Sunday, May 4, 2008

MB Market Update for 4/30/08, Sand

This is the second installment of our MB Market Update for April 30, 2008. You can download the complete 4/30/08 update by clicking here, or at any time by using the link at the upper-right corner of the main MBC page.

Sand Section

There were 40 active SFRs in the Sand Section as of April 30.

You'll recall that we provided a chart at mid-month when inventory hit 35, showing what a substantial increase this was over any inventory figures for all of 2007. (See the Sand Section update for 4/15/08.) So we're now 5 higher than that, more than double the very low level at this time last year.

This was partly the result of 6 new listings in the second half of April, plus one (444 33rd Pl) that began 4/14 but didn't get into the last spreadsheet, and one return (225 39th) that is news further below:

  • 429 29th St. added to our sense that half of the Grandview plateau will turn over in 2008 – so many listings there this year. This old-time cottage with an addition offers 3br/2ba and 1350 sq. ft. It's very charming, clean and well-kept, even offers a little yard, but whoa, you are not going to dig the "master bathroom." It's a closet-sized bath with fixtures at least 30 years old that is downstairs from the actual master bedroom. And it's the hallway bath you'll share with company. A huge compromise to make for $1.579m ($1170/PSF).
  • 2211 Highland (3br/3ba, 1950 sq. ft.) swept in and switfly defied the odds for a Highland property, going into escrow almost immediately at $1.399m. But that didn't take, and it's back.
  • 401 3rd is being called a Gothic Castle by one MBC-reading couple who toured it, and that aptly captures the different style and decor. It's brighter than that label suggests, though – nicely designed to draw in light from tall windows and strategically placed skylights. Don't forget the roofdeck, a nice bonus on top of the 4br/4ba and 3450 sq. ft. Now, who will solve the mystery of the 2 bedrooms blocked off from public access during debut weekend? Please don't tell us they're done up in dungeon decor. Starts at $2.685m.
  • 452 32nd is a vast (6br/5ba, 4500 sq. ft.), yet plain-vanilla new home. We frankly don't get the "French Country" tag the builders have applied to it. Location on 32nd is frowned upon by some because of its proximity to Sand Dune Park (right at the top of the dune). This one was offered pre-completion last year for $3.199m, but starts now at $2.999m.
  • Just a few blocks away from each other, 221 31st and 221 34th (pictured) hit the market at the same time and both at price of, essentially, $5.4m.
The 31st St. home is 6 years old and was purchased for much less than half the current list price ($2.175m on the last day of 2002).

The 34th St. home is a new, ultra-contemporary showpiece, stunning, cool, clean, and featuring world-class ocean, PV & pier views. Did you get the sense that we were impressed?


Now, if you're ready for a bit of a shock, despite the growing inventory in the Sand, there were no new sales in this 2-week period. (As we noted, 2211 Highland went and came in this period; it's active now.) However, plenty of sellers tried to make the big move by cutting back a bit:

  • As price cuts go, the one at 225 39th (pictured) was striking and newsworthy. The home recently went into default for the 2nd time in a year with 2 different owners. The listing canceled in late March at $1.525m, already down $70k from the price paid by would-be flippers who "rescued" an owner in foreclosure with their purchase in June 2007.
Suddenly 225 39th came back with a new (out-of-area) agent on April 17 at $1.1m. Really, $1.1m? (See "Failed Flip is Back, Short.") Turns out, it's set up as a possible short sale while the loans are in default and the threat of auction approaches. The agent stopped speaking to us when we asked if the lender had already approved a short sale. Since the answer wasn't "yes," we'll guess it's "no."
  • 317 17th was purchased for $2.050m in Nov. 2006, about 30 minutes ago in local real estate time. It started much too high at $2.799m and has now cut to $2.599m after 4+ months of failing to draw interest. And yet, that's still +$549k/+27%. Something to consider if you're interested in the property: apparently they don't deliver newspapers to this address.
  • 445 30th is a pretty sweet and spacious Spanish, an older home with some additions and nice updates. For more space and a yard, you can rent part of the neighboring lot, owned by the same folks. This one initially struck us as a better deal at $1.999m (its start price) than 3200 Alma (see our story and abortive pricing poll on 3200 Alma), a home that was 1100 sq. ft. smaller and priced at $1.899m. Now 30th is down below Alma at $1.825m.
  • 437 1st is extra-active for a new listing, making its second cut already in less than a month. The listing now crows that "the owner must sell this beach home," which helps explain the moves. It's now at $1.650m (-$90k/-5%).
Two facts matter. First, the same home was purchased privately last year for $1.450m before a quick remodel. That's the start for a fair gauge of its current value.

