Sunday, January 13, 2008

Asking Price Distribution

I needed a reality check. Looking at Folsom, Cameron Park and El Dorado Hills real estate prices can get rather depressing. So I used ZipRealty's map to look at the distribution of asking prices in the entire metro area. It gave me some nice perspective. Contrary to what they try and have you believe (in all the local adds), 800k is uncommon.

Results are below. It might be a bit confusing at first because it shows the percent of prices that are above a certain price point. Its a nice compliment to the inventory graph, and I may try and update it each month. But due to the nature of how I gathered the data, I don't think it will be directly comparable each time. The hope is that the distribution will become more concentrated, with a long skinny tail. Total inventory in the sample was 12488.


20 comments:

Paul said...

Not too confusing ... So 50% of homes are below about $320k, right? So as the down turn continues, the graph should flatten, right? As the lower end moves lower, and some at the upper end keep their lofty expectations, then it seems to me the chart will flatten out.

Inventory is quite a drop from December. If one believes the NAR, we have bottomed and sales are climbing! I think someelse's blog shows inventory year-over-year is still up about 20%, even with the December/January seasonal declines.

AgentBubble said...

Just ran some MLS numbers for all of Sac County to get a different perspective. Here's what I see:

Total homes in MLS - 8938

Price Range:

<100K - 94

100K-200K - 1,798

200K-300K - 3,230

300K-400K - 1,865

400K-500K - 894

500K-600K - 387

600K-700K - 245

700K-800K - 126

800K-900K - 83

900K-1,000K - 60

1,000K+ - 156

Sippn said...

AB, you're comparing fujis to delicious apples.

Higher priced homes are more common in El Dorado Couty than "Sac metro area". The median is higher, also.

Think about it. . . building homes in the flat lands, closer together, without dealing with hills, granite, high priced utilities, snow, etc. is probably cheaper than building on hillsides and mountain tops. Couple that with the desire of hilltops and mountainsides amoug those with money to spend and you get higher prices in the hills!

Also was thinking about your food issue. You're looking for the kind of services and variety that come with more population. Of course, you want it all. . . all the services without the price (density and dollars). I'll just rub my jeanie's bottle.

Buying Time said...

Now Sippn...there seems to be more empty retail here than occupied....so I was just making a suggestion for what might actually do well in this market.

Not sure I agree on why we have the price differential....I would say older housing stock, and poorly performing schools, crime, flood risk, etc would be driving prices in Sacramento down. I'm sure the engineering on a hill makes tract homes a bit less profitable...but many in the EDH area are custome homes.

The other three counties do seem to have the biggest concentraiton of more expensive housing stock, Davis, Granite Bay, and El Dorado Hills so the Sac numbers aren't surprising.

AgentBubble said...

Here are the numbers for ED County:

Total homes in MLS - 1193

Price Range:

<100K - 1

100K-200K - 22 (1.8%)

200K-300K - 120 (10.1%)

300K-400K - 236 (19.8%)

400K-500K - 224 (18.8%)

500K-600K - 168 (14.1%)

600K-700K - 121 (10.1%)

700K-800K - 76 (6.4%)

800K-900K - 55 (4.6%)

900K-1,000K - 29 (2.4%)

1,000K+ - 141 (11.8%)

smf said...

"Couple that with the desire of hilltops and mountainsides amoug those with money to spend and you get higher prices in the hills!"

Compare prices prior to the bubble and you would be surprised to find that comparable homes in EDH were the same or cheaper than those in the city.

You are talking a bit of a distance to the city anyways, and (usually) when you have money, time IS money. And that commute can be a killer.

But during the bubble, the normal location premiums were forgotten.

Paul said...

Most of El Dorado County's higher priced homes are all in one area, EDH. And why are they so much higher in EDH than in the flat lands? ... one word. Marketing. 90% of the recently developed residential land in EDH has been controlled by one developer. That developer set the prices for the land. Tract builders and custom developers then built homes that reflected the higher prices for the land. A builder is not likely to build $400k homes on lots that cost $200-300k. (And these are the production lots, not the custom lots!) Yes, some development costs are higher in the hills ... drainage, slopes, rock, asbestos (cough ... cough ... cough), but spread over mass graded lots, the increased development costs are not as significant as the higher lot prices would suggest. The developer designed and built a high-end product, and then priced the lots to reflect that high end product. And people were willing to pay the price. So now, lots of relatively expensive homes all in one area.

Tyger said...

