SoCal Multiple Listing Service stats shows that in April there were $1.21 billion worth of O.C. residences sold through the local brokers’ network, down $234 million or 16% in a year. Much of that decline in home purchases closed last month stems from severe weakness in the attached-home market.
Brokers sold 19% less attached homes this April vs. ‘07 and the median price received was off 18%. All told, $270 million of O.C. attached homes were sold, a 32% drop in a year.
As for detached homes, 1,021 houses were sold by brokers in this count for April, a 9.5% increase. It took a 23.6% drop in prices for those homes to draw out more buyers in this category. All told, $937 million worth of O.C. detached homes were sold, a 10% drop in a year.
It’s worth noting that April’s O.C. sales-dollar total is half April 2005’s O.C. housing bounty. Or $1.2 billion less.
Who hoo! You see that!
9.5% increase in volume! INCREASE!
It only took 23.6% DECREASE in price to get a 9.5% INCREASE in volume!
Oh wait. Sorry bulls. My bad.
Look out folks, here come The Equity Zombies. (Good luck finding employment, after you haven’t worked for years.)
In an unrelated, but monumentally important news item…
CONGRATULATIONS TO GAY PEOPLE EVERYWHERE!
As a straight man, I would like to personally apologize for how you’ve been treated, I assure you I haven’t been one of them to mistreat, and I wish all of you wonderful, happy lives of Love. Seriously.
Today is a day I’m proud to call myself American!
This information is too cryptic. What is the frame of reference for the 23.6%? They weren’t the same exact houses that sold last year, so I assume we are speaking of medians or averages?. Is that off asking? Off 2007? Off peak? Is that a weighted average of actual discounts? A median? Can you give us some geography?
Oh, it’s the median. Next.
“Fewer” attached homes, not “less.” You are a writer, Jon. Pay attention to usage.
Remember though we nearing a period where sales were already falling rapidly and thus the YOY will seem to increase although total volume will be way off. So if a 23+% drop only gets 9.5% then we need another 15%off to probably triple that to 27%, my guess anyway.
March had 1,072 SFR sales with volume off 42.8%. March also had 408 Condo sales with volume off 51.3%. I don’t see how these unit counts can possibly coincide with volumes being +9.5% and -19%. Are you counting townhomes in with SFRs? Eat it could be right, but last April didn’t drop by 50%. Inquiring minds want to know.
Thoughtless:
It’s a nice day today. You should get out of the house, at least for a few minutes.
WTF are you talking about? I am in my office.
Darn you, Lansner! Did you leave out the unit count on the townhomes to tweak us? I guess the townhomes are in the “House” category after all, since the DQ “House” numbers were on pace to exceed 1,021. April 2007 had sales of 1,659 in the “House” category, so if the SFR part of the “House” category is up 9.5%, then the overall number should be pretty darn close since I “think” SFRs outnumber attached homes.
These next few months are going to get heads spinning due to several issues. The number ONE issue is that in the 60 day period between the end of February 2007 to the end of April 2007, the “House” median skyrocketed $45,000 (from $675,000 to $720,000). It’s that faulty $720,000 number against our current faulty $563,000 that’s going to send the bear fur flying! We also have the issue that new homes are going to drag down the overall volume even though resales MAY be recovering big time.
Interesting times.
9 posts, 5 from thoughtless
statistics is a junk science
people who cant do any major, go to statistics
LOL, who are you going to get incoming from?
sighburdood and mulligan? your ultra conservative alter egos?
Like the emotional toll the turnaround in the market is taking on you? LOL! Think Murietta.
Thoughtful… Let me guess: You have read “The Secret”???
I have decided it’s time to start making bridges to people, now that the issue of home prices has been decided.
Californian’s need to put our heads together now, and figure out how to get out of the potentially life threatening events coming at us. We need to set a new course. I have voted for an all-out push to create clean energy in California, something we can export. You guys pick the energy. I vote Hydrogen. The electric car looks good, too. We need to decide something quickly. The State of California will probably run out of money this summer. It’s not Arnold’s fault. He tried to tell all of you, but you took away his power. We need to set aside our differences on this issue, and move.
FuturesTrader you still around. I have some OptionsXpress Q’s for you. Shoot me your email if possible. Looks like you scored on your Nov 2010 contracts.
As toxic loans in reset, the foreclosure rate across California is going up fast in Riverside County, Sacramento, and many counties.
There are more toxic loans reset toward the end of 2008, Orange County, San Diego, and Bay Areas will follow very soon. The more inflated house prices in the past the worst it gets.
Unfortunately, the crisis in California is going to get much worse, and no bailout will solve it. Why? Because if the first stage of the foreclosure crisis was about people who could not afford their mortgages, the next stage will be about people who have every reason not even to try to pay their mortgages.
