SacramentoHousingBubble

 


Updated 12/31/2005



Home Inventories (Supply) in the 4 County Greater Sacramento Area

(1993 to 2005)

El Dorado Placer Sacramento Yolo Total
                   
# of
Homes
%
Chg
# of
Homes
%
Chg
# of
Homes
%
Chg
# of
Homes
%
Chg
# of
Homes
%
Chg
4/30/1993                 11604  
4/30/1994 1395 0.00% 1682 0.00% 6739 0.00% 628 0.00% 10444 0.00%
4/30/1995 1400 0.36% 1700 1.07% 6600 -2.06% 628 0.00% 10328 -1.11%
4/30/1996 1400 0.36% 1675 -0.42% 5800 -13.93% 615 -2.07% 9490 -9.13%
4/30/1997 1350 -3.23% 1600 -4.88% 5400 -19.87% 615 -2.07% 8965 -14.16%
4/30/1998 1150 -17.56% 1200 -28.66% 4400 -34.71% 615 -2.07% 7365 -29.48%
4/30/1999 1000 -28.32% 1100 -34.60% 4000 -40.64% 200 -68.15% 6300 -39.68%
4/30/2000 650 -53.41% 800 -52.44% 2800 -58.45% 100 -84.08% 4350 -58.35%
4/30/2001 650 -53.41% 1000 -40.55% 2800 -58.45% 50 -92.04% 4500 -56.91%
4/30/2002 650 -53.41% 1025 -39.06% 2250 -66.61% 50 -92.04% 3975 -61.94%
4/30/2003 650 -53.41% 1050 -37.57% 2300 -65.87% 225 -64.17% 4225 -59.55%
4/30/2004 625 -55.20% 650 -61.36% 1700 -74.77% 200 -68.15% 3175 -69.60%
4/30/2005 594 -57.42% 1070 -36.39% 2545 -62.23% 214 -65.92% 4423 -57.65%
                     
