- This topic has 29 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 2 months ago by Bugs.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 31, 2006 at 11:42 AM #7052July 31, 2006 at 11:51 AM #30172BugsParticipant
Within this particular 4-year span a 4% spread (among those reported) doesn’t seem significant. Since you have the search mode wired, what was it back in 1998 and 1999?
July 31, 2006 at 12:13 PM #30178sdrealtorParticipantGreat question Bugs and the answer shocked me. In both 1998 and 1999 the search for homes listed as occupant=vacant was approximately 24%.
Thus, the truth is that we are pretty much running at close to the historical average of recent note.
July 31, 2006 at 12:55 PM #30192CAwiremanParticipantTo sdrealtor, not meaning to make extra work for you. But can you tally this % throughout the prior 2 full realestate cycles as well as the one that is currently cresting and falling downward?
If its too much to do, I’d completely understand. But, it would be fascinating if the data were available.
This kind of info would be great to contrast against the income/home price graphs that Rich has posted.
July 31, 2006 at 12:57 PM #30195sdrealtorParticipantUnfortunately the MLS data only goes back to around 1996. I wouldnt know where to begin to find this data if it was even available.
July 31, 2006 at 1:45 PM #30204lindismithParticipantsdrealtor, can you run the years between ’98 and ’03?
thanks!
July 31, 2006 at 5:00 PM #30237sdrealtorParticipantlindismith,
98 and 99 were about 24%. I’ll run the rest but it might take a few days. Mom’s not feeling good and I had to bring her to my house for a few days of TLC.July 31, 2006 at 7:57 PM #30254powaysellerParticipantVery interesting. We know that 30% of homes bought in the last few years were for investment purposes. Are none of them on the market yet?
July 31, 2006 at 8:15 PM #30262sdrealtorParticipantPS,
Lots of them are on the market as they have always been. SD is unique from many places in that you could always find a nice Single Family home for rent on just about any street. Where I grew up, single family homes for rent were virtually non existent.How many rental houses are there where you grew up?
July 31, 2006 at 10:01 PM #30286lindismithParticipantSo it looks like this:
1998 24%
1999 24%
2000 ?
2001 ?
2002 ?
2003 19%
2004 21%
2005 24%
2006 23%hmmm, nothing really conclusive. Would love to know what 2000-03 look like. I suspect the data’s incomplete though.
Even 06 looks suspect….
August 1, 2006 at 4:31 AM #30306powaysellerParticipantI have been writing that 30% of all listings are vacant. That includes attached homes and condos. Your search was only for SFH?
Can you check vacant status for ALL listings: condo, attached, and detached, and compare the base year, 1998, to 2006?
To answer your question, I don’t know how many houses were rentals where I grew up.
August 1, 2006 at 11:18 AM #30338sdrealtorParticipantHere are all the numbers and yes they are for SFH.
1998 24%
1999 24%
2000 22%
2001 21%
2002 18%
2003 19%
2004 21%
2005 24%
2006 23%I ran the numbers for both and the numbers were 1 or 2% higher each year through 2003. In 2004, the numbers jumped to 24%, then to 29% in 2005 and 28% in 2006 so far.
I would hypothesize this is due to 2 factors. The first is the addition of developers new construction into the MLS which didnt really start until 2005 (i.e. they didnt need us before then to sell their product). The second and likely much more significant factor is investors/flippers. With appreciation gone, recent investors are getting out as they are not covering costs in contrast to long time investors that have positive cash flow. Also, the flippers hit the condo market much harder than SFH because it was cheaper to buy and easier to care for. I guess this is yet another reason that Condos will get hit harder.
August 1, 2006 at 12:17 PM #30348docteurParticipantSDRealtor – Great data. Just the facts, Mam. Thanks!
August 1, 2006 at 12:29 PM #30350sdrealtorParticipantYour welcome. Sometimes the voice of reason has to step in to bust a bubble;)
August 1, 2006 at 12:40 PM #30354powaysellerParticipantThe vacancies are higher in condos, then.
As far as the SFH, it’s one thing to have your home vacant when its value is appreciating 10-20% annually, and quite another when it is losing value. I don’t know what the impact is though.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.