- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
18% of sellers in San Francisco are taking a loss on their House
Posted on 4/24/24 at 9:43 am
Posted on 4/24/24 at 9:43 am
quote:
Nearly one of five (17.8%) homes that sold in San Francisco during the three months ending February 29 sold at a loss. That’s comparable with the 17.9% share hit during the three months ending January 31, which was the highest in 11 years.
That’s a higher share than any other metro, and it’s more than four times the national share of 4.3%. The national share of sellers taking a loss is the highest it has been since May 2021, but the share has been fairly stable over the past two years, hovering between 2% and 4.5%.
quote:
In San Francisco, the typical homeowner who sold at a loss parted with their home for $155,500 less than they bought it for, the largest dollar loss of any major metro. Nationwide, the median loss was $39,912.
This is according to a Redfin analysis of county records and MLS data across the 50 most populous U.S. metros. To be included in this analysis, a home must have been owned by the same party for at least nine months leading up to the sale. When we say “sold at a loss,”, we mean the seller sold the home for less than they bought it for.
quote:
San Francisco’s median sale price peaked at $1.66 million in April 2022, and has since fallen 15% ($250,000) to $1.41 million as of February. The typical person who bought in San Francisco at nearly any point in 2021 or 2022, when the housing market was red hot due to ultra-low mortgage rates, would have taken a loss if they sold during the first few months of this year.
https://www.redfin.com/news/san-francisco-home-sellers-lose-gain-money/
15
Posted on 4/24/24 at 9:45 am to Dire Wolf
When Cali real estate is selling for a loss, things are fricked.
Granted, I bet a huge number of the people buying are doing so as investments for the long term and think a short term loss is fine. Doesn’t work if the city itself becomes less desirable to live in and depopulates.
Granted, I bet a huge number of the people buying are doing so as investments for the long term and think a short term loss is fine. Doesn’t work if the city itself becomes less desirable to live in and depopulates.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 9:51 am to Dire Wolf
Is this verified loses or "potential loses" based on assumptions of when and how much a home was bought/sold for? In one reading it sounds like these are verified loses but in another paragraph they talk about average home prices and how they have declined.
This post was edited on 4/24/24 at 9:52 am
Posted on 4/24/24 at 9:51 am to Dire Wolf
quote:
Nearly one of five (17.8%) homes that sold in San Francisco during the three months ending February 29 sold at a loss
Checkmate, you moronic JP owners
Posted on 4/24/24 at 9:59 am to Dire Wolf
Ron should make a commercial about this.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 10:40 am to Dire Wolf
But homes with robotic pooper scoopers held their value.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 10:51 am to teke184
San Francisco isn’t going to depopulate. This just reflects to of the overrated values that jumped up during the pandemic. I wouldn’t be surprised if the homes in this survey haven’t been sold multiple times in the last four years.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 10:52 am to Dire Wolf
Got dayum sea monsta bringing down home prices again.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 11:00 am to Dire Wolf
quote:
$155,500 less than they bought it for, the largest dollar loss of any major metro. Nationwide, the median loss was $39,912.
Yikes to both, but the SF number is downright brutal.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 11:02 am to Dire Wolf
A lot of fired tech workers who can't afford their house payments, plus san fran is overflowing with dookie.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 11:03 am to Buryl
quote:
A lot of fired tech workers who can't afford their house payments, plus san fran is overflowing with dookie.
I thought the majority of tech workers rode a bus into SF?
Posted on 4/24/24 at 11:05 am to LsuNav
Depopulate completely? No.
But changes to industries in and around the area will certainly affect demand.
SF’s three major economic tent poles are regular tourism, the financial industry, and conventions.
Two of those are being hurt by the condition of the city and the third is very mobile these days, doubly so since SF is not a city with an exchange like Chicago or NYC.
NYC has seen a huge bleed off of people from this industry and a number of banks in Cali have either failed or been endangered because of other big banks like JP Morgan poaching their clients.
This won’t kill the city completely but can feasibly make it to where SF is so overpriced that a lot of the current companies relocate, either to Silicon Valley or out of the area entirely, to where you are left with a hollowed out shell.
Think Detroit with a better climate.
But changes to industries in and around the area will certainly affect demand.
SF’s three major economic tent poles are regular tourism, the financial industry, and conventions.
Two of those are being hurt by the condition of the city and the third is very mobile these days, doubly so since SF is not a city with an exchange like Chicago or NYC.
NYC has seen a huge bleed off of people from this industry and a number of banks in Cali have either failed or been endangered because of other big banks like JP Morgan poaching their clients.
This won’t kill the city completely but can feasibly make it to where SF is so overpriced that a lot of the current companies relocate, either to Silicon Valley or out of the area entirely, to where you are left with a hollowed out shell.
Think Detroit with a better climate.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 11:14 am to Dire Wolf
quote:
The typical person who bought in San Francisco at nearly any point in 2021 or 2022, when the housing market was red hot due to ultra-low mortgage rates, would have taken a loss if they sold during the first few months of this year.
Exactly.
OP should read:
18% of sellers in San Fran over-paid for their home purchase
Posted on 4/24/24 at 11:21 am to Dire Wolf
Elections have consequences. Not just at the federal level, but at the local level the consequences are felt even faster.
When South Park tells you that your city has a problem, you really ought to listen to them.
When South Park tells you that your city has a problem, you really ought to listen to them.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 12:02 pm to teke184
quote:
companies relocate, either to Silicon Valley
The days of getting a break on Bay Area housing costs by moving south or east to a commuter town are gone. Prices are out of control all over. I've heard of SF companies providing luxury commuter buses to/from Sacramento. Mobile wifi lets that be work time.
Rather than depopulation, there's a massive ethnicity shift with the bayside filling up with Hispanics who can afford it, and the oceanside becoming even more Asian. An advantage some Asians now have is that grandparents bought homes there at fair prices in 1940s-60s.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 12:04 pm to Dire Wolf
And taking their shitty politics to another State
Posted on 4/24/24 at 12:05 pm to teke184
quote:
When Cali real estate is selling for a loss, things are fricked.
I’m out here in Santa Barbara right now. It’s beautiful, but at some point you have to realize there’s more to life than weather.
I think my house on the Florida coast is crazy expensive, until I talk to someone here who owns a condo in Venice that cost $1.7 million.
At some point, something has to give.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 12:21 pm to Dire Wolf
Is it really a loss if you get to leave SF?
Posted on 4/24/24 at 12:23 pm to Dire Wolf
I mean, I completely get your point, but it's 18%. 1 out of 5. Let's see if it increases or decreases because while 18% is not normal and cause to be worried, it's not cause to panic.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 12:34 pm to Dire Wolf
quote:
Nearly one of five (17.8%) homes that sold in San Francisco during the three months ending February 29 sold at a loss.
So that means that 4 out of 5 homes in San Francisco sold at a profit.
Doesn’t sound that dire to me.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News