Second, this one has the same br/ba/sq. ft./lot size as long-stuck, nearby 505 3rd, which has sat around pointlessly for most of the past year, as high as $1.949m and now at $1.899m. (See "What's Right for 505 3rd?")

Now 1st is showing that 3rd is not worth much more than the $1.6m those owners paid in Sept. 2005, if it's worth that anymore. Thanks a lot, neighbor.
We'll also remember this period as the time when 4419 Highland moved from an overpriced new home to a would-be rental to offering a lease-purchase option. Give them credit for trying everything now, just about.

There were 4 closed sales in this period, including one lot sale – 3216 Alma at $1.561m, and another possible lot sale on a walkstreet west of Highland – 228 31st, which went for $2.1m after about 2 months' worth of quick cuts from its $2.599m start price.

46 comments:

Anonymous said...

More inventory, more price cuts, fewer sales. Pretty simple trend huh?

...but I'm sure, as the bulls will soon post, that all of MBC's data is incorrect, manipulated or otherwise a huge conspiracy to out those who foolishly chased one of the most talked about real estate run ups in history.

Good day.

Anonymous said...

So either all the bears on this blog were at the open houses this weekend or interest has picked up.

I guess you call that window shopping for those that can't afford to buy...

Several of the 2.5 ++ are all in escrow. What happens when the spec builder inventory runs out?

Anonymous said...

4:34- You're right I foolishly chased it from 1997 buying several properties over the last 10 years and selling the last one last month.

I'm a fool.

Good day.

Anonymous said...

MBWatcher - We are still missing part 2 of the Great Streets article for the Strand. I like that part of the blog.

2nd issue - 221 34th is a cool location, but the home is WAY to contemporary for most folks tastes. I predict it will sell for 5mil in a month or two. Maybe not, but I'm thinking it.

Anonymous said...

Hey Professor Perfect (aka 4:54)
97 was pre-run up. Run up was 02 - 07, larger percentage run up than ANYTHING EVER IN THE HISTORY OF MB REAL ESTATE...but I'm sure you knew that. And if you're selling (that is if you even own one home around here) I ask why o'perma bull...if MB real estate is such a sure thing why no just let it ride!!!
Let me answer that for you...BECASUE THIS WAS THE LARGEST PERCENTAGE RUN UP IN THE HISTORY OF THIS CITY and you, oh wise one of the money belt, are cashing in your chips while you still have some left...because the last thing you want to be at the dinner party is the guy who had to sell for a loss!

In celebration of 5 de Mayo, VIVA LA REVELUCION!

wez said...

401 3rd would be Romanesque (round-topped arches)

Anonymous said...

Point #3 about 437 1st Street...

You can rent it today for $7495 a month.

I'd hate to rent it, then get kicked out a month or so later.

Anonymous said...

4:55 I'm uncomfortable saying something about someone else's house, but since 221 34th is empty and no one has bought it yet, I have to agree with you There's something about that house that misses for 5.4 We like modern houses, but we just didn't love it and really wanted too. Even the master bath underwhelmed us. The funky second floor office isn't really functional. I'm going to predict
4.8 Sorry if I offended anyone.

Anonymous said...

I'm going to predict even less for the modern at 224 34th street. The craftsmanship is very well done, but there are points against it for being so super modern that it will out dated in a few years.

Also - the most important point deduction is due to the lack of a balcony in the living room area.

It feels like you are in a Las Vegas hotel, and you aren't offered the freedom of opening the windows in case you want to jump.
It felt claustrophobic, and not beachy at all.

I predict less than 4.5mm

Anonymous said...

How angry is 5:34pm? Wow, senior. Chill. While I understand your frustration of missing out on the market, there is no reason to take it out on someone else.

Anonymous said...

