California's median home price down 40%

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Post Reply
Topic Author
mathwhiz
Posts: 858
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:58 pm

California's median home price down 40%

Post by mathwhiz »

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-s ... 0173.story
The median home price in California dropped 40% in February from a year earlier, a real estate tracking firm reported Thursday.

MDA DataQuick also said that home sales in the state jumped nearly 43%.

The San Diego company said the median price was $224,000 last month, compared with $373,000 in February 2008.

Foreclosures accounted for 58% of home sales in California last month.

In Northern California, the median home price plunged 46% in February from a year earlier, dropping the figure to its lowest level since 1999, MDA DataQuick said.

It said the median price in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area declined to $295,000 last month, compared with $548,000 in February 2008.
User avatar
stratton
Posts: 11083
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:05 pm
Location: Puget Sound

Post by stratton »

Median prices don't really mean much. They just show the value of what's selling at the moment. Right now low end houses are booming so that drags the median down. In some cases condos are off 65% in San Diego.

The Case-Shiller index actually compares an existingtstructure based on what it sold for previously.

Paul
User avatar
OldSubmariner
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:29 pm
Location: San Diego

Post by OldSubmariner »

Median prices do not tell you much. It's the old saw...LOCATION...LOCATION..LOCATION. Condos are down 65% in some San Diego areas, but again, in some areas, single family home prices have remained relativley strong.
rich
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:51 pm

Post by rich »

OldSubmariner wrote:Median prices do not tell you much. It's the old saw...LOCATION...LOCATION..LOCATION. Condos are down 65% in some San Diego areas, but again, in some areas, single family home prices have remained relativley strong.
I think you make a good point. Certain areas may hold value better than others and median price does not give a complete picture. (However, this recent crash should have taught us that "location, location, location" is a completely ridiculous old saw. It should be "location, location, price".)
Best regards, | Rich
User avatar
preserve
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:13 pm

Post by preserve »

stratton wrote:Median prices don't really mean much. They just show the value of what's selling at the moment. Right now low end houses are booming so that drags the median down. In some cases condos are off 65% in San Diego.

The Case-Shiller index actually compares an existingtstructure based on what it sold for previously.

Paul
True. Even the case-shillers index of comparing existing homes is beginning to show flaws. At a time of extreme volatility, people with good homes are less likely to sell or move. Ie. Over reporting losses.
ilan1h
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:40 pm

Post by ilan1h »

In my area in southern California (near Santa Monica) homes do not seem to have fallen by less than 10-15%. In many cases I'm not sure that they've fallen at all. I've been watiing to buy a house for quite a while but am still not seeing the bargains.
Beagler
Posts: 3442
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:39 pm

Post by Beagler »

ilan1h wrote:In my area in southern California (near Santa Monica) homes do not seem to have fallen by less than 10-15%. In many cases I'm not sure that they've fallen at all. I've been watiing to buy a house for quite a while but am still not seeing the bargains.
It's my understanding (and pls correct me if I'm mistaken) that lower-end homes have dropped most in value, and those at the other end of the spectrum (generally) have held their value best.
“The only place where success come before work is in the dictionary.” Abraham Lincoln. This post does not provide advice for specific individual situations and should not be construed as doing so.
manuvns
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:30 pm

Post by manuvns »

that is so true . how many folks can sell home for 250K when they paid 0.5M?
On Approach
Posts: 437
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:11 am

Post by On Approach »

how many folks can sell home for 250K when they paid 0.5M?
If I only owed $250K and could retire immediately without any debt, I'd do it. That's assuming my income could cover rent.
PatrickS
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:38 pm
Location: San Diego

Post by PatrickS »

rich wrote:However, this recent crash should have taught us that "location, location, location" is a completely ridiculous old saw. It should be "location, location, price".)
I live in San Diego and have been trying to buy another house recently. Some areas are down >50% while other areas (the one where I want to buy!!!) are off only 15%. I sold a house in the South Bay area in 2005 for $725k and similar homes on the same street are now listed in the low $300s. I bought the home I'm in now in Sabre Springs (Poway School District) for $805k in May 2005. Similar homes in the same area are now selling (not listing, but actually selling) in the low $600s. Carmel Valley (where I'm currently looking) is off around 15-20% from peak. Almost everything we've made offers on so far (6/7) have been short sales.

I would change location, location, location, to "schools, schools, schools."
Cognitive Miser
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:52 am
Location: Los Angeles CA Age:35

Post by Cognitive Miser »

Beagler wrote:It's my understanding (and pls correct me if I'm mistaken) that lower-end homes have dropped most in value, and those at the other end of the spectrum (generally) have held their value best.
Yep. The massive run-up (and subsequent freefall) in real estate values were mostly concentrated among the lower-end homes.

Here's one of my favorite examples:

http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/real ... hort-sale/
Image
Sale History

11/05/2003: $110,000

09/30/2004: $235,000

12/22/2005: $310,000
Post Reply