  for their home by on average by $149,342, while last year there were only three homes which had price reductions during the same period and for on average only $13,590.

MEDIAN PRICE

The median price (on paper) went up 5.4% to $843,475 from November 2009 when it was $800,000. However, in 2009 the median size home which sold was only 1,558 square feet as compared to this November when the median size home sold was 1,920 square feet—a difference of 352 square feet. At the median price per square foot that homes sold for during November, $466 and the difference in the size home sold, 352 sq. ft. one could make an argument that if all things were equal (the same size home selling in the two periods) the adjusted price for 2009 would be closer to $964,032 ((352 Sq. Ft. x $466 per sq. ft. = $164,032) + $800,000) =$964,032. This allows us to estimate that home values dropped around 12.5% year over year in the month of November. How much the median price changed for the year as a whole is yet to be determined. Remember, just because homes dropped 12.5% in the month of November, earlier increases in the year can mean at year's end the median price could be up for down from the previous year.

It’s also interesting to note that although the median size home which sold in November of 2010 was much larger, only one home sold over the one million dollar mark as compared to three in 2009.

 

DAYS ON MARKET (DOM)

Not surprisingly it took more time to sell a home this year than last–on average 62 days—up dramatically from 38.5 days in November of 2009. One also must be cognizant that last November the first-time buyer tax credit was in effect which skewed the numbers in favor of more sales, selling faster, and for more.

When home values are dropping, the time it takes to sell a home typically increases as sellers often price their home based on recent past sales. But when home values are falling, recent sales were worth more. Eventually most sellers get the idea that they must get ahead of the pricing curve and lower their home more than the market suggests it might be worth. This has an ancillary effect of lowering home values rapidly and perhaps more than they would otherwise drop.

Noting the huge difference in not only the number of homes which had price reductions, but the steep adjustments that were made, illustrates the difficulty in pricing a home in a declining market and underscores the importance of introducing your home to the market at the right price.

Summary

There’s always some danger in looking at a small market sample such as Belmont with only 16 sales in a given month. Seasonal factors play heavily in the statistics which is why we choose to compare each month we examine to the same month a year before. However, it’s important to note that other factors can effect comparing these two periods. For example, last November the first-time buyer tax credit was expiring, causing many buyers to rush to the bargaining table. This increased competition for homes undoubtedly buoying the prices while increasing sales.

Our leading indicators of future market conditions indicate a gradual recovery in the housing sector.

  • The Institute for Supply Management reported that the monthly composite index of manufacturing activity fell slightly to 56.6 in November after reaching 56.9 in October. A reading above 50 signals expansion. It was the 16th straight month of expansion.
  • Total construction spending rose 0.7% to $802.3 billion in October, following a revised 0.7% increase in September. Economists had anticipated a drop of 0.4% in October.
  • The National Association of Realtors reported that its pending home sales index, a forward-looking indicator based on signed contracts, rose 10.4% in October after a 1.8% decrease in September.
  • The Institute for Supply Management reported that the monthly composite index of non-manufacturing activity rose to 55 in November from 54.3 in October. A reading above 50 signals expansion. It was the 11th straight month of expansion.

On a local level our professional staging company has reported to us that their orders for staged homes are booking up fast for January, indicating that Sellers are interested in getting a jump on the spring market.

If you are considering selling your home next year you may want to consider doing it sooner rather than later before inventory rises to levels which make price reductions necessary to attract Buyers.

If you are considering selling your current home and/or purchasing a new one be sure and contact us for your real estate needs.

Now for the inevitable disclaimer: The information contained in this newsletter is educational and intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute real estate, tax or legal advice, nor does it substitute for advice specific to your situation. Always consult an appropriate professional familiar with your scenario. 

 

 

 

 

Carlmont Associates Partners with Re/Max Star Properties

Most of you know we’ve been operating out of the Carlmont Associates office in Belmont. Effective today, Carlmont Associates has joined a partnership with Re/Max Star properties.  

