average home appreciation rate bay area
It’s Search Engine Thursday!
Recently someone visited this site by searching for: average home appreciation rate bay area
Wow… that’s a pretty good question. Unfortunately, it’s not clear whether the intent is to learn more about the past or the future.
Looking at the past, it’s pretty clear…
Real Estate prices nearly double every 10 years. It makes sense because every 10 years, something comes along and makes everyone incredibly rich – Google, Apple, etc. And, desirability continues to soar. Have you seen how many frozen yogurt places have opened up lately? Desirable!
And, of course, as we all know – anyone who bought a house in 1978 for $100,000 in the Valley is likely sitting on a $1.5 million dollar gold mine.
Now… the future? That’s a bit tricky. Personally I think there should be a 15% Year Over Year appreciation – it makes sense after all. They’re not building more land (except in places where they are.) The Bay Area is becoming more desirable (except for the rotting schools and roads.) The citizens only continue to be smarter and smarter. And the weather will only get warmer (thanks global warming!)
But that’s long term. We may need to deal with sub-optimal 5%-10% year over year appreciation in the meantime.
February 4th, 2010 at 8:46 am
burbed, there’s something wrong with that Zillow graph. Our very own self-proclaimed Oracle of RBA said real estate hit bottom a year ago, yet the data says there’s been another 6.4% drop since then!
February 4th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
May be you should have added another one to the list of strengths:
They are very affordable for smarter citizens (except using FHA 0-3.5% down payment requirement)
February 4th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
burbed, there’s something wrong with that Zillow graph.
—–
Of course the graph is wrong. As the Oracle of RBA once said: “price is only one measure, subject to the mix of properties sold under a low volume climate”. If you check “pulse of the market”, you will realize that market is pretty strong and home value started going up again. But again, you guys are amateurs, incapable of checking pulse of the market. So I am giving you a some thumb rules -
Rule 1: If price goes up, it means market is getting better.
Rule 2: If price goes down, it is due to “mix of properties”.
February 4th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
This shouldn’t be a surprise. All housing crashes tend to start with the lower end and finish out in the upper end- in the case of palo Alto- the extreme upper end of the market.
February 4th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Whatever happened to WillowGlenner? I want to know how that piece of crap neighborhood is doing. Maybe it’s dropped enough for me to go in and pick over a few carcasses. LOL
February 4th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
For what it’s worth, here are some stats from Alain Pinel:
- 26 Palo Alto homes closed escrow in December 2009, an increase of 18% over December 2008.
- There were 29 pending sales in December 2009, an increase of 163% over December 2008.
- Inventory was down to 48 active listings, a decrease of 36.8% from December 2008.
- Days of inventory dropped from 133 in December 2008 to 55 in December 2009.
- Open houses are busy. The buyers are out there!
February 4th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
That’s because sellers have wised up and lowered their prices.
February 5th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
And the government stepped in to lower interest rates.
February 5th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
- 26 Palo Alto homes closed escrow in December 2009, an increase of 18% over December 2008.
—–
Wow! That would an increase of 4 (from 22 to 26), right? Party time for Palo Alto! Now, let’s check how this number 4 fares in overall trend. Let’s check November stat. 2008 sale: 89, 2009 sale 80. So, in one month 9 less and in next month 4 more. That’s damn positive thing to brag about!
February 5th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
- Inventory was down to 48 active listings, a decrease of 36.8% from December 2008.
—–
Really? I thought inventory is an useless data and you should be talking about “velocity of buyable inventory”.
Let’s compare the “velocity of buyable inventory” between 2009 December and 2008 December.
February 5th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
- Open houses are busy. The buyers are out there!
—–
Could to divert some of the Palo Alto open house crowd to 973 Harney Way of “fully recovered” neighborhood? It seems this “fully recovered” property is not getting open house visitors even after price reduction.
February 5th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
The owners of Harney are certainly tenacious. 7 months on the market and only a $50k price reduction. If they priced it to “only” get their god-given 2x appreciation in 10 years ($1.1M) they’d have a decent chance of selling it. Asking $1.3M is not realistic at all.
February 6th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Pralay says,
>>Really? I thought inventory is an useless data and you should be talking about “velocity of buyable inventory”.
When inventory is low, buyable inventory is even lower. Sometimes it’s non-existent in Palo Alto.
February 6th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Palo Alto property for under $60k.
February 7th, 2010 at 7:15 am
When inventory is low, buyable inventory is even lower. Sometimes it’s non-existent in Palo Alto.
—-
Did stats from Alain Pinel said this too? How much lower? 36.8%?
February 7th, 2010 at 9:19 am
Why do you need Alain Pinel to tell you this? Why don’t you just look up the current listings in PA and tell us how many are “buyable” to you?
It’s very easy to settle the inventory debate. How about you show us 5 homes in Palo Alto that are buyable to you?
Guys,
Watch him try to get out of this one. I’d be willing to bet some Super Bowl money that he can’t back up his side of the argument.
February 7th, 2010 at 9:47 am
Real estate is always local
February 7th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Why do you need Alain Pinel to tell you this?
—–
Well, I did not need Alain Pinel. It’s YOU who quoted inventory stats from Alain Pinel. Let me put it this way:
Position 1: In past you declared that inventory itself is useless data (or couse it would be useless data, because inventory was high that time, right?).