6:25 You noted the biggest sin which is the lack of the living room balcony. As I remember, the only balcony was off the back. I don't disagree with 4.5 Also, funny line about Vegas.

Anonymous said...

Re 401 3rd - They actually had the rooms and master bath closed off and locked during a private showing. I'm assuming they did the same for the open house. Once again, they expect somebody to buy the house without opening the rooms to look? Not for 2,700,000!!!!

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I meant master bedroom closet was locked, in addition to two rooms.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 4:51 posted -

Several of the 2.5 ++ are all in escrow. What happens when the spec builder inventory runs out?


What the heck does "Several" of the 2.5 ++ are "all" in escrow mean? Care to share which of those "several" you are referring, or is that a secret?

As for the spec builder inventory running out? We have plenty of homes all over MB that have been on the market for longer than 100 days. Unless they lower their price, that inventory isn't going anywhere anytime soon. As a spec builder with investors, carrying a hefty construction loan, you'd think they'd lower their price, but it appears they don't need to and expect some sucker from out of town to walk in any minute.

Anonymous said...

5:34- Oh yeah wise one... Sorry you missed the run-up. From what I can ascertain from my sales, the average increase was about 45% from 97-2001 (would hardly call that appreciation pre run-up, but then again you seem to know all), then about 40% from 2001-2003, then another 30% from 2003-2008. Trouble is from 2003-early 2006, there was about 38% appreciation, and a negative 5% from 2006 to 2008. Still, not too bad. Once again, sorry you missed it and you are so bitter about it. When did I ever say I am a bull. Get a life and drink more margs so you can make some sense.

Anonymous said...

7:57pm - Although I am not 4:51pm, I understand his point. I have a feeling your comprehension of how a business works might be a bit lacking. If I built (ps, I am not a builder, just a good businessman) 5 homes and took a good profit on 4, I can take a loss on the 5th one (or at least wait it out with my reserves). It isn't that hard to figure out. Also, with respect to spec homes going, he is right. Look at the homes sitting. They are fundamentally flawed. Location, layout, quality (and some over priced...I'll give you that). But more often than not, the good homes go. With no "new" inventory, it should get interesting.

Anonymous said...

5/5/08 7:57 PM

As you wish...
New construction All pending
2701 Palm 2.749
652 26th Street 2.7
1813 Pine - 2.7
668 33rd - 2.859
Farmhouse - in escrow near 2.7

mookie said...

I always have to laugh when people on this site say the good stuff always sells quickly and the bad stuff sits. Sure, there is certainly some visible crap out there, but who is on the Board of Directors that determines what is good and what isn't. If Bill Clinton was in this town, he'd say It's the price, stupid. Every home has a price it can sell at, whether the board of directors says it's good or bad. I think the Board signed off on many of the homes for sale in Manhattan Beach and called them good. What the pricing committee didn't sign off on is where these homes are priced.

7:57 is correct. There are plenty of homes in MB that have been listed for 100+ days. While some may argue that 100 days was normal back in the day, it sure isn't too normal in this decade. 3305 Laurel has been on the market for over 300 days. Good house, bad house, I don't know. I haven't seen it and I'm not on the Good house/Bad house Board. What I do know is nobody is sniffing this house and it's overpriced. Even after reducing by almost $500k it won't sell for the current list. 939 Duncan has been on for 220 days. Nobody is touching it at this price and I actually heard the Board signed off on this one and said it was a good house. It's overpriced. It won't sell for list. 224 31st has been on for 250+ days and sits. Overpriced, plain and simple. I heard the Board gave two thumbs up on this one.

Sellers, here is some words of advice for you. Before you list your home, make sure you approach the Board of Directors and get their sign off that states your house is one of the good ones. After you get that, wise up and price it appropriately, that's when you'll sell your house. As for you sellers who haven't gotten the Board's seal of approval, not to worry. You too can sell your house if you pull your head out of your a.. and price it in May 2008 terms, not May 2006.

As for inventory 8:03... Have you driven around MB lately? On my block where I rent there are two homes going up as I write this. Neither are tear downs by owner. They are both spec. Get on your bike and cruise around the tree section and you'll see that there is plenty of inventory coming to a theatre near you soon. Go to the sand and you'll see plenty of the same. Sorry, this bear market is here to stay.

