tj and the bear asked about the million-dollar-plus market history in North San Diego County Coastal:
| Year | # of $1M+ sales | Avg SF | Avg $/SF | Average SP | SP/LP | Avg Days on Mkt |
| 1996 | $1,524,240 | |||||
| 1997 | $1,684,891 | |||||
| 1998 | $1,751,078 | |||||
| 1999 | $1,930,427 | |||||
| 2000 | $2,029,363 | |||||
| 2001 | $1,853,757 | |||||
| 2002 | $1,861,043 | |||||
| 2003 | $1,797,015 | |||||
| 2004 | $1,916,800 | |||||
| 2005 | $2,029,431 | |||||
| 2006 | $2,066,598 | |||||
| 2007 | $2,065,118 | |||||
| 2008 | $2,135,449 | |||||
| 2009 | $1,984,371 | |||||
| 2010 | $1,826,660 |
Obviously, the 2010 numbers are year-to-date. There are 137 pendings currently, so we might reach last year’s total of 742 sales, and get about 5% more house at an improved price-per-sf of 14% if these stats stay the same.
Note the pause in sales in 2001, when historically the market should have begun to taper off in a typical 10-year real estate cycle. But mortgage lenders, in particular Countrywide, started pushing the short-term, interest-only mortgages in 2001, and then the neg-ams in 2003. You know how the rest of the story unfolded.
Let’s also note that in 1996 you got a real mansion for a million dollars. There wasn’t a sale over $1,000,000 in 92130 until there was just one in 1998, here’s how other areas have fared since then:
| Area-Zip | Year | # of $1M+ sales | Avg SF | Avg $/SF |
| CV 92130 | 1998 | $225/sf | ||
| CV 92130 | 2009 | $350/sf | ||
| LJ 92037 | 1998 | $408/sf | ||
| LJ 92037 | 2009 | |||
| RSF 92067 | 1998 | $298/sf | ||
| RSF 92067 | 2009 | $463/sf |
The 1998 sale in 92130? It was new construction in RSF Farms. The seller bought the lot in 1997 for $292,000, built the 4,427sf house and sold it exactly 10 months later for $1,049,000. The agent didn’t put the listing on the MLS for four months, then marked it sold after 2 days, and represented both parties. The house resold 26 months later in 2000 for $1,830,000, a profit of 74%. Those buyers still own the house, and have refinanced four times since. What a country!
An average days on market of 98 days would indicate a healthier market than some of your recent posts suggest for the high-end. Furthermore a sales to list of 94% looks pretty healthy and inline with prior years as well. Finally, the drop in price per sq. ft. suggests that the high end sellers have indeed moved aggressively at lowering their prices. At least the sellers that are motivated enough to sell. Maybe these tables don’t tell the whole story but it looks like the high end market is back to where it was in 2002-2003. Looks like a pretty healthy market which contrasts spectacularly with all the doom and gloom, sky is falling news we get from the media.
Agreed whole-heartedly.
Let’s review just what been said this week:
Buyers are ‘non-existant’.
Higher-end market is ‘non-existant’.
Sales are ‘horrendous’, and ‘worst-ever’.
“Zero, nada, mein, new houses have sold over $750,000 in the last two months.”
What has been pointed out here is that the appearance of trouble is over-blown by the media. Why? Because there are so many – roughly a third of the higher-end active listings – that are grossly over-priced and have no chance of selling, but giving people the wrong impression.
They think it means the market is in meltdown, with no demand in sight. The truth is that many, if not most, sellers are delusional. Those that can live with 2002-2003 pricing will be happy to find many buyers in the marketplace.
The media psychology is akin to those of sellers — anchored on bubble levels.
Thanks for all the great data, Jim. Don’t know how much we can read into it, though, given that ’96 was a bottom and everything since has been “juiced”.
Jim,At least half the sellers of million dollar plus homes in Sonoma County are delusional,maybe more. Quality is all over the map and so are prices. those who price at the market (2002-2003 here as well) sell in a reasonable period.
I think the high-end is fairly “healthy” because prices in the $1MM+ areas are actually much more realistic (read: closer to 2001 prices) than houses priced below that.
There have been some pretty nice properties listed at 2000-2002 levels, and if we were in the market for $1MM homes, we’d be much more likely to buy right now.
I disagree. We have been looking in that price range for quite a while and would be fine with 2003 pricing. The nicer houses we see are stuck in 2005 or higher. It’s the problem houses that are “willing to accept” 2002-2003 pricing. And there has pretty much been nothing (except beat up REO’s) that I have seen anywhere close to 2000 levels.
first time renter,markets differ dramatically. here, if priced at 2002-2003 levels and in good shape,a property will move. Some of them do offer an unusual advantage,you won’t need a guard dog because the house barks at everyone who passes.
I want to clarify. I was disagreeing with CA renter. I haven’t seen any “pretty nice” properties in the 2000-2002 price range. If they were out there, myself (and several of my friends) would be jumping on them. The ones that have been marked down all seem to have tons of problems.
I’m referring to what I would call the “real” million-dollar+ estates, not the new developments with McMansions on tiny lots that many seem to want these days.
You’re right, in Carmel Valley, prices are not that low, but in RSF, La Costa, Encinitas/O’hain, etc., you can find true custom homes on nice lots for very near 2000-2002 levels on some lucky deals. There have been a few of them.
I wasn’t talking about McMansions. Go and take a look at some of those “bargains” you are talking about in the ranch. They are never as nice as the pictures would have you believe.
Yes, they need work, but they are better priced than the mid-level housing stock which might also need work, IMHO.