Position 2: Then post#6 of this thread, you mention 36.8%
uselessinventory drop to show improvement of the market. No mention of “velocity of buyable inventory”.Position 3: Then in post#13, you declare “when inventory is low, buyable inventory is even lower”. That means inventory is not exactly useless data. So, your new position make your initial Position 1 invalid, right?
Hypocritical or dishonesty? I guess both.
February 7th, 2010 at 11:52 am
> Hypocritical or dishonesty? I guess both.
Touché.
February 7th, 2010 at 11:53 am
Pralay,
Before I allow you to troll more, show us 5 properties in Palo Alto you consider as buyable to you. If you can’t, then we can only assume buyable inventory is 0 from your perspective.
February 7th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Before I allow you to troll more…
—–
You are allowing? Who are you? Burbed?
February 7th, 2010 at 11:59 am
“Hypocritical or dishonesty? I guess both.”
Neither – its idiocy.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Looks like Pralay needs very basic things explained to him.
- Inventory by itself is useless data. Check.
- The velocity of buyable inventory is what matters. Check.
- Buyable inventory is a subset of overall inventory. Check.
- When inventory has dropped, buyable inventory is even lower.
Which part of the basic logic is the dumb renter not understanding?
February 7th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
, show us 5 properties in Palo Alto you consider as buyable to you. If you can’t, then we can only assume buyable inventory is 0 from your perspective.
—-
So Typical of you! When you cannot make logical argument, the best option for you to invent new argument which you think you can win. Let’s play RealEstater’s game for once. Before that we need to be clear about what exactly he is trying to say. In past he talked about valocity of buyable inventory. Then in #6 he mentions only
velocity of buyableinventory (from Alain Pinel). And now, he talks aboutvelocity ofbuyable inventory. What is useless, RealEstater?- inventory?
- buyable inventory?
- velocity of buyable inventory?
February 7th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Where are the buyable houses Pralay?
I will even pay you a finders fee to find those mystical houses. As you know, I’ve been shopping for over a year and still couldn’t find something.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Pralay says,
>>What is useless, RealEstater?
Apparently, it’s your brain. I can explain things to you, but ultimately your brain needs to process it.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
- When inventory has dropped, buyable inventory is even lower.
Correction: if inventory is I and Buyable inventory is BI, then BI <= I.
I thought RealEstater claims he is an average tech guy!
February 7th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
- Buyable inventory is a subset of overall inventory. Check.
—-
Hmmmm. That does not sound right. When Alain Pinel says inventory dropped 36.8% it automatically means buyable inventory dropped. But when inventory goes up, it does NOT mean buyable inventory going up.
(Although RealEstater is clueless in both cases).
February 7th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
- Inventory by itself is useless data. Check.
- The velocity of buyable inventory is what matters. Check.
—–
So, please please give us a comparison of “velocity of buyable inventory” between December 2008 and December 2009. We don’t want to hear all the “clamor around inventory” [drop] from Alain Pinel.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
I have a better idea. Let’s invent a new term called RealEstater’s RBA Inventory (RRI).
- When inventory drops, RRI = inventory
- When inventory of neighbor (non-RBA) city drops, RRI = inventory of neighbor city
- When inventory goes up, RRI = buyable inventory (of course without any quantification)
February 7th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
All,
When Pralay switches to loser mode, we know the case is closed.
He is unable to come up with even 5 buyable properties. What is there more to argue about?
February 7th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Yes, FakeEstater it’s too obvious that you have won the argument. An adolescent always win argument (and toys).
(Velocity of sarcastic inventory = 100)
February 7th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Where are the buyable houses Pralay?
—-
Define “buyable”. I thought you are an average tech guy (and not an Alain Pinel realtor). A tech guy should be know that you must define the term before applying it.
Currently there are 86 SFH in market in Palo Alto. Please tell us how many of them are not “buyable”.
February 7th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
As you know, I’ve been shopping for over a year and still couldn’t find something.
—–
With that kind of extraordinary accuracy (whatever that means) you are trying to achieve, I am pretty sure you never going to hit your “sweet spot”. Even if you find one, you will be overbid by fictitious 8 cash offers over $1M (that Clara St property sold below $1M, btw).
Considering the fact that January 2009 was the bottom in RBA, you simply don’t have any chance to find “sweet spot”. You should consider “sweat spot” now.
February 7th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Regarding #17: Real estate is always local
—–
Yes, we understand that the title of the SJMN article “In Santa Clara County, sales of luxury homes down in 2009″ is very inconvenient. Posting only the table was definitely clever choice.
February 7th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Good news!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704829704575049111428912890.html?mod=WSJ_HomeAndGarden_sections_RealEstate
February 7th, 2010 at 10:47 pm
- Buyable inventory is a subset of overall inventory. Check.
- When inventory has dropped, buyable inventory is even lower.
Which part of the basic logic is the dumb renter not understanding?
Faux Estater, your logic sucks. Just like your mom.
Assuming buyable inventory is a subset of overall inventory (whatever the fvck this means),
it can still remain stable or go up even if overall inventory drops. Why, you ask?
That’s cuz if the remaining components of overall inventory accounts for (or exceeds) the entire decrease.
Anyway, thank you for your interesting consult. Now pay me $5.