5/31/2005                 5290 -49.35%
6/30/2005                 6246 -40.20%
7/31/2005                 7263 -30.46%
Inventory Changes Beginning 8/8/2005
8/8/2005 912 0.00% 1,476 0.00% 4,274 0.00% 414 0.00% 7,076 0.00%
8/9/2005 914 0.22% 1,460 -1.08% 4,313 0.91% 414 0.00% 7,101 0.35%
8/10/2005 918 0.66% 1,462 -0.95% 4,345 1.66% 413 -0.24% 7,138 0.88%
8/11/2005 925 1.43% 1,479 0.20% 4,392 2.76% 419 1.21% 7,215 1.96%
8/12/2005 921 0.99% 1,482 0.41% 4,424 3.51% 421 1.69% 7,248 2.43%
8/13/2005 921 0.99% 1,508 2.17% 4,518 5.71% 418 0.97% 7,365 4.08%
8/14/2005 923 1.21% 1,512 2.44% 4,537 6.15% 415 0.24% 7,387 4.40%
8/15/2005 931 2.08% 1,509 2.24% 4,525 5.87% 413 -0.24% 7,378 4.27%
8/16/2005 938 2.85% 1,511 2.37% 4,566 6.83% 410 -0.97% 7,425 4.93%
8/17/2005 934 2.41% 1,522 3.12% 4,604 7.72% 415 0.24% 7,475 5.64%
8/18/2005 928 1.75% 1,541 4.40% 4,640 8.56% 419 1.21% 7,528 6.39%
8/19/2005 939 2.96% 1,550 5.01% 4,679 9.48% 429 3.62% 7,597 7.36%
8/20/2005 949 4.06% 1,584 7.32% 4,776 11.75% 436 5.31% 7,745 9.45%
8/21/2005 944 3.51% 1,581 7.11% 4,793 12.14% 437 5.56% 7,755 9.60%
8/22/2005 943 3.40% 1,578 6.91% 4,789 12.05% 435 5.07% 7,745 9.45%
8/23/2005 958 5.04% 1,579 6.98% 4,798 12.26% 439 6.04% 7,774 9.86%
8/24/2005 964 5.70% 1,583 7.25% 4,824 12.87% 442 6.76% 7,813 10.42%
8/25/2005 964 5.70% 1,582 7.18% 4,854 13.57% 444 7.25% 7,844 10.85%
8/26/2005 958 5.04% 1,581 7.11% 4,927 15.28% 451 8.94% 7,917 11.89%
8/27/2005 970 6.36% 1,622 9.89% 5,052 18.20% 455 9.90% 8,099 14.46%
8/28/2005 973 6.69% 1,621 9.82% 5,059 18.37% 460 11.11% 8,113 14.66%
8/29/2005 976 7.02% 1,620 9.76% 5,056 18.30% 457 10.39% 8,109 14.60%
8/30/2005 983 7.79% 1,617 9.55% 5,058 18.34% 455 9.90% 8,113 14.66%
8/31/2005 989 8.44% 1,619 9.69% 5,082 18.91% 463 11.84% 8,153 15.22%
9/1/2005 985 8.00% 1,613 9.28% 5,090 19.09% 465 12.32% 8,153 15.22%
9/2/2005 993 8.88% 1,608 8.94% 5,124 19.89% 476 14.98% 8,201 15.90%
9/3/2005 1,014 11.18% 1,653 11.99% 5,228 22.32% 484 16.91% 8,379 18.41%
9/4/2005 1,020 11.84% 1,655 12.13% 5,255 22.95% 487 17.63% 8,417 18.95%
9/5/2005 1,018 11.62% 1,652 11.92% 5,257 23.00% 490 18.36% 8,417 18.95%
9/6/2005 1,016 11.40% 1,648 11.65% 5,252 22.88% 495 19.57% 8,411 18.87%
9/7/2005 1,019 11.73% 1,653 11.99% 5,269 23.28% 500 20.77% 8,441 19.29%
9/8/2005 1,026 12.50% 1,642 11.25% 5,322 24.52% 508 22.71% 8,498 20.10%
9/9/2005 1,032 13.16% 1,658 12.33% 5,359 25.39% 510 23.19% 8,559 20.96%
9/10/2005 1,043 14.36% 1,696 14.91% 5,473 28.05% 522 26.09% 8,734 23.43%
9/11/2005 1,045 14.58% 1,693 14.70% 5,481 28.24% 530 28.02% 8,749 23.64%
9/12/2005 1,040 14.04% 1,698 15.04% 5,483 28.29% 530 28.02% 8,751 23.67%
9/13/2005 1,054 15.57% 1,709 15.79% 5,475 28.10% 529 27.78% 8,767 23.90%
9/14/2005 1,054 15.57% 1,711 15.92% 5,494 28.54% 533 28.74% 8,792 24.25%
9/15/2005 1,056 15.79% 1,724 16.80% 5,526 29.29% 538 29.95% 8,844 24.99%
9/16/2005 1,059 16.12% 1,738 17.75% 5,524 29.25% 534 28.99% 8,855 25.14%
9/17/2005 1,062 16.45% 1,778 20.46% 5,616 31.40% 544 31.40% 9,000 27.19%
9/18/2005 1,056 15.79% 1,774 20.19% 5,631 31.75% 539 30.19% 9,000 27.19%
9/19/2005 1,063 16.56% 1,772 20.05% 5,645 32.08% 538 29.95% 9,018 27.44%
9/20/2005 1,070 17.32% 1,769 19.85% 5,638 31.91% 547 32.13% 9,024 27.53%
9/21/2005 1,070 17.32% 1,769 19.85% 5,665 32.55% 551 33.09% 9,055 27.97%
9/22/2005 1,070 17.32% 1,761 19.31% 5,697 33.29% 556 34.30% 9,084 28.38%
9/23/2005 1,070 17.32% 1,787 21.07% 5,744 34.39% 558 34.78% 9,159 29.44%
9/24/2005 1,070 17.32% 1,785 20.93% 5,815 36.06% 567 36.96% 9,237 30.54%
9/25/2005 1,075 17.87% 1,783 20.80% 5,819 36.15% 561 35.51% 9,238 30.55%
9/26/2005 1,071 17.43% 1,784 20.87% 5,796 35.61% 561 35.51% 9,212 30.19%
9/27/2005 1,079 18.31% 1,774 20.19% 5,790 35.47% 571 37.92% 9,214 30.21%
9/28/2005 1,074 17.76% 1,786 21.00% 5,778 35.19% 571 37.92% 9,209 30.14%
9/29/2005 1,081 18.53% 1,788 21.14% 5,807 35.87% 580 40.10% 9,256 30.81%
9/30/2005 1,085 18.97% 1,803 22.15% 5,815 36.06% 581 40.34% 9,284 31.20%
10/1/2005 1,077 18.09% 1,806 22.36% 5,846 36.78% 581 40.34% 9,310 31.57%
10/2/2005 1,077 18.09% 1,811 22.70% 5,843 36.71% 583 40.82% 9,314 31.63%
10/3/2005 1,075 17.87% 1,815 22.97% 5,841 36.66% 585 41.30% 9,316 31.66%
10/4/2005 1,083 18.75% 1,803 22.15% 5,845 36.76% 588 42.03% 9,319 31.70%
