Foster Weeks publishes a weekly mortgage report which is updated every Monday morning. How is this affecting the San Francisco real estate market? Read our weekly and monthly market reports. Here’s what Mr. Weeks says about last week’s activity:

“I NEVER WORRY ABOUT ACTION, BUT ONLY ABOUT INACTION.” ~ Winston Churchill. These words proved especially true last week, as the big story was the Fed’s lack of action following their recent meeting, or decision to leave the Fed Funds Rate unchanged – but is the Fed’s decision a cause for worry? The financial markets seem to think so. The Fed is in a tough spot with the economy performing sluggishly, the housing market still struggling to stabilize, consumer confidence being low, and food and energy costs going up seemingly every day. They made the decision to hold rates steady for now, but looking forward, what does all this mean for Bonds and home loan rates?…

Read the entire report here.

- Foster Weeks

Back to property page
Neighborhood map

[Show as slideshow]

Sales figures comparing May of 2008 to May of 2007 broken down by district! Provided courtesy of Old Republic Title Company in San Francisco. If you are thinking about BUYING, now is the time!!!

District 1: Outer Richmond, Inner Richmond, Lake, Sea Cliff, Inner Richmond, Jordan Park/Laurel Heights, Lone Mountain
District 2: Outer Sunset, Inner Sunset, Outer Parkside, Parkside, Inner Parkside, Central Sunset, Golden Gate Heights
District 3: Lake Shore, Merced Manor, Lakeside, Stonestown, Merced Heights, Ingleside Heights, Ingleside, Oceanview, Pine Lake Park
District 4: Forest Knolls, Forest Hill, Midtown Terrace, Forest Hill Extension, Diamond Heights, West Portal, Sherwood Forest, St. Francis Wood, Balboa Terrace, Ingleside Terrace, Westwood Park, Monterey Heights, Sunnyside, Westwood Highlands
District 5: Glen Park, Noe Valley, Twin Peaks, Clarendon Heights, Panassus/Ashbury Heights, Haight Ashbury, Buena Vista Park, Corona Heights, Duboce Triangle, Mission Dolores, Eureka Valley/Dolores Heights
District 6: Hayes Valley, North Panhandle, Alamo Square, Anza Vista, Western Addition, Lower Pacific Heights
District 7: Marina, Cow Hollow, Pacific Heights, Presidio Heights
District 8: North Waterfront, Russian Hill, North Beach, Telegraph Hill, Nob Hill, Financial District, Downtown, Van Ness/Civic Center, Tenderloin
District 9: South Beach, South of Market, Inner Mission, Bernal Heights, Potrero Hill, Central Waterfront, Mission Bay
District 10: Outer Mission, Crocker Amazon, Mission Terrace, Excelsior, Portola, Visitacion Valley, Bayview Heights, Bayview, Hunters Point, Silver Terrace–SFAR

California Association of Realtors just released its report for May real estate activity.

Calif. median home price - May 08: $384,840 (Source: C.A.R.) (note: compared to $403,870 last month)

Calif. highest median home price by C.A.R. region May 08: Santa Barbara So. Coast $1,199,000 (Source: C.A.R.) (note: compared to $1,170,000 last month)

Calif. lowest median home price by C.A.R. region May 08: High Desert $200,740 (Source: C.A.R.) (note: compared to $210,860 last month)

Calif. First-time Buyer Affordability Index - First Quarter 2008: 44 percent (Source: C.A.R.) (note: compared to 33 percent third quarter 2007)

Mortgage rates – week ending 06/19:

• 30-yr. fixed: 6.42%; Fees/points: 0.7% (note: compared to 5.98% and 0.5% points last report)
• 15-yr. fixed: 6.02%; Fees/points: 0.7% (note: compared to 5.55% and 0.6% points last report)
• 1-yr. adjustable: 5.19%; Fees/points: 0.6% (note: compared to 5.24% and 0.6% points last report)

- California Association of Realtors & Freddie Mac

SFResidence is part of the TRI Coldwell Banker office at 1699 Van Ness in San Francisco which is one of the premier offices in the City and has the market share numbers to prove it. We have some of the top agents selling real estate in the San Francisco Bay Area. As a result, our office posts some impressive numbers.

Either things slowed down last week, or agents are not turning in their paperwork, but the market looks like it has slowed considerably. Could it be the upcoming 4th of July holiday? We’ll see next week.

Here are the numbers posted this week: 6/25/08:

• 4 new listings (average price $1,584,750 – low $1,199,000, high $1,795,000)
• 7 ratified sales (pending) (average price $2,319,269 – low $465,000, high $6,995,000)
• 5 closed sales (sold) (average price $770,600 – low $399,000, high $1,250,000)
• 1 back on market ($1,450,000)

- Mick Orton

Foster Weeks publishes a weekly mortgage report which is updated every Monday morning. How is this affecting the San Francisco real estate market? Read our weekly and monthly market reports. Here’s what Mr. Weeks says about last week’s activity:

Last week we did an article on high gas prices. This week, Mr. Weeks points out how high oil prices are affecting the bond market and as a result, the mortgage rates.

Crumbling crackers…doesn’t help us much when it comes to absorbing the high price of oil, a greasy topic that continues to permeate financial headlines.

And last week was no exception, with oil prices continuing to march ever higher, despite an announcement early last week by OPEC member Saudi Arabia that they will increase oil production in the near future. They are concerned that the high price of oil will lead to lower demand and a turn toward alternative energy sources. And Friday’s news didn’t help, with a strike at a Chevron plant in war-torn Nigeria, Africa’s largest oil producing nation. Additionally, Israel conducted a military operation for preparedness in case of a potential strike against Iran’s nuclear plants – which all served to push oil prices higher still. High oil prices are inflationary – so if the march higher in oil prices continues, both the Stock and Bond markets will suffer…and even crumbled crackers won’t help sop up the mess.

But Bonds did manage to find some improvement last week, helping home loan rates get better by about .125%. Negative economic news, including soft housing numbers, weakness from the manufacturing sector and more write-downs announced by financial giant Citigroup all played a hand – causing money to flow out of Stocks and over into Bonds, which helped prices improve.

Read the entire report here.

- Foster Weeks

SFResidence is part of the TRI Coldwell Banker office at 1699 Van Ness in San Francisco which is one of the premier offices in the City and has the market share numbers to prove it. We have some of the top agents selling real estate in the San Francisco Bay Area. As a result, our office posts some impressive numbers.

All in all, the market continues to chug along. The City of San Francisco is doing its best to stifle real estate sales on the high end. Two supervisors have put forth proposals to “tax the rich” by increasing the graduated property transfer taxes which happens at the time of sale. This tax is customarily paid by the seller in San Francisco.

We did a blog post that came as an alert from the SFAR (San Francisco Association of Realtors) yesterday which shows what they are trying to propose. Of course, the SFAR opposes this measure. It penalizes those who sell higher end properties. Problem is, the high end will likely be hurt by this… one of the bright spots in our slowing real estate market.

Another thing to consider is, just because people have sold at a high level does not mean they have made any money on the transaction. And if people are going to be hurt by selling or just break even, they will most likely wait to sell! Go here to read about these proposals.

Here are the numbers posted this week: 6/18/08:

• 7 new listings (average price $1,968,167 – low $1,300,000, high $2,995,000 – 1 TBD)
• 11 ratified sales (pending) (average price $1,790,600 – low $405,000, high $3,695,000 – 1 confidential)
• 8 closed sales (sold) (average price $3,341,250 – low $740,000, high $14,000,000 – 1 confidential)

- Mick Orton

The San Francisco Association of Realtors reported today:

Two supervisors, Aaron Peskin and Jake McGoldrick, have proposed increases in the rate of the city’s real property transfer tax. Both proposals are intended to leave the rate for less expensive properties unchanged while focusing on properties in the mid- to high- price range.

State law requires tax increases affecting real property to appear on the ballot and to be approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate for passage. It is not known at this time whether either or both of the proposals will appear on the municipal ballot in November.

To provide a basis for comparison, set forth below are the current transfer tax rates, as well as those proposed by Supervisors Peskin and McGoldrick. Changes to the transfer tax ordinance currently in effect are underlined.

Current Rate Structure:

• Over $100 and less than or equal to $250,000 = .50%
• More than $250,000 and less than $1 million = .68%
• Equal to or more than $1 million = .75%

Proposed Rate Structure (McGoldrick):

• Over $100 and less than or equal to $250,000 = .50%
• More than $250,000 and less than $1 million = .68%
• Equal to or more than $1 million but less than $1.25 million = 1%
• Equal to or more than $1.25 million but less than $1.75 million = 1.25%
• Equal to or more than $1.75 million but less than $2 million = 1.5%
• Equal to or more than $2 million = 1.75%

Proposed Rate Structure (Peskin):

• Over $100 and less than or equal to $250,000 = .50%
• More than $250,000 and less than $1 million = .68%
• Equal to or more than $1 million and less than $2 million = .75%
• Equal to or more than $2 million = 1.5%
• (Tax Reduced on Transfers of Residential Property by Up to One Third If, After January 1, 2009, Transferor Has Installed Active Solar System or Made Seismic Retrofitting Improvements or Improvements Utilizing Earthquake Hazard Mitigation Technologies)
• (Clarifies Application of Tax to Transfers of Ownership Interests in Legal Entities that Own Real Estate)

The Association’s board of directors has voted to vigorously oppose all proposed increases in the city’s real property transfer tax as an unwarranted financial burden on buyers and sellers of real property in the city.

As we keep saying, politicians keep looking at the short term gain of more money for the City, while they could hurt our already slowing market. Contact your representatives and tell them to vote NO on this measure. It will only hurt the real estate market in the City and therefore, your property values!