Anonymous said...

Mookie, you are 100% right. BTW, apparently Huggy lost his teeth today on showing. So everybody, keep your eyes open for pair of very large dentures.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Mookie. Perhaps you can augment your post with some technical analysis of the data. I understand that there is a support level at 100 days. What an idiot comment that was. And then to watch you try to backpeddle your way out of it with the old "Couldn't you tell I was kidding?" line. Of course, I am referring to the "Climb, climb" exchange a few days ago. Priceless.

Anonymous said...

some funny exchanges on this post -- I particularly like the bears know nothing bulls know everything exchange. True -- senior de mayo may have had a shot or two before his post but he basically still makes some sense.

I in the camp that believes a home will move (quickly even) if it's priced well. I've seen plenty of places get snapped up in the past couple of years...one is even a new neighbor...the place was tight, fairly priced and went in the first two weeks on market.

Sounds pretty simple.

I think what's keeping buyers on the sidelines are (obviously all the negative headlines) but these monthly reports that show sales for 200, 300, 600k less than asking! A bottom is obviously not in, and that's what is clearly making people skeptical.

Anonymous said...

But there is support at 600k according to the 200-day and 50-day moving average convergence, right Mookie?

bondinvestor said...

i'm pretty sure that 317 17th is a speculative flip. we took a look at it when it was on the market 18 months ago. the sellers were cashing out and moving to Reno, and not in a mood to hold out for the best price in what at the time appeared to be a softening market. (others were nervous at that time as well. there's a reason matt morris has very little inventory hitting the market now, folks.)

anyway, we passed on the house. didn't like the back apartment, or the little person's room up in the loft.

the listing agent later told us that the house was bought by a real estate investor from AZ. we ended up buying a house nearby and often walk by it on the way to the beach. in 18 months i don't think i've seen any sign of life in the house. was surprised to see it back on the market so soon, though. i figured the buyer would wait the obligatory 2 years before putting it back on the market.

this is one where it might pay to check out if there are any liens on the property before making an offer.

Anonymous said...

MBW -- a suggestion for a new poll:

Mookie: heretic or genius?

And the follow-up.

Huggy: angry or angriest?

Anonymous said...

In complementing MBW's valiant efforts, we now have access to DataQuick's entire 20+ year history of MB specific data.

This data, which MBW mentioned recently, is quite striking -- graphs and data to be put up per MBW.

Taking the long view, this 243 months worth of data (more than is readily available on the MLS), encompassing over 20 years of data, from Jan 1988 to March 2008, suggests that there are a mean of 56 homes sold in MB per month taking all comers over this 243 month history.

From 10/07 to 3/08, (since the effects of the credit crunch began to be felt) the mean number of sales per month is just under 22 (61% below the mean trend), which has NOT occurred anywhere in the entire 20+ year history that this data set encompasses. Four of these most recent six months have lower sales than any other months in the 20+ year history of this data set.

It is really dramatic to see this in graphical form -- and provides new meaning to the phrase "sales cliff diving" in a MB specific sense. The current credit crunch is having an effect in crimping sales which has not been seen in MB in 20+ years -- you may want to read that again, it's a fact worth mulling over. The implications of this dramatic drop in sales has not escaped our attention.

Much more to come, as MBW explores this dataset further and we supplement his efforts.

Anonymous said...

10:37pm - Maybe I am stating the obvious but: Duhhh. Did it really take a graph for you to figure out what a tightening credit market does to the number of homes sold in a month?

That being said, what would be interesting is to include the number of homes on the market on the same graph. Homes for sale is independent of a credit crunch for the most part (one can argue, however, that a seller might not put a home on the market DUE to the credit crunch, but that is unlikely).

Anonymous said...

5:34- You are forgetting the run-up from 86-90. Very similar from what I remember. But maybe you are too young to even know about that.

http://www.rntl.net/history_of_a_housing_bubble.htm

Anonymous said...

6:02:

This dataset provides a much needed historic perspective in comparing what is going on now with what happened in the past.

Mark Twain: The past does not repeat itself, but it rhymes!

As such this is a trove of information which will yield many comparative insights about what rhymes, and how closely the meter of the poetry of the past has been and is being followed; and indeed, how it is different.

