Tuesday’s Numbers

There were 339 new listings today and 176 sales, for a sell/list of 51.92%.  Of the sales 28,  or 15.91%, went over list.  14 of those were on the Westside. 5 were in East Van,  1 in Richmond, 2 in North Van, 3 in Burnaby and 3 in Surrey. 

Average list price of the sales was $559,738; average sales price was $545,794, a difference of $13,944, meaning the average sale went for 1.96% under list price. 18 properties went for list price. One property went for 16%($790,000) under list while the highest over list was 9% ($100,000) over .

There were 11million dollar plus properties sold, with  one over $2 million. Average days on market to sale was 37.

There were 114 price changes, of which 12, or 10.53%, were increases. The average original list price of price changes was $556,110; the average new price was $544,168, a difference of $11,941, meaning the average price change was -2.24%.  Average days on market to price change was 50 days.

Inventory in my target area rose  to 11,468, while over 90s rose  to 1,737, or 15.15%.

0.89% of all active listings in my target area had their prices reduced today.  The 14 day rolling sell/list was 63.21%.

Advertisements

35 Comments

Filed under Daily Numbers

35 responses to “Tuesday’s Numbers

  1. Paulb

    back on track

  2. jojuchst

    Rob, can you post the Monday’s detailed numbers please?

  3. Jim

    Paulb: Comparable to last years sell/list numbers, for May but with higher absolute inventory.

  4. jojuchst

    Comparing Y-O-Y for the first 6 days of May (that Rob has posted numbers) we have:

    List Sale Ratio OverList
    =============================
    2006: 1,570 1,164 74.14% 242
    2007: 1838 1289 70.13%

  5. Paulb

    I am starting to wonder what will be the catalyst that signals the change in the market….. It may take until next year unless listings pick up again and stay up.

  6. Pearl

    I have a quick question for the forum: Is there any reason to believe that over the long run apartments should appreciate faster than attached or detached homes?

    If you look at the five year changes in prices, apartments prices have increased the most rapidly, presumably because they are more affordable. But are the differences in appreciation justified? If not, then does this not suggest that apartments will suffer the worse returns going forward?

  7. robchipman

    Pearl:

    I think there’s some merit to your analysis, but the conclusion is still not certain. Here’s why I say that:

    If we suffer a price correction or collapse, apartments arguably have less value to lose before their numbers once again make sense. A $200,000 East Van apartment can rent for $750, meaning a rent multiple of 266. A South Burnaby house can sell for $620,000 but only rent for $1200 – a multiple of 516. In addition to other “price stickiness” characteristics, the apartment becomes increasingly feasible, investment wise, sooner than other properties.

    Another thing to consider is that while a rising tide floats all boats, a falling tide grounds the bigger boats first. Inflationary pressures on rent, heating and taxes will cause the lower end of the market to remain more affordable, in my opinion. If market re-trenchment occurs solely because of psychology then we’ll have lower prices without much economic pain (renters and FTBs will still have cash, and be faced with lower prices). I doubt we’ll see that. A retrenchment will come with other pain. Housing will remain relatively expensive. Affordable housing will still be in demand. There will be more luxury vacancies than bottom of the market vacancies.

    I think this is backed up by some history. Apartment and atached prices are generally less volatile than SFHs.

    Additionally, as purchasing power is diminished (a long term trend that we are all slaves to), it becomes safer to own a commodity or product that offers the consumer an economical alternative.

    So, you might be right, but you might be wrong. Since ’03 apartments have gone from about $200,000 to $375,000 (87.5%). Houses have gone from $400,000 to almost $800,000 (100%). Attached – $250,000 to $470,000 (88%).

  8. ängstlich

    So it seems that things this year are similar to last year, but with higher absolute inventory as Jim wrote. And a lot of people hoping for a downturn are hanging their hats on higher inventory. Does it really matter? If list/sale percentages are the same? If MOI is similar (or isn’t it?)?

  9. Domus

    Did we get any 50% sell/list ratio day last May?
    May is traditionally the peak of the buying season: people want to close before summer, so that they can move then and go for holidays.

    Usually sell-list ratios are pretty tight in May.

    Yesterday I was very surprised to see that number. It might be a freak of the season, but we should keep an eye open for the possibility that something is shifting underground.

    I wonder what the next few days have in store for us. If sell/list stays low, we might be having a structural change towards more balanced conditions (sellers out-numbering buyers). Where that leads us long term is anybody’s guess….you know what is my opinion though.

  10. Jim

    Sorry Domus. Check Rob’s old blog. Last year’s stats are stil there.

  11. Domus

    You mean that 50% sell/list was normal last May as well?

  12. Jim

    Domus read the stats last year before commenting.

  13. Anonymous

    Numbers by week for 2006

    May 7 – 58%
    May 14 – 58%
    May 21 – 87%
    May 28 – 101%

  14. Domus

    Provide link, you mighty Jim…….

  15. rockandhardplace

    After looking at last years numbers around this time, I would guess that this year is softer. Not a lot softer. However, it is softer. I was hoping for a serious softening. It may happen. It may not.

    As for condos as investments. There is a strong possiblity that newly built condos will go leaky in 8 to 10 years (according to the city inspector I spoke with). This of course is just an opnion.

  16. robchipman

    Domus:

    “May is traditionally the peak of the buying season: people want to close before summer, so that they can move then and go for holidays”.

    You’re treating a rule of thumb like a law. Spring and fall often have more sales that winter and summer, but not always. You can’t safely extrapolate.

    Here’s a quick look at last May:
    http://rireb.blogspot.com/2006_05_07_archive.html

  17. Jaymo

    Interesting Bloomberg article on regarding declining prices in New York’s most affluent ‘hoods. Most of California is still humming, though.

    http://tinyurl.com/yr8uus

  18. Snick

    I have seen a variety of price reductions and lower initial asking prices this year as opposed to last year.

    The market is NOT “booming” by any stretch.

  19. Snick

    …furthermore, perhaps the “similar” sales volumes right now are a RESULT of price declines taking place.

  20. Anonymous

    not compared to 2006, however days on market is still pretty low

  21. Domus

    Rob, thanks for the graph.

    I would guess we are still off the levels seen last year, wouldn’t you agree?

    I extrapolate at my risk, but May is traditionally a strong month: I did not have vancouver in mind specifically.

  22. robchipman

    The market is certainly different than last year. Last year was smoking hot. Now we’re just pretty hot.

    My point is simply that the idea that May is “traditionally” high buying time is true slightly more often than its not true. You’re right that you extrapolate at your own risk – the risk is that you get called on it! 😉

    Snick:

    I wouldn’t call this a booming market either, but its still pretty hot. Price reductions don’t seem that prevelant (again, looking at daily numbers, usually less than 1% of actives get prices reduced each day. We’ve seen higher rates).

  23. Domus

    Rob,

    price reductions seem to be quite prevalent based on your evening numbers…..we are having a 1.5% gap between asking and selling or am i reading your posts wrong?

  24. Domus

    Some news from our neighbors in Washington state. Whatever their bearing may be for us….

    http://www.thenewstribune.com/261/story/57155.html

    Some quotes:

    “The number of homes on the market shot up in April to 7,305, pushing inventory up 56 percent over the previous year ”

    “Agents say three to six months tends to be the time it takes to sell a home today. As recently as two years ago, homes often sold in a few days.”

    Prices seem to be still flat, rather than going down. This is a persistent characteristic of many markets which are flush with cash.

    Price adjustments are the big missing piece in this puzzle. Will they happen? And, if so, when? Can history tell us something from past down-cycles?

  25. Snick

    There is always an UP to a cycle and a DOWN. Which are we heading for? Hmm…

  26. $froma$ia

    hmmm… inventory is going up slowly, am I wrong?

  27. robchipman

    1.5% gap between list and sell equals significant price reduction? It looks like its getting easier to please the bears around here.

    I do find the news from Washington interesting, though. Inventory up 56%, DOM 90-180, prices flat, and all of this two years after the “hot” market. That seems to describe an alternate outcome to one that I’m often presented with. It certainly describes a market where prices are sticky on the way down.

  28. ceejay

    “Prices seem to be still flat, rather than going down. This is a persistent characteristic of many markets which are flush with cash.”

    If markets are flush with cash they’ll be buyers, I’d say. For investors, what are the “safe” alternatives to cash?
    1. Money market 3%
    2. T Bills > 3%
    3. Dividend paying blue chips (not so bad, lately )
    3. Historicaly non-depreciating assets like, uh, real estate.

    My choice has been paper, i.e 649’s , which explains why i’m a renter 😦

  29. jim

    Would we be more like San Diego than Seattle? I read somewhere,correct me if I am wrong, that King County(Seattle area) had moderate price increases the last few years which would make them non bubbly. Yes?

  30. jim

    Sorry I was wrong here’s King County: from ’01 to ’05:
    NWMLS
    Q4 ’05: +17.2%, +18.5%, +17.3%
    Q4 ’04: +10.1%, +11.4%, +9.9%
    Q4 ’03: +5.3%, +7.1%, +11.3%
    Q4 ’02: +4.5%, +4.1%, +3.3%
    Q4 ’01: +5.6%, +4.5%, +5.6%
    Does look like YVR-sorta.

  31. -A-

    “That seems to describe an alternate outcome to one that I’m often presented with. It certainly describes a market where prices are sticky on the way down.”

    Absolutely, agree, prices will be sticky,but
    eventually will SNAP without warning.

    Tell the truth Chippy, would have you wanted a minor correction sometime ago?

    Jack

  32. robchipman

    Jack –

    If you read what I write you’ll know the answers to your questions. I’ve long said we’d have a correction of some sort, and I’ve long said that a stable 5% per year real appreciation rate would make my life much easier.

    What will make prices snap without warning? Will it be restricted to real estate, or will the whole economy implode? Will it be deflation? Or strictly psychological? Will people decide to ruin their credit or throw good money after bad without being forced to by some external event simply because they’re stupid?

  33. Skeptic

    Have we got a new jim or is it the same one who ‘quit’ last week ? 😉

  34. Jim

    Skeptic:
    I quit that thread last week due to all the anonymous posters. 🙂

  35. realitycheck

    I don’t think the word “quit” means a temporary leaving Jim. I think you need a dictionary or maybe a good thesaurus.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s