Our level of service and commitment to our clients will be unaffected except that we'll have access to the benefits the number one real estate franchise in the world can offer.LuxuryHomes

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

(Redwood City, CA Nov. 20, 2010)—Re/Max Star Properties, a real estate leader in San Mateo County with projected sales of over 200 million dollars for 2010 announced today that it has added the premier Carlmont Associates team and premium location in central Belmont to its local group of Peninsula offices.  â€œCarlmont Associates is a well established, centrally located real estate firm serving the Belmont area for over 50 years and we’re proud they’ve chosen to join forces with us”.

“We are both pleased and excited by this merger”, said Tom Diridon, one of the principals of Carlmont Associates. He, his wife Eda Diridon and partner Gary Rossetto couldn’t be happier”. Mr. Rossetto mentioned, “It will bring state of the art systems, services and global name brand recognition and lead generation systems of RE/MAX to Carlmont Associates allowing us t better serve our clients.”

“This move will bring major benefits to the local consumers and its agents by the ability to offer more marketing solutions, exceptional financing opportunities and unmatched after the sale protection”.

New 3.8% “Real Estate Sales Tax” gets a lot of play

You may have already heard through an errant email or co-worker that hidden in the health care bill was a provision for adding a 3.8% sales tax on the sale of your home.

We’ve even been forwarded emails with the story contained in a newspaper article. So is there any truth to it? Well, sort of.

The much ballyhooed 3.8% tax in the health care bill which takes effect in 2013 is actually a Medicare tax on investment income—not a real estate tax per se. That alone might not make you feel any better but read on.

According to factcheck.org , which did extensive research, there are very limited circumstances in which this tax would be levied.

As it would apply to real estate, first your income would need to be over $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married couples filing jointly).

 Now if you’re selling your principle residence, the first $250,000 of gain for single tax filers and $500,000 for those who file jointly would be exempt from taxation—as it currently stands for capital gain taxation.

The 3.8% tax would, as we understand it, apply only to the portion which might exceed this threshold. It’s also important to note that this tax is on the gain, not the sale price. So if you were to sell a home you and your spouse bought for $500,000 several years later (you need to have lived in the home two of the past five years) for $800,000, you would have a gain of $300,000. This is of course is further diminished by any capital improvements you made to the property and selling costs but to keep it simple we’ll use the higher figure of $300,000. Based on this you would still owe no capital gain tax nor would you owe the new Medicare Tax even if your income was over the $250,000 threshold because your gain was only $300,000—less than the allowable first $500,000 which is forgiven.

So several things need to happen before you would be subject to the tax:

  • Your income must exceed the thresholds mentioned above.
  • Your gain on the sale of your home must exceed the allowable forgiven limits.

Note that this capital gain exclusion is for your principle residence only so high wage earners who sell their investment properties would be subject to this new tax on that gain—assuming they had gain to tax.

As far as we can tell the viral nature of this email succeeded in part because it resonates with what many readers feared about the health care bill—that it would be caulk full of special interest groups’ and hidden agendas. Further exacerbating this was that many email authors added their own spin by including miscalculated and outrageous examples of how the tax would be applied. Their agenda was then further picked up by those who wish to freighted people into voting the way they would want by saying, as the email I received said, “People have the right to know the truth because an election is coming in November!”

I couldn’t agree more and we hope this explanation is closer to that truth.

Now for the inevitable disclaimer: The information contained in this newsletter is educational and intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute real estate, tax or legal advice, nor does it substitute for advice specific to your situation. Always consult an appropriate professional familiar with your scenario.

Bay Area Housing Prices Rise– Case-Shiller Report June 2010

We’re thinking we should simply name this series after our last post, “There you go again”, in honor of the media whenever it manages to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Typically, bad news is negative news since that’s what sells, but sometimes when the media get scooped by another outlet, they will try and dig up an opposing opinion in order to get a piece of the attention; further managing to confuse (or mislead) their audience.

We see it over the spectrum of issues, but one common theme is they are typically issues that are “hot buttons” with their audience, like the economy, housing, jobs etc.

It’s not hard to point out their lack of diligence—to dig a little deeper and ask “why”. So why don’t they do it? In today’s sound-bite media world it’s not about accurate reporting so much as getting the story out there fast and first.

We tend catch slanted real estate reporting since it is what can easily spot, but it’s prevalent in many other areas as well.

Take our last post pointing out the misleading report on housing sales decline. Almost simultaneous with that report was a report on the median price increasing. So they managed to exaggerate the report on the sales decline and overstate the median price increase. What’s a person to do?

If you’re like us we’re sure you’d like to reply on the news you hear as accurate, but unfortunately, that’s not always the case. Sometimes you have to dig deeper. Of course we’ll try and take some of that burden off of you. If you check in here regularly we try and ferret out the real stuff from the fluff.

What was wrong with their story about the median price increase in the Bay Area? On the surface nothing—the median price did increase in the Bay Area. But they are insinuating by the context in which they issue the report  that the median price increase is representative of home values going up. In fact, often times the median price changes have more to do with the mix of larger or smaller homes selling than it has to do with varying prices.

As in when the media reported that the sales of homes had decreased in San Mateo County by the highest margin in 15 years, but failed to mention that the data they were basing their story on had yet to be released and was only estimated. They also reported that the median price in San Mateo had increased without mentioning that is was in all likelihood a result of larger homes selling rather than prices increasing, as reported by the California Association of Realtors who provided the information they relied on.

This is from the California Association of Realtor press release. The same one cited in articles discussing the Bay Area median price gain.

“Note: Large changes in local median home prices typically indicate both local home price appreciation, and often, large shifts in the composition of housing market activity. Some of the variations in median home prices for July may be exaggerated due to compositional changes in housing demand…”

And indeed if one digs deeper they find that foreclosures, which pulled the median prices down, and which accounted for nearly 50 %of all sales had dwindled significantly.

Did the values of homes in the Bay Area rise? In some areas in fact they did, just not as much as reported. The case-shriller report which looks at the same house selling repeated times, and thus considerably a more reliable source, shows that indeed values have been rising steadily since April of 2009.

As with the report on declining sales, in the end is their report wrong? No. just not as accurate as it could be.

Suppressing Consumer Confidence–It’s all in the headlines

There you go again…Int4

That line was made famous by Ronald Reagan when he was running for office against President Jimmy Carter in 1980. It was used by then Mr. Reagan as a way to diffuse opponents who harped upon the same issues over and over.

Well the media is at it again. The media loves its headlines and of course they need to sell papers so it’s not put past them to choose a sensational attention grabbing headline and find data to support it.

Take the August 19, 2010 report on home sales in the Bay Area. The headline in the San Jose Mercury read “Peninsula home sales plunge in July”. Define plunge?

They reported, “After steadily rising for several months, Peninsula home sales plummeted to near-historic lows in July as demand remained tepid and the federal homebuyer tax credits that had helped caffeinate the marketplace in the past year finally went away".

When were these “near historic lows”? How near and how low were they?

Clearly the article is saying sales are down, and they are, but they fail the test of balanced journalism when they neglect to add the caveat “as expected”.

The accuracy of their article is subject to scrutiny as well. I reviewed our own analysis which we do every month since I didn’t recall being impressed by the large discrepancy in year-over-year sales mentioned in their article.

Our data is mined from the Multiple Listing Service. It doesn't contain all home sales—just ones which were listed with real estate agents. The percentage of homes which transfer ownership without the involvement of a real estate professional remains consistently a small percentage of all the homes which transfer—consistent being the operative word since the delta from one month to another is negligible.

Our statistics showed 385 single family homes closed escrow in July 2010, down from 393 in July 2009. According to our data the number of fewer sales this July compared to last were just eight, or 2%.

The San Jose Mercury claimed it was the lowest month for home sales in 20 years. But how many fewer homes sold? They don’t say. They also don’t mention that Dataquick, the source cited in their article as the resource for their reporting, issued a statement on August 19th, 2010 (the date cited as being used by the San Jose Mercury) saying that they only estimated the sales for San Mateo County:

“San Diego-based MDA DataQuick is a division of MDA Lending Solutions, a subsidiary of Vancouver-based MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates. MDA DataQuick monitors real estate activity nationwide and provides information to consumers, educational institutions, public agencies, lending institutions, title companies and industry analysts. Because of late data availability, sales were estimated in Alameda and San Mateo counties.”

