[quote=svelte][quote=spdrun]Who says it is keeping going? Per the PPSF chart posted on here, prices per sf aren’t much different from last year. The real run-up was in 2013, and that’s past history.
We’re not talking about LA here, we’re talking about San Diego…
[quote=spdrun]I see a lot of units sitting with price drops within 1-2 mi of where I own my rental. NOT a fast-moving market. Secondly, I was at a few well-priced open houses last week and there was virtually no traffic.[/quote]
So now, since you quoted LA stats above, are you now talking LA area, or SD? Because if it’s SD, you must live nowhere close to where I live.
[quote=svelte]Spoke with a realtor friend this weekend – he’s been closing one sale every 1 to 2 weeks. Yikes! He says it feels like a seller’s market as he has more buyers…Realtor said this week he is getting multiple offers right now too.[/quote]
“San Diego County’s housing market surged in March, seeing its biggest annual increase in sales in nearly two years.”
Wow. Sounds a lot like I was saying above…
“Last month, 3,467 real-estate transactions closed in the county, a 13.4 percent jump from March 2014, real estate tracker CoreLogic reported Thursday. It was the biggest annual increase in sales since they rose more than 19 percent from July 2012 to July 2013.”
Again, kinda matches what I’m saying not what you’re saying…
“CoreLogic analyst Andrew LePage said inventory still remains an issue holding back the housing market. In March, there were 6,101 active listings in the county, the San Diego Association of Realtors reports. That represents fewer than two months of supply, which bodes well for sellers.
LePage said as a general rule between three and six months of supply would render the market neutral, while any more would turn the tide in favor of buyers.”
Wow…now…who was it saying it’s a seller’s market, me or you?
“Housing demand has been stoked over the last year by job growth mainly, to some extent some income growth, and increased job security,” LePage said.
From February to March sales rose 35 percent in the county, while the median home sales price was up from $440,000.”
Again…points strongly in my direction…not a tanking market.[/quote]
svelte, spdrun is correct in that there are pockets of SD County which haven’t quite recovered yet:
The link above reflects that the problem is present in the SFR market at the lower end of 91910 (and also includes 91911). I haven’t yet spot-checked in East County (LG, EC and SV) but I suspect 91945, 92120, 92121, and 91977 (and possibly 92071 as well) have similar issues in pockets. Not to mention that just as many zip codes in North County are still affected by underwater borrowers (esp in Esc and Vista).
In addition, 92154, 92173 and 91932 (int’l border areas) may still have problems as well but I know for a FACT that residential property in 92154 was heavily purchased during the downturn of 2009 thru 2011 for deep discounts by several deep-pocketed buy-and hold investor teams (incl REITs) plus individuals. (A large portion of SFRs in that zip code are over 1900+ sf.)
From my findings when looking deeper into the problem in South County, it’s not HELOCs that are the problem, as spdrun suggests. Perhaps resetting HELOCS will still be a problem in East LA (pockets), San Bern and RIV counties, which all still have a backlog of delinquencies and failed mods leading to FC, but in SD County, the problem appears to me to be cash-out refinancing (often repeatedly) with the last transaction occurring no later than the first half of 2007. In my spot checks in LA county, about 8 zip codes I studied had more SS and FC listings than traditional-sale listings in the current SFR market as recently as last week, often completely eclipsing “traditional sale” listings. For the most part, these homes were 60+ years old, situated on 7,500 to 13,000 sf lots.
I think many owners in the lower-end SoCal areas (or those owners of lower-end homes in moderate and middle-class areas) have tried mightily over the years to hang onto their homes since removing equity from them or paying too much for them years ago, but just like spdrun stated, the “(CA) Homeowner’s Bill of Rights” (Assembly Bill 278) essentially put a “monkey wrench” in the processing of FC’s in a timely manner in CA as determined by the statute (section 2924 of the Civil Code as it read PRIOR to when the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights was enacted).
The CA Homeowner’s BOR (above) has a couple of provisions that I wholeheartedly agree with. Those are, the elimination of “dual tracking” of foreclosures (I witnessed this firsthand with homeowners who THOUGHT they were in the process of applying for a mod ALL THE WHILE the mechanisms for FC were actually systematically being put in place against them BY THE SAME LENDER who claimed to the borrower that they were collecting documents for a prospective loan mod). This practice was just ba-a-a-a-d and totally dishonest/duplicit (on the part of the lenders on so many fronts) in putting these borrowers thru the wringer while giving them false hope that they may be able to “save” their home. The second provision I agree with is the “single point of contact” for a borrower who is applying for and sending in documents for a loan modification (or in foreclosure). During the downturn, I worked with a handful of borrowers who were (mostly) submitting documents (as requested by the lender) for a mod but who got a different person EVERY TIME they called the same Big Banks’ loss mitigation or “collections” department. That person clearly had no idea what the last person they talked to told them to submit and denied receiving ANY of the documents they had already submitted (upon the bank’s request). It turned out to be a complete clusterfvck which these delinquent borrowers ended up navigating only to discover that it was a no-win proposition for them offering little incentive to continue to cooperate with the lenders’ demands.
It’s now “showtime” for many of these longtime “beleaguered” CA homeowners and it appears to me from the listings I actually recently viewed that a good portion of them DID spend some of their cashed-out equity on home improvements, but, to this day, cannot yet recover enough from sale to pay off their current encumbrances. In other words, they’re still “underwater” at this late date.
Aside from being located more than 20 miles from high-paying white-collar jobs and in “older” areas, there is really nothing wrong with the above SD County zip codes. IMO, it’s a dirty shame that these pockets haven’t fully recovered in value by now. This problem is keeping many well-above-water and even free-and-clear owners from listing in this market due to having to compete with current listings with (approved or non-approved) artifically-low asking prices. I personally KNOW free-and-clear owners who have recently chosen to RENT OUT rather than compete with artificially-low listing prices (“wishful” owners of SS listings) in this market.