First, those home prices: For a weird few months of the mortgage crisis, statisticians came up with peculiar numbers about home values, rolling out comforting stats showing single-digit declines. Well, that’s over.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the California crash, these striking numbers are not the end. They are the beginning. Which brings us to the other scary part of the California story: a coming wave of interest-rate resets in prime loans given to people with good credit that are just as bad as or worse than we’ve seen in subprime.
When those dominoes start falling next year, we may or may not have a subprime bailout plan, and the discussion will start about how to bail out this next tranche of borrowers where prices fall 40% to 60%, all that goes out the window. Why?
Because in expensive locales such as Orange County and Bay Areas, tens of thousands of people with 100% loan-to-value mortgages and option ARMs are living in homes in which they have no equity and on which they owe a lot more than the house is worth.
The luckiest of those are the ones who used option ARMs to buy a house. For them, walking away is easy: Their loans are “nonrecourse,” and the lenders can’t go after them for more than the value of the house. The choice is harder for those who used the loans to refinance. The quirks of real-estate law regarding
refi loans make it possible (though not necessarily easy) for lenders to try to get back more money even after taking the house.
Of course, all those people stuck between rising mortgages and falling prices are free to follow Paulson’s advice: Keep making payments on an outsized mortgage and take a bullet for the greater economic good. Fortunately for them, and perhaps unfortunately for the economy, a lot of them will come to the realization that they just don’t have to.
Its actually quite simple - this is the buying season - people are buying - just not enough to prop or even hold flat pricing. We’re going to see this now for the next 18 months. And many will call bottom all the way there.
Remember when most simply excused away the low volume with the term “buyer boycott?”
It’s amazing the creativity people will display when trying to deceive.
Wow, not buying it, you have one hell of a lot of hubris. Face it: you are GUESSING (just like everyone else). Geesh, the gall!
(10% volume change) / (26% price change) = demand inelasticity
Not really indicative of any kind of bottom, is it?
Here we go again. It is just astounding to see so many people insisting that everyone who is in trouble got there by buying something they can’t afford. I know that just sets your bear teeth on edge to even hear others discuss other factors, but I assure you they exist. People like not buying it have talked until they’re blue in the face about their OPINION that anyone who ever used ANY type of short to mid term financing could not afford a 30 year fixed. That is simply not the case. They superimpose their own rationales and fears onto everyone else, nothing more. Alan Greenspan himself made a compelling case for the HUGE savings that can be realized when 30 year financing IS NOT NEEDED. The out and out rejection that people chose to make what normally was a PERFECTLY REASONABLE CHOICE amounts to a voluntary and convenient mental block. It’s nonsense, plain and simple. Short and Mid term financing has been widely used for over 50 years without issue. The only difference now is that credit contracted in an instant. Spare me these unfounded generalizations. Did some people buy over their heads? Obviously. Are some taking advantage and bailing? Obviously. Have some had their income interrupted? Obviously. Are all foreclosures due to buying too much house? NOT EVEN CLOSE!
And while were at it: spare me the “it’s only a spring bounce”. It’s a freaking miracle that their IS a spring bounce. Live with it.
Thoughtful:”Short and Mid term financing has been widely used for over 50 years without issue.”
You are crazy!!! I have stated it over and over again that I myself have used these loan programs. STOP TWISTING MY FRICKIN’ WORDS!!! You know damn well what I meant. When 80% of all homes are purchased using non-fixed products when fixed rates are at 40 year lows - tell me now in a simple single statement - WHY DO YOU THINK THAT WAS THE CASE IN OC?
For the last frickin’ time - these are investment products. You cannot simply get into them and then not consider the contingencies - YOU HAVE TO BE A MORON TO THINK THAT!!!
And you are wrong!!! Using such a loan program during a time when home appreciation has been UNPRECEDENTED equates to HUGE RISK!!! What kind of degree do you have anyway? Where’s those reasoning skills?
How much simpler do I need to make these statements? I would bet at least half of those loans (80% of all made in 2006) were made as affordability products. Hell - the term was coined during this time.
A perfectly reasonable process for deciding to use an ARM to purchase a primary residence involves that the decision maker do some research first. Or do you mean to tell me that at anytime - someone can just simply go and ignore that fixed rates are at 40 yr lows and although 80% of the buyer pool is doing it, that’s about all I need to do to make a reasonable decision?
Tell me bright eyes - how would these folks come to that reasonable decision given just those few facts alone? And please don’t tell me that 80% of the buyer pool had every intention of selling in a few years or expected rates to remain that low.
And what about precedent? Has anyone in the past been burned by ARMs? Come on lady - you know damn well what I’m getting at.
Like I said - I’ve used them - and used them quite heavily in the past - and I will again. I also did and will continue to do my research to make sure I know when to make a move - I did not wait until I had to read it in the frickin’ headlines!!!
There are people that can leverage them and there are people that should not. The signs were EXTREMELY EVIDENT!!
Lastly - most people before this run up that used ARMs did so on investment property for generating cash flow - only in recent years did the percentage of use for affordability become higher than the use for generating cash flow.
As for the spring bounce - when did I say I cannot live with it? I just don’t like the unfounded GUESSES - as you now claim they were. DO YOU GET THE POINT?!?!? You have a real problem with misperception.
Thoughtful:”People like not buying it have talked until they’re blue in the face about their OPINION that anyone who ever used ANY type of short to mid term financing could not afford a 30 year fixed”
If you are not a lying sack of shi@t, please find where I stated that?
ANYONE That has ever used them?
You are trully a pretentious idiot.
So much for amicable debates.
Thoughtful Says:
“Wow, not buying it, you have one hell of a lot of hubris.”
–
Too funny.
I used “hubris” in reference to you — now you have decided to use it as a word to cast aspersions against another.
You “years” at UCI in “cowtown” have left you a mental hick.
Hubris is not something one has…….but then again, why should I try to help you?
You already know everything.
It was a historic day today…as important as Brown v. Board of Educatoin. I just want to say that I am proud to be an American today. My mother always said that the constitution was there to protect the minority and the individual from the majority.
For those of you who don’t get a chance to read the opinion, on pgs 113-114 it says:
“The US Supreme Court explained, “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them BEYOND the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied BY THE COURTS. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights MAY NOT BE SUBMITTED TO VOTE; they depend on the outcome of NO ELECTIONS.”
Chief Justice Berger observed that, “it is IRRELEVANT that the voters rather than the legislature enact an [unconstitutional law], because voters may no more violate the Constitution by enacting a ballot measure than a legislative body may do so by enacting legislation.”
As to “tradition”, the US Supreme Court observed,
“the expansive and protective provisions of our Constitutions,…were drafted with the knowledge that ‘times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.’”
This wasn’t about Gay Marriage. It has everything to do with the very basis of our Federal Constitution. The Courts role is to uphold the Constitution. There was no legislating from the bench.
Nuff said. It was just a landmark day for once again why our country is so different than every other country on this planet.
Back to RE.
If I was to read into Thoughtful’s statements even further, I would guess that she believes that in order for our market to turn around, the percentage use of adjustables and other short term loan products must increase in order for the turn around to be significant enough so volume hits sustaining levels.
And why would anyone imply that? (Not saying she did - like I stated above - I’m guessing here and can be completely off base about her thoughts on this - but I do know others do believe this)
It would have to be implied when there is a belief that affordability is just not there to allow enough buyers that are willing to purchase, given the current market, to afford these homes.
And you would have to be an idiot to say that fixed rates are just simply too high - well it all gets back to affordability. Hate to tell you, historically, 8% fixed rates is about norm. We’re still well below it. The realization of these facts is another reason why we have recently seen the use of fixed rates surpass that of other loan programs here in the good ‘ol OC.
Aren’t the current short term rates better than fixed right now? Hmmmmm - I wonder if people decided to start considering what their true risk threshold is?
Having to use an “affordability product” in order to afford the property is WAY RISKIER than using an adjustable simply to save money, while retaining the ability to afford the fixed rate if need be. TWO COMPLETELY SEPARATE USE CASES!!! TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT RISK THRESHOLDS!!! But, hey, don’t let me stop you from being convinced otherwise from a bull that obviously is most concerned with their own home equity.
Are you still ranting? First, I am not a “she”, get it straight. Second, your argument that ARMs are for “investors” is ludicrous! If you mean Option ARMs, maybe, just maybe, I’d agree with you. FACT: many homeowners use 5-10 year vanilla ARMs. Today. Here. Now.
correction: they are investment-styled products - I did not intend that you have to be an investor to use them
Hate to tell you though - they are certainly not the “buy and forget about it” type of programs like a fixed rate program - and that was my point.
What about my other points? Do you disagree about the other points and if so, please state how and why?
As for misconsturing you to be a woman - well - I honestly thought you were the same person as who Truthful was a few months back and then she changed her handle to Pebbles, I believe. BEFORE YOU GO OFF!!! Please remember that I never once accused anyone of being someone else - however, I could have sworn that she wrote the same things about herself - owns a few properties, works from home and cannot divulge what she does at all, has the same amount of free time to post, and the writing is eerily similar. Lastly, I had referred to you as a woman last week - like I said before, I thought you were her.
test