Well, if it's a high end product, then it's not all marketing. And the reality is that it is a high end product. Take a drive through the Serrano custom area sometime and it will come as no surprise why the homes there are expensive (well worth the drive, even if only to drool at the incredible homes in there).

Beyond that, homes in the hills generally are more desirable and valuable than those in the 'flatlands.' In short, the master developer picked a prime location, and then had the resources to create a major high end community, with all of the attendant quality, amenities and services. Given its national acclaim, as well as its first-hand appeal, it would seem a masterful achievement.

Buying Time said...

"Beyond that, homes in the hills generally are more desirable and valuable than those in the 'flatlands.'"

You have some economic or other theories/data to back this up?

I don't mind your industry rhetoric as long as you can back up your claims. Last time I drove through the high end development on the other side of the parkway, there were for sale signs on practically every other home. If you ask me, that is not a sign of a hugely successful development.

Gwynster said...

Flatland or hills, market it anyway you want, it's still suburbia.

SMF did make one really good point, that commute is a killer. I wouldn't consider EDH or any place in the hills unless my job was just a few miles away. Those areas are about as attractive to me as Elk Grove and Laguna. But I can see where they might interest Joe or Jane Vanilla Commuter that has no idea what they just signed onto.

tyger said...

You're getting carried away. There are not for sale signs on 'every other home' or even close to it. The inventory numbers actually are relatively low. I recognize that on sites like this anything other than 'the sky is falling' is met with derision, but really...

And no, I'm not a realtor or in the financial services industry, so give it a rest with the 'industry rhetoric' thing.

As for the commute, to each, his or her own.

tyger said...

Oh, as for the flatlands v. hills matter, sure, just look at a flood plain map...

BMac said...

all things being equal, hills beat flat everyday.
I'm gonna be moving to the East Bay soon, and asked a friend what neighborhoods to go for, avoid when looking for my rental... her advice: If its on or adjacent to a hill, its good, if its flat, its bad.
I see as a kind of 'feng shui' (sp?) for bullets instead of spirits. Less chance of catching a stray bullet if there is a hill between you and the drive-by shooter.

Sippn said...

"You have some economic or other theories/data to back this up?..."

Really? its not obvious?

Castles. Penthouses. Hillsborough. Nob Hill. Beverly Hills.

G - except Davis of course, but I remember that Rosenberg or a neighbor has a tower (so he can see you coming!)

sacramentia said...

Have you seen the views from inside some of the houses in Edh? I don't there would be much debate if you went inside the homes. My opinion the commute isn't that bad. With cell phones and blackberries, commuting isn't unproductive time. And here in Sacramento, rush hour is still about an hour.

There is a bank owned home in the Serrano custom area for 859 right now, but if you go look at it you'll be able to see why it didn't sell before it was foreclosed.

Sippn said...

It is amazing what people accept for commutes. From 95864, its 15 minutes on a good day, 20 on a bad to the parking lot downtown.

If you are a Dr on call, EDH won't cut it.

If you are a lawyer, that extra 80 minutes every day is $250-400 in daily billing time.

Oz said...

Actually, EDH works great for a Dr. on call...as long as your privileges are at Mercy Folsom and not the UCD Med Center. If your practice and privileges are tied to the UCD Med Center, then no, EDH and Folsom won't work for you. You'd be better off looking for a home in Gold River, etc.

Otherwise, commutes can be good or bad, depending on your predilections. I don't mind a reasonable commute, as I like the insulation of keeping a home away from the workplace, cell phones (yes, I use a hands-free phone!) make time in the car productive, and I kind of like the drive as a means of gearing up on the way in or relaxing and being ready for fun by the time I get home.

sacramentia said...

sippn I need your lawyer's number, mine definitely sends a bill for a call from the car.

Anonymous said...

Hey Sacramentia,
Speaking of Serrano custom...did you see the custom home that's in Promontory and listed for $899K (a $200K reduction from previous listing a month ago)? It's on Corsica. I don't think it's foreclosure...yet.

Oz said...

Promontory? Blech. That's not Serrano, and I've never been fond of anything on the Promontory side of EDH Boulevard. The drive off of EDH Blvd and along the ramshackle houses to get up there takes away a lot of the appeal for me.

The other side of EDH Blvd, where the Serrano houses actually are and with the sweet drive up the Serrano Parkway, is very nice. I guess I'm more into the whole package kind of thing that Serrano provides, starting from the Serrano Parkway and on up into the hills over there.