We all know what the credit crunch has done to the sales volume; its dropped. What the whole dataset points out is just how badly it has dropped, relative to the norm established over 20+ years. Without this dataset, it would be difficult to make such definitive statement.

On balance, we hope to provide the undergirding of historic data to establish the context within which the current changes are occurring.

Anonymous said...

9:17am - you are missing the point. you need something to compare it to. if the number of closes drops and stays at 3, is that dramatic? what if the number of homes for sale drops to 12? would it still be dramatic? i am not saying that is the case, but i am saying that a reference point is equally important.

it sort of reminds me of a mayor that said that crime is increasing, while the police chief said it was decreasing. both were right. crime was increasing at a decreasing rate.

Anonymous said...

10:05 A twenty year data set should provide a wide enough sample for comparative analysis. Especially since it has the tail end of the last run-up and the entirety of the last downturn.

Anonymous said...

a comparison to what??? time frames? no. you need another variable in there when you have even remotely-dependent variables! geez.

ok, sidebar...my "word verification" just now was "irent". that is f'ing hilarious. too bad it didn't happen to someone else!

alan ventures said...

I am looking for the home owner wants to sell but might be hesitating with the current market.

We are looking for:
- South MB / Sand (could be lower Hill or Martyrs)
- Price range is up to $2M, less is better ;-)
- 3 bedrooms (best is a 4th or bonus). Could be as small as 1900 sq ft but best is ~2500+ sqft.

Out target: older non-walk street but well maintained - or easily remodeled OR perhaps newer half lot.

A direct deal can be good for both of us & We will put $1M+ down so mortg won’t create a closing issue.

Our email is alanventures@gmail.com all in confidence.

Anonymous said...

10:47

What are you getting at? You are acting like this data is somehow incomplete or invalid. We are not trying to find a dependant variable which correlates to the lower volume (i.e. causality). The data simply illustrates that over a period of twenty years, this is the period of lowest sales volume in Manhattan Beach AND additionally it is a period of year-over-year declines in sales (so your mayor and police chief are in complete agreement in this case). Who cares what causes the decline? If you really want to run a multi-variable regression with things like GDP growth, employment, and interest rates, go ahead and knock yourself out. Evidence point to the fact that these two SoCal downturns were the result of two very different problem (employment in 1990 and credit today), so it would likely provide inconclusive results. But go ahead an run the regression and tell me what happened.

Anonymous said...

2:36pm, I ran the regression. The conclusion was that your rent is past due.

I believe his point was that a drop in sales is not news-worthy in and of itself. He said fairly clearly that homes for sale during the period is a good comparison. A widening of that spread compared to historical periods would be interesting.

Anonymous said...

2:51

It is a drop in sales AND the lowest total number of sales in twenty years that make it news worthy. You should read the original post more closely. Also, that was presumptive of you my friend, as I OWN in MB, so I am not necessarily excited about the decline. If I want to trade up, I'm going to have to take a hit in value on my current home. Thankfully I bought six years ago, so I can absorb more downside. Still, I'm not going to cheerlead for one side or the other. Despite your wishful thinking, calling everyone who believes that the housing market is declining a 'renter' or 'COTC,' will neither invalidate their statements nor prop up the market. All it does it make you look bad.

Anonymous said...

10:05, please re-read what was stated above:

"Taking the long view, this 243 months worth of data (more than is readily available on the MLS), encompassing over 20 years of data, from Jan 1988 to March 2008, suggests that there are a mean of 56 homes sold in MB per month taking all comers over this 243 month history.

From 10/07 to 3/08, (since the effects of the credit crunch began to be felt) the mean number of sales per month is just under 22 (61% below the mean trend), which has NOT occurred anywhere in the entire 20+ year history that this data set encompasses. Four of these most recent six months have lower sales than any other months in the 20+ year history of this data set."

I'm not sure what the confusion is exactly. But here is another was to think about it.

We have 243 months of closed sales data. Add up all the sales in each month and divide by 243 = 55.53 sales per month, the "mean".

More intriguing, the standard deviation (a standard measure of variance) is 16.81 sales.

With a mean of 55.53 sales over the last 243 months and a drop in sales volume down to 21.67 sales per month for the six months 10/07 to 03/08, that is a drop from the mean of over two standard deviations and thus outside the 95th percentile confidence interval.

Without going on to the details of the central limit theorem and probability density functions... what this all means is that this drop is VERY SIGNIFICANT, relative to the mean of this LARGE dataset. What's more, it has never happened before, in the entire 243 month history of this dataset.

Statistics refresher anyone?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

http://www.stats4students.com/Essentials/Measures-Of-Spread/Overview_3.php

Waiting to Buy said...

4:47 PM:

Many thanks for helping MBW put together this data. I've been hoping that someone would compile it. To the extent that anyone can find inventory data with a history that robust, it'd be great to see too!

2:51 PM said:

I believe his point was that a drop in sales is not news-worthy in and of itself.

Yes, I think that was his point. But I disagree. Sales volume dropping to such a low level is news-worthy. No, it isn't the only data point out there, but it's not insignificant. On the contrary, I think it's quite significant.

2:51 PM also said:

2:36pm, I ran the regression. The conclusion was that your rent is past due.

That's funny. C'mon 2:36 PM, that was funny. It might have been somewhat predictable, but it was funny nevertheless.

And hey, Old Man River - don't be upset. That's a funny name. Use it with pride. Own it.

Anonymous said...

Waiting to Buy, you've said some ridiculous things on this site, but tonight you've topped yourself. What you've written reads like an award ceremony at the Brownies. If you're married, you might to consider having your wife edit what you're posting.

JR said...

Angry v. II@8:20pm,

Thanks for the comment, you have successfully taken up the cause of your Master, Angry, by dialing up the bile. To what end do you and your ilk continue to hate? Real Estate, just like any other industry in the Capitalist or semi-Capitalist countries, is cyclical, get over it. Despite what some would like to believe, this is not an industry that can be talked up or talked down. Angry said it best, it is all about supply and demand, which are aggregate functions with numerous significant exogenous factors (in which local market sentiment plays only a de minimis role).

The reason the real estate market is cycling down is that there has been a shift down in the demand curve due to the decrease in the availability and access to loans, negatively affecting all borrowers good and bad; this shift is undeniable on both a macro and micro level.

Assuming 4:54 really did buy those properties, he should be serving as an example for all you big-money bulls. Stop fighting the fact that the market is going down and get ready to buy in 2009 and 2010 because we all know it's going to go back up again.

Anonymous said...

9:59 you are correct, I was only summoning my master. Now, thou shall yield...

Huggy our lord of MB real estate. Answer this mongrel...Huggerino, he's a real tough guy and we need your help.

Anonymous said...

Huggy, where are you? Answer this" Jr."

And the crowd began to slowly chant his name and it was their name...

...huggy, huggy...Huggy....HUGgy...HUGGY...HUGGY!

Anonymous said...

JR
you need to learn to not drink and post, because when you wake up, you still won't be able to afford any of the houses around here. Also, thanks for retelling your freshman year poly/sci lecture.

JR said...

Thanks for the hate, Angry Part Deux! At least Angry, the Original, would know how to abbreviate Political Science.

Anonymous said...

JR- 4:54 and 8:00 Here- Yes I did buy those properties, and yes I lost out on about $100k by closing this year rather than 2006. My home sold exactly what I had an appraisal for in summer 2004. So figure, my appraisal was slightly overstated, I believe certain areas and homes (old, tree section), are back to early 2005 levels. Did I luck out by closing? Can't say, although I did have 4 offers at that reduced level. I don't expect the market to turn around until 2011/2012 so no one is missing anything by not buying now. I compare this year to 1992, so we have a ways to go just not sure how far down.

wez said...

"Assuming 4:54 really did buy those properties, he should be serving as an example for all you big-money bulls."

4:54/8:03 also demonstrates the power of dollar cost averaging and the necessity of applying discipline in sticking to it despite instincts that tell you to do otherwise. Kudos to him/her.

Since you can't pick the absolute bottom until it's too late, you have to spread out your investments and take a lower average return (but sleep better at night).

Mookie imposter said...

I can pick the bottom using the Fibonacci .618 retracement of inventory!

 

© blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks