«
»

Wednesday, October 29th, 2008 at 10:28 AM

October Closed Sales (Preview)

How are the numbers stacking up for October?

(The 2008 numbers are month-to-date, you can add 10% or so for the last three days of the month plus late reporters)

October Detached Closed Sales

Town or Area Zip Code 2006 2007 2008 ’08 $900K+
Carlsbad NW 92008 11 4 8
0
Carlsbad SE 92009 35 21 26
5
Carlsbad NE 92010 9 13 5
0
Carlsbad SW 92011 15 15 18
4
Del Mar/SB 14/75 12 10 4
3
Encinitas 92024 25 29 27
9
La Jolla 92037 18 20 16
15
Oceanside 54-57 90 75 104
2
RSF 92067 12 9 6
6
Vista 81-84 58 30 57
1
PB/MB 92109 14 9 11
6
Univ City 92122 8 7 6
1
RB west 92127 27 29 28
10
Carmel Vly 92130 39 21 24
17
SD County all 1,511 942 1,408
119

It’s going to look impressive when October, 2008′s final sales number exceeds October, 2006 (when money was free & easy). The lower-end and mid-range markets have sales that look similar to ’06, but the over-$900,000 is struggling, comparatively. Compare the over/under-$900,000 markets:

SD County 2006 2007 2008
$900K - 1316 792 1287
$900K + 198 151 121

Considering that there are 2,319 active listings in SD County over $900,000, there’s going to be more squishdown ahead (unless sellers can hold out?).

Posted on Wednesday, October 29th, 2008 at 10:28 AM in Monthly Sales, Monthly Sales Count | 14 Comments » | Print Print You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Reader Comments: 14 Responses

  1. 2,319 active listings in SD County over $900,000, with 121 closed in October 2008…

    That’s only a paltry 19 months of inventory!

    E-leven | October 29th, 2008 at 11:34 am

  2. and we are not counting the new homes either. we are already seeing some signs of the squishdown, much more will be coming.

    ocrenter | October 29th, 2008 at 12:16 pm

  3. Put those sales figures in terms of dollars instead of housing units and it may not be quite as impressive.

    sdduuuude | October 29th, 2008 at 1:22 pm

  4. There are 3 types of lies:
    1. Lies
    2. Damn lies
    3. Statistics

    Not that I’m trying call anyone a liar – I’m just saying numbers are deceiving.

    Genius | October 29th, 2008 at 3:33 pm

  5. Put those sales figures in terms of dollars instead of housing units and it may not be quite as impressive.

    I hope Jim is doing well, but that there tells a tale…

    For job security reasons, I’ll wait. I’ll also wait based on where I see the market going. ;)

    Got Popcorn?
    Neil

    Neil | October 29th, 2008 at 5:58 pm

  6. I just read that Arnold is ordering billions in educational cuts plus trying to get a sales tax increase. Talk about regressive tax policies! And I thought Cali was the opposite. Enjoy your jobs, if you can keep ‘em. Including North County.

    Dr. Detroit | October 29th, 2008 at 6:59 pm

  7. totally unrelated…

    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20081029-1111-bn29lewd.html

    I think this guy made had a cameo in one of Jim’s videos.

    loharp | October 29th, 2008 at 7:06 pm

  8. Detroit,

    Cali needs regressive tax policies — the upper end income earners already get completely raped (about 65% all-in marginal tax). There’s not much room to tax them more!

    Anonymous | October 29th, 2008 at 7:34 pm

  9. Where does that number come from?

    Dwip | October 29th, 2008 at 7:56 pm

  10. While you can definitely make the case that San Diego broadly is struggling, the numbers for La Jolla and CV are surprisingly strong based on Y/Y volume and high-end sales as % of total sales.

    ThrowingStones | October 29th, 2008 at 10:04 pm

  11. Sellers who want 2006 prices will have to hold on for a minumum of 3-5 years, and probably longer than that unless Congress hoodwinks the public with inflationary increases in minimum wage. People simply can’t afford those 2006 prices based on their actual income, which is why the bubble popped.

    The message for those who have to sell within the next three years is “the sooner the better” since they are losing 1% to 2% per month, which for the average homeowner is several thousand dollars.

    Banks understand this, which is why they typically throw out prices ahead of the downward wave to generate offers. The longer you hold, the more you lose, unless you can hold for several years.

    Do you want to gamble by listing high for the first thirty days? Do you want to lose $5,000?

    Frank Jewett | October 29th, 2008 at 11:26 pm

  12. You may think the numbers look strong for La Jolla, but there are 237 active SFH listings as of today. 16 closings barely make a dent. When I first started looking, there were ~160 listings.

    Also, what is going to happen to RSF? There are 258 SFH listings and 6 closings per month aren’t going to make a dent.

    We’re looking in the low $1M’s, and so far I’m sorely disappointed with our choices. Will hang out in our rental for a bit longer.

    Hibiscus | October 30th, 2008 at 7:48 am

  13. Anon & DWIP,

    We are in the top CA/Fed brackets (and self-employed). Our marginal CA rate is 10.3%; marginal Fed rate is 35%; marginal medicare is 3.8% (50% of medicare deuctible from fed/state); soc sec is $12-13K fixed (again, 50% deductible for fed/CA. Our CA tax is only partially deductible from fed, because of the itemization phase outs. Same with our property tax.

    All said and done, our marginal rate for 2008 is somewhere areound 44-45% net for combined Fed, CA and medicare. The actual total bite (including SS taxes) is somewhat less, with around 41% of our gross income paid to CA and the FED (excluding prpoperty and sales taxes).

    With the Obama plan, our marginal rates will increase to something like 58%, and total bite will exceed 50% But, who really knows, since it hasn’t yet happened. On the other hand, our income will be substantially less for the next few years because of the recession and tax increases. So, the government will net less money from us, despite the rate increases.

    Smithers | October 30th, 2008 at 8:54 am

  14. Hi Smithers,

    that ~45% or so is about what I had thought it would be, based on the only hard reference I could find:

    http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/DoesItPayToWorkAndSave-120906.pdf

    I’ve not seen anything that would support a 65% number.

    Also, that study indicates the all-in marginal rate is surprisingly flat between $75K and $500K, a range I expect takes in most of this blog’s readers. So this study seems to refute the original poster’s implication that the highest income earners have a marginal tax burden that is unduly heavier than lower earners.

    A simplified discussion of this can be found here:

    http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/YourRealTaxRate40.aspx

    Dwip | October 30th, 2008 at 11:32 am

Post a new comment