Started By
Message

18% of sellers in San Francisco are taking a loss on their House

Posted on 4/24/24 at 9:43 am
Posted by Dire Wolf
bawcomville
Member since Sep 2008
36841 posts
Posted on 4/24/24 at 9:43 am
quote:

Nearly one of five (17.8%) homes that sold in San Francisco during the three months ending February 29 sold at a loss. That’s comparable with the 17.9% share hit during the three months ending January 31, which was the highest in 11 years.

That’s a higher share than any other metro, and it’s more than four times the national share of 4.3%. The national share of sellers taking a loss is the highest it has been since May 2021, but the share has been fairly stable over the past two years, hovering between 2% and 4.5%.




quote:

In San Francisco, the typical homeowner who sold at a loss parted with their home for $155,500 less than they bought it for, the largest dollar loss of any major metro. Nationwide, the median loss was $39,912.

This is according to a Redfin analysis of county records and MLS data across the 50 most populous U.S. metros. To be included in this analysis, a home must have been owned by the same party for at least nine months leading up to the sale. When we say “sold at a loss,”, we mean the seller sold the home for less than they bought it for.


quote:

San Francisco’s median sale price peaked at $1.66 million in April 2022, and has since fallen 15% ($250,000) to $1.41 million as of February. The typical person who bought in San Francisco at nearly any point in 2021 or 2022, when the housing market was red hot due to ultra-low mortgage rates, would have taken a loss if they sold during the first few months of this year.


https://www.redfin.com/news/san-francisco-home-sellers-lose-gain-money/
Posted by teke184
Zachary, LA
Member since Jan 2007
96902 posts
Posted on 4/24/24 at 9:45 am to
When Cali real estate is selling for a loss, things are fricked.


Granted, I bet a huge number of the people buying are doing so as investments for the long term and think a short term loss is fine. Doesn’t work if the city itself becomes less desirable to live in and depopulates.
Posted by sidewalkside
rent free in yo head
Member since Sep 2021
1860 posts
Posted on 4/24/24 at 9:51 am to
Is this verified loses or "potential loses" based on assumptions of when and how much a home was bought/sold for? In one reading it sounds like these are verified loses but in another paragraph they talk about average home prices and how they have declined.
This post was edited on 4/24/24 at 9:52 am
Posted by Sao
East Texas Piney Woods
Member since Jun 2009
66138 posts
Posted on 4/24/24 at 9:51 am to
quote:

Nearly one of five (17.8%) homes that sold in San Francisco during the three months ending February 29 sold at a loss

Checkmate, you moronic JP owners
Posted by CR4090
Member since Apr 2023
2535 posts
Posted on 4/24/24 at 9:59 am to
Ron should make a commercial about this.
Posted by doubleb
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
36566 posts
Posted on 4/24/24 at 10:40 am to
But homes with robotic pooper scoopers held their value.
Posted by beerJeep
Louisiana
Member since Nov 2016
35309 posts
Posted on 4/24/24 at 10:52 am to
Got dayum sea monsta bringing down home prices again.
Posted by Bestbank Tiger
Premium Member
Member since Jan 2005
71787 posts
Posted on 4/24/24 at 11:00 am to
quote:

$155,500 less than they bought it for, the largest dollar loss of any major metro. Nationwide, the median loss was $39,912.


Yikes to both, but the SF number is downright brutal.
Posted by Buryl
Member since Sep 2016
838 posts
Posted on 4/24/24 at 11:02 am to
A lot of fired tech workers who can't afford their house payments, plus san fran is overflowing with dookie.
Posted by Supermoto Tiger
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2010
9963 posts
Posted on 4/24/24 at 11:14 am to
quote:

The typical person who bought in San Francisco at nearly any point in 2021 or 2022, when the housing market was red hot due to ultra-low mortgage rates, would have taken a loss if they sold during the first few months of this year.

Exactly.

OP should read:
18% of sellers in San Fran over-paid for their home purchase
Posted by real turf fan
East Tennessee
Member since Dec 2016
8853 posts
Posted on 4/24/24 at 11:21 am to
Elections have consequences. Not just at the federal level, but at the local level the consequences are felt even faster.
When South Park tells you that your city has a problem, you really ought to listen to them.
Posted by lsusteve1
Member since Dec 2004
42303 posts
Posted on 4/24/24 at 12:04 pm to
And taking their shitty politics to another State
Posted by billjamin
Houston
Member since Jun 2019
12909 posts
Posted on 4/24/24 at 12:21 pm to
Is it really a loss if you get to leave SF?
Posted by SixthAndBarone
Member since Jan 2019
8463 posts
Posted on 4/24/24 at 12:23 pm to
I mean, I completely get your point, but it's 18%. 1 out of 5. Let's see if it increases or decreases because while 18% is not normal and cause to be worried, it's not cause to panic.
Posted by TBoy
Kalamazoo
Member since Dec 2007
24005 posts
Posted on 4/24/24 at 12:34 pm to
quote:

Nearly one of five (17.8%) homes that sold in San Francisco during the three months ending February 29 sold at a loss.

So that means that 4 out of 5 homes in San Francisco sold at a profit.

Doesn’t sound that dire to me.
Posted by gumbo2176
Member since May 2018
15449 posts
Posted on 4/24/24 at 12:57 pm to
Well, considering how over-inflated the housing prices are in that city, it is understandable they'd have to have a downturn at some time.

Combine that with higher interest rates and how that city is being turned into a shitshow with the amount of homeless setting up tents all over the city and it becomes a less attractive place to live and invest hard earned money into.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram