Saturday, April 12, 2008

Weekly inventory update

4/11 - Pretty flat for the week, SM slightly up, PP flat, MV down a little.

4/4 - Santa Monica is down a little, Pacific Palisades is up a little (and setting record highs because of higher-priced listings), and Mar Vista is flat. (3/28 New listings adjusted for new listings through 3/31.)

       LA County  Santa Monica  Pacific Palisades  Mar Vista
<$3M New Tot DOM<$2M New Tot DOM Tot New DOM

-------- ------ -------------- -------------- ----------
1/30/06 27,732
2/28/06 29,420
3/31/06 31,819
5/ 1/06 34,032 38 33
6/ 2/06 37,847 56 36 38
6/30/06 42,317 66 40 49
8/ 4/06 45,315 70 34 50
9/ 1/06 46,781 71 27 59
10/ 6/06 47,369 83 25 98 71
11/ 3/06 45,780 80 20 91 77
12/ 1/06 43,103 65 18 72 96 39 20
1/ 5/07 35,646 54 4 60 117 33 6 71 66
-------- ------ -------------- -------------- ----------
2/ 2/07 36,715 38 15 45 124 29 16 61 71 70
3/ 2/07 41,251 42 14 51 114 26 10 68 79 55 25 76
4/ 6/07 42,857 41 23 49 107 18 8 73 103 54 52 50
5/ 4/07 45,918 46 28 54 92 19 6 82 79 71 37 52
6/ 1/07 52,198 50 25 61 78 17 15 87 78 77 39 53
6/30/07 52,769 42 18 56 81 17 11 92 77 74 33 61
8/ 3/07 54,166 53 28 68 86 23 12 78 76 84 39 68
8/31/07 57,432 57 21 72 98 18 7 69 75 90 40 79
9/28/07 58,973 59 17 74 103 26 9 90 81 87 20 87
11/ 2/07 58,731 62 19 81 120 29 7 106 77 98 35 88
11/30/07 59,108 52 14 67 136 23 11 88 94 96 23 96
12/31/07 53,475 42 5 53 148 19 2 73 119 79 13 116
-------- ------ -------------- -------------- ----------
2/ 1/08 53,722 54 16 67 157 26 16 101 118 89 36 96
2/29/08 53,520 50 10 68 178 29 8 108 108 88 21 103
3/28/08 53,566 57 17 81 171 32 13 122 92 82 22 105
4/ 4/08 54,290 55 1 78 164 34 0 124 101 82 5 101
4/11/08 54,468 56 6 79 162 34 2 125 104 79 13 102
4/18/08

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

New to this blog and to this inventory update. Can you explain the key up at the top of the chart --- thanks!

Dan said...

<$3M = # of homes listed for less than $3M

New = How many new homes were listed since the last update

Tot = total # listed

DOM = Avg. days on market

Westside Bubble said...

Thanks, Dan!

How this started was I first tracked only houses less than $3M in SM, later added the rest. I kept the distinction for longer historical comparisons. I also omit Santa Monica Canyon properties in the City of Los Angeles.

In PP I've only been tracking individual houses less than $2M, the rest just in a total count. And omitting mobile homes.

Anonymous said...

seems like plenty of demand for houses over 3 mil and no demand for houses under 3 mil

i predict disaster

Anonymous said...

I think homes in Sunset Park and elsewhere in SM are holding....check out LATimes chart today (Sunday paper)...90405 SFR zip code still holding and NO inventory out there....I am looking)

2 other zip codes in SM with no sales data for March....so either NOT selling or sellers not listing.

Wooster said...

I was at a party this weekend and there were a few recent Santa Monica homebuyers with whom I had a chance to get into the bitter renter vs delusional homeowner argument. Full disclosure: I'm not actually a bitter renter, I just don't own anything in Santa Monica, but I play the part. I'm also a residential land developer/tract map flipper, so I'm not totally full of it and have every desire to see a full and fast recover of my ability to make money.

These guys were excited that Zillow showed their home at only a small hit to what they paid. I argued about the overall uselessness of Zillow as a tool. It may have some data, but it's not for the professional nor will it accurately reflect your homes value with any consistency. To make a long story short these guys were like deers in headlights. They obviously knew they were underwater (both far east Sunset Park owners), but where I thought they were really disconnected was in their estimation of when they will be back to par in value. They both thought it was going to be about two years from now. It just seemed like wishful thinking. I look at this market all day, every day and I can't imagine them being even close to correct. Those of us who develop and have to estimate the future market are thinking that 75% discount on good land sites may not be enough and that you would have to pay us to take certain land sites off your hands. Almost anything east of Pomona is showing a negative residual by my calcs.

Anyway, they both paid approx.$850/ft to be east of Cloverfield, north of the airport. Seems like ultimately the losses will be deep and long lasting. Ouch. Sorry for the long message, just killing time during the crash.

Anonymous said...

i agree - everyone that bought outside the 90402 is really really screwed

remains to be seen what happens to the 90402 but everyone else should just mail back the keys

Anonymous said...

I agree with the post above, anyone outside the90402 is going to pay way more for housing than anyone buying in the next few years.

For the new readers of this blog, we need to explain that the 90402 is immune from everything because it's NORTH of Montana, and therefore the liquidity crunch, rising mortgage rates and tanking consumer sentiment cannot affect land values there.

Seriously though, it's amazing how well the high end is holding up (for now), and it's not just housing. There's a piece in the NY Times today about the ultra-rich (presumably that's who can afford to buy the $5 mil mansions in the 90402 right now) and how well they are holding up. Apparently the changes in the tax laws and other legislation has made it easier than ever for the wealthy to hold on to the wealth, which means this will be a recession during which, for the first time in our modern history, we may see no pullback at all in the high end.

Query whether this new phenom also applies to housing, and whether it means the high end of housing will also be untouched by the price plunge (despite this blog's well documented but unscientific anecdotal examples to the contrary in some instances).

Arti

Anonymous said...

Got a kick out of the last two entries from last week's inventory update. Realtor David Becker of DWB Estates posted that new construction is moving and sights a home in the alphabets that went for 3.8. crazy.
Take a look at his website and the homes he has helped sell or buy. 1639 San Onofre was listed at $7.5 and closed, July 5 '07, at $$6.142.
That's before the tight credit. Not so booming! He is listing 1140 Embury at $2.6, previously purchased in Sept. '04 for $1.9. lets see how well that does. And he has 1071 Villa View listed at $3.9, last purchased in 8/06 for what appears to be $2.8. Good luck David. We are all rooting for you.

Anonymous said...

I think 1140 embury is in escrow... but before Daivd chimes in with more lies, er... quality realtor lies, it's been on the market since last year. They reduced it a couple times recently and I guess found a fool to take it I'd bet under 2.2. I'm sure those lucky buyers taking David's, or his equally full-of-it counterpart's, advice will be VERY happy with their purchase in three months. And six months... And 12 months...

PP is at 2005 pricing (for the overwhelming majority - go ahead David, find a one-off example of how that's not true for us), and is approaching 2004 like a freight train with no brakes going downhill.

Anonymous said...

But I should say that if David told those sellers to lower it and get out now, he did the right thing... which he very well might have because he wants the commission.