But more to the point, industry experts predicted that home sales would drop after the expiration of the housing stimulus tax credit on May 1, 2010. Last year—the year used for comparing sales—the tax credit was still available in July.  One only has to go back to 2007 to see sales as low as they were this July, not 20 years.

In Santa Clara county they report: “1,159 single-family resale homes that closed escrow represented a drop of 24.3 percent from the 1,531 sold a year earlier, making this the second-slowest July since 1990, according to figures released Thursday by the real estate information service MDA DataQuick.

I didn’t bother to verify any of this information. But let’s assume it’s more accurate than what they reported about San Mateo County. Sales haven’t been this low since…1990. Why does that date ring a bell? It’s the date of the last housing downturn. So what their report tells us is home sales drop when the housing market drops, and sales have not started to pick up yet, because they no doubt will someday.

But what the report does is continue to fan the flames of consumer skepticism. Unless and until the housing market recovers, the rest of the country will suffer. Responsible reporting might help us get back on track sooner rather than later. We expect the facts—the news—good or bad. Just don’t skew what you choose to report to further your own agenda.

Sale SMC

California state first-time buyers tax credit deadline Aug. 15

State first-time buyers tax credit deadline Aug. 15
The Franchise Tax Board (FTB) recently announced it will accept applications for the California first-time home buyer tax credit through midnight on Sunday, Aug. 15, 2010.  The FTB believes it will have received more than enough applications to cover the $100 million allocated for eligible first-time home buyers.  It will continue to accept applications for the new-home portion of the state tax credit.

Due to the high volume of faxes, consumers may experience some delays and difficulties in connecting to the FTB fax number during normal business hours.  It can take several minutes or possibly up to an hour to connect and transmit the fax.  Buyers who receive a busy signal are advised to try again later. The fax number is open 24 hours a day, so consumers may fax applications during non-business hours when the line is not as busy.

More info.

Don't forget, for a limited time we're offering a 1% credit to any first-time homebuyers who use our services. Check our web site for details.

Bay Area Housing Affordability Index 2010 (HAI)

 
The California Association of Realtors tracks the "HAI" which is the Home Affordability Index. Their methodology can be found here, but in a nut shell they take into consideration the median home price for a particular area, the median income, the current interest rates and mash it into an index which essentially says what percentage of the population can qualify for the median price home assuming they put 20% down and have 30% (which is conservative) income to debt ratios. The higher the index the more home people can afford to buy a home. Since there are three variables which could affect this outcome, a dramatic shift in any one could influence the affordability trend. In the case of today's market two of the three variables are in favor of home affordability-low interest rates and lower median home prices. The third-income-has impacted these number to some degree and kept the index from being even higher as wages have remained stagnate and unemployment is high.

What this means to you is if you are considering whether to buy a home in the Bay Area, unless you are concerned over your job security this is one of the best times to purchase a home in the Bay Area in decades. 

HAI

 

THE ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY USED TO CALCULATE C.A.R.'S TRADITIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY INDEX (HAI)THE ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY USED TO CALCULATE C.A.R.'S TRADITIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY INDEX (HAI)

Step 1. MEDIAN PRICE: C.A.R.'s housing affordability index is based on the median price of existing single-family homes sold from C.A.R.'s monthly existing home sales survey. Starting in 1987, this survey is based on reports of closed escrow sales from 80 Boards or more of REALTORS® and multiple listing services around the state. Prior to 1987, the survey was based on reports from 45 Boards.

Step 2. DOWNPAYMENT: It is assumed that a household can make a 20 percent downpayment on the median-priced home. Therefore, the loan amount needed to purchase a home would be 80 percent of the median home sales price.

Step 3. INTEREST RATE: Using the national average effective mortgage interest rate on all fixed and adjustable rate mortgages. This is represented by the effective composite rate for previously occupied homes, which is reported monthly by the Federal Housing Finance Board.

Step 4.The monthly payment for PRINCIPAL, INTEREST, TAXES AND INSURANCE (PITI) is computed as the sum of three parts: -Monthly mortgage payment, based on the terms of the mortgage in Steps 2 & 3. -Monthly PROPERTY TAXES are assumed to be 1 percent of the median home sales price divided by 12. -Monthly INSURANCE PAYMENTS on the house are assumed to be 0.38 percent of the median home sales price divided by 12. The results of these three calculations are added together to find the PITI or total monthly payment for a household that buys the median priced home.

Step 5. It is then assumed that the monthly PITI can be no more than 30 percent of a household's income. Thus, the monthly housing payment is divided by .3 to come up with the MINIMUM INCOME NEEDED TO QUALIFY FOR A LOAN on the median-priced home.

Step 6. Starting in 1988, data for the distribution of households by various income ranges was obtained from Claritas. INCOME DISTRIBUTION figures were developed based on the projected percent change in the annual median household income. Prior to 1988, household income utilized in the housing affordability index was based on projections by C.A.R. using the 1980 census data as a base. (I wonder who "projects" incomes-my emphasis and what criteria is used for that)

Step 7. The minimum income amount calculated in Step 5 is multiplied by 12 to determine the minimum annual income needed to qualify. This amount is compared to the income distribution of households. The percent of the households with incomes greater than or equal to the minimum income becomes the HOUSING AFFORDABILITY INDEX (HAI). NOTE: The quarterly HAI series begins in 2006, prior to that the series was monthly. The quarterly HAI for a given geographic area in a particular quarter is based upon the quarterly median price for that area as well as the quarterly income distribution for that area.

What if I get lousy neighbors?

Finding a home with great neighbors can be the luck of the draw.

When we help Buyers find a home many are concerned about who their new neighbors might be, I’m reminded of my childhood experiences trying to lay claim to the perfect campsite.

When I was a young, like so many of our generation, our parents took us on summer camping trips as a frugal way to enjoy a vacation. As we entered the campground, finding the perfect campsite was always a moment of great anticipation. Competition was fierce for the great sites; as with most people who want to get away for the weekend they also want to get away from other people—being a social society, we want to be close, but not too close. We’d drive through the entire campground before selecting the perfect spot—one with seclusion, beauty and because we had a camper, it had to be level. Of course we’d check out who our nearest neighbors would be too. My parents wanted to avoid parking in a spot near a bunch of rowdy kids, which was where the interests of my parents and I parted.

Settled in on the perfect spot, we began to enjoy our week-long vacation. As would often happen, we’d wake up Monday morning and see that our weekend neighbors had vacated to return home. That left us with a new dilemma—who would be our new neighbors? We knew we had no control over who might choose to park next to us and wondered if they would evaluate us as we did our neighbors, (looking back I’m sure many seniors chose to drive on past our campsite after spotting three active kids playing around).

I was always interested in who would we get as our new band of travelers. Of course we had no control over who our camp fellows might be, and often provisionally contemplated moving to a new campground should our new nomadic neighbors prove too loud.

Finding a home with great neighbors is reminiscent of these camping expeditions. Like finding the perfect site, you quickly learn that the neighbors you have today may not be the ones you get tomorrow as like you, they too can move. Sometimes you’re lucky enough to get the quietest neighbors in the world and then they decide that Johnny needs a companion and the next thing you know you’re waking up during the night to Rex’s midnight pangs of loneliness.

While it’s prudent to pay attention to a neighborhood and who your new neighbors might be, keep in mind that you should not rely on today as a constant —good or bad. Your neighbors could easily be here today and gone tomorrow.

 

Home Sales Decline As Tax Credits Expire – WSJ.com

"Some 60% of the 109 economists and other analysts surveyed by MacroMarkets LLC expect home prices to decline this year, up from 40% in May."

via online.wsj.com

I found this amusing. If their numbers are right, at 66% the economists are no better than the Supreme Court Justices at arriving at a consensus, and probably no more accurate than our local weather announcer when they do.