10/5/2005 1,095 20.07% 1,794 21.54% 5,859 37.08% 592 43.00% 9,340 32.00%
10/6/2005 1,092 19.74% 1,797 21.75% 5,891 37.83% 594 43.48% 9,374 32.48%
10/7/2005 1,088 19.30% 1,799 21.88% 5,925 38.63% 599 44.69% 9,411 33.00%
10/8/2005 1,096 20.18% 1,810 22.63% 5,999 40.36% 598 44.44% 9,503 34.30%
10/9/2005 1,093 19.85% 1,806 22.36% 6,015 40.73% 599 44.69% 9,513 34.44%
10/10/2005 1,086 19.08% 1,802 22.09% 6,008 40.57% 597 44.20% 9,493 34.16%
10/11/2005 1,102 20.83% 1,800 21.95% 6,004 40.48% 598 44.44% 9,504 34.31%
10/12/2005 1,101 20.72% 1,811 22.70% 6,001 40.41% 594 43.48% 9,507 34.36%
10/13/2005 1,108 21.49% 1,817 23.10% 5,979 39.89% 598 44.44% 9,502 34.28%
10/14/2005 1,108 21.49% 1,833 24.19% 5,986 40.06% 603 45.65% 9,530 34.68%
10/15/2005 1,118 22.59% 1,856 25.75% 6,075 42.14% 601 45.17% 9,650 36.38%
10/16/2005 1,131 24.01% 1,865 26.36% 6,131 43.45% 605 46.14% 9,732 37.54%
10/17/2005 1,134 24.34% 1,879 27.30% 6,156 44.03% 608 46.86% 9,777 38.17%
10/18/2005 1,140 25.00% 1,886 27.78% 6,180 44.60% 612 47.83% 9,818 38.75%
10/19/2005 1,150 26.10% 1,905 29.07% 6,229 45.74% 624 50.72% 9,908 40.02%
10/20/2005 1,151 26.21% 1,924 30.35% 6,291 47.19% 635 53.38% 10,001 41.34%
10/21/2005 1,153 26.43% 1,950 32.11% 6,383 49.34% 639 54.35% 10,125 43.09%
10/22/2005 1,165 27.74% 1,984 34.42% 6,489 51.82% 646 56.04% 10,284 45.34%
10/23/2005 1,168 28.07% 1,994 35.09% 6,509 52.29% 648 56.52% 10,319 45.83%
10/24/2005 1,174 28.73% 2,000 35.50% 6,516 52.46% 646 56.04% 10,336 46.07%
10/25/2005 1,186 30.04% 2,018 36.72% 6,579 53.93% 649 56.76% 10,432 47.43%
10/26/2005 1,201 31.69% 2,052 39.02% 6,649 55.57% 652 57.49% 10,554 49.15%
10/27/2005 1,199 31.47% 2,048 38.75% 6,732 57.51% 655 58.21% 10,634 50.28%
10/28/2005 1,204 32.02% 2,065 39.91% 6,787 58.80% 664 60.39% 10,720 51.50%
10/29/2005 1,219 33.66% 2,091 41.67% 6,902 61.49% 667 61.11% 10,879 53.75%
10/30/2005 1,227 34.54% 2,098 42.14% 6,932 62.19% 670 61.84% 10,927 54.42%
10/31/2005 1,225 34.32% 2,094 41.87% 6,940 62.38% 667 61.11% 10,926 54.41%
11/1/2005 1,235 35.42% 2,108 42.82% 6,991 63.57% 667 61.11% 11,001 55.47%
11/2/2005 1,251 37.17% 2,133 44.51% 7,042 64.76% 669 61.59% 11,095 56.80%
11/3/2005 1,260 38.16% 2,158 46.21% 7,083 65.72% 673 62.56% 11,174 57.91%
11/4/2005 1,270 39.25% 2,176 47.43% 7,132 66.87% 679 64.01% 11,257 59.09%
11/5/2005 1,276 39.91% 2,204 49.32% 7,240 69.40% 681 64.49% 11,401 61.12%
11/6/2005 1,275 39.80% 2,214 50.00% 7,271 70.12% 685 65.46% 11,445 61.74%
11/7/2005 1,272 39.47% 2,215 50.07% 7,278 70.29% 684 65.22% 11,449 61.80%
11/8/2005 1,285 40.90% 2,217 50.20% 7,340 71.74% 686 65.70% 11,528 62.92%
11/9/2005 1,287 41.12% 2,233 51.29% 7,393 72.98% 689 66.43% 11,602 63.96%
11/10/2005 1,295 42.00% 2,241 51.83% 7,457 74.47% 698 68.60% 11,691 65.22%
11/11/2005 1,293 41.78% 2,263 53.32% 7,530 76.18% 698 68.60% 11,784 66.53%
11/12/2005 1,295 42.00% 2,284 54.74% 7,616 78.19% 705 70.29% 11,900 68.17%
11/14/2005 1,299 42.43% 2,291 55.22% 7,649 78.97% 709 71.26% 11,948 68.85%
11/15/2005 1,304 42.98% 2,298 55.69% 7,691 79.95% 711 71.74% 12,004 69.64%
11/16/2005 1,300 42.54% 2,291 55.22% 7,617 78.22% 714 72.46% 11,922 68.49%
11/17/2005 1,292 41.67% 2,281 54.54% 7,618 78.24% 716 72.95% 11,907 68.27%
11/18/2005 1,278 40.13% 2,282 54.61% 7,632 78.57% 715 72.71% 11,907 68.27%
11/19/2005 1,282 40.57% 2,278 54.34% 7,657 79.15% 716 72.95% 11,933 68.64%
11/20/2005 1,283 40.68% 2,281 54.54% 7,648 78.94% 716 72.95% 11,928 68.57%
11/21/2005 1,284 40.79% 2,276 54.20% 7,625 78.40% 716 72.95% 11,901 68.19%
11/22/2005 1,279 40.24% 2,271 53.86% 7,574 77.21% 712 71.98% 11,836 67.27%
11/23/2005 1,279 40.24% 2,271 53.86% 7,574 77.21% 712 71.98% 11,836 67.27%
11/24/2005 1,272 39.47% 2,264 53.39% 7,564 76.98% 712 71.98% 11,812 66.93%
11/25/2005 1,265 38.71% 2,258 52.98% 7,528 76.13% 711 71.74% 11,762 66.22%
11/26/2005 1,262 38.38% 2,252 52.57% 7,536 76.32% 707 70.77% 11,757 66.15%
11/27/2005 1,264 38.60% 2,242 51.90% 7,531 76.20% 710 71.50% 11,747 66.01%
11/28/2005 1,259 38.05% 2,236 51.49% 7,516 75.85% 707 70.77% 11,718 65.60%
11/29/2005 1,266 38.82% 2,225 50.75% 7,470 74.78% 698 68.60% 11,659 64.77%
11/30/2005 1,260 38.16% 2,216 50.14% 7,450 74.31% 690 66.67% 11,616 64.16%
           
12/1/2005 1,241 36.07% 2,186 48.10% 7,334 71.60% 687 65.94% 11,448 61.79%
12/2/2005 1,229 34.76% 2,181 47.76% 7,352 72.02% 689 66.53% 11,451 61.83%
12/3/2005 1,225 34.32% 2,189 48.31% 7,408 73.33% 691 66.91% 11,513 62.70%
12/4/2005 1,235 35.42% 2,181 47.76% 7,410 73.37% 692 67.15% 11,518 62.78%
12/5/2005 1,228 34.65% 2,176 47.43% 7,403 73.21% 686 65.70% 11,493 62.42%
12/6/2005 1,222 33.99% 2,153 45.87% 7,402 73.19% 680 64.25% 11,457 61.91%
12/7/2005 1,229 34.76% 2,161 46.41% 7,366 72.34% 673 62.56% 11,429 61.52%
12/8/2005 1,227 34.54% 2,154 45.93% 7,314 71.13% 666 60.87% 11,361 60.56%
12/9/2005 1,229 34.76% 2,165 46.68% 7,309 71.01% 666 60.87% 11,369 60.67%
12/10/2005 1,225 34.32% 2,168 46.88% 7,320 71.27% 654 57.97% 11,367 60.64%
12/11/2005 1,219 33.66% 2,160 46.34% 7,302 70.85% 653 57.73% 11,334 60.18%
12/12/2005 1,218 33.55% 2,153 45.87% 7,285 70.45% 650 57.00% 11,306 59.78%
12/13/2005 1,216 33.33% 2,135 44.65% 7,242 69.44% 647 56.28% 11,240 58.85%
12/14/2005 1,216 33.33% 2,110 42.95% 7,217 68.86% 644 55.56% 11,187 58.10%
12/16/2005 1,196 31.14% 2,078 40.79% 7,130 66.82% 643 55.31% 11,047 56.12%
12/17/2005 1,201 31.69% 2,069 40.18% 7,085 65.77% 645 55.80% 11,000 55.46%
12/18/2005 1,204 32.02% 2,056 39.30% 7,066 65.33% 647 56.28% 10,973 55.07%
12/19/2005 1,205 32.13% 2,051 38.96% 7,044 64.81% 646 56.04% 10,946 54.69%
12/20/2005 1,197 31.25% 2,031 37.60% 6,985 63.43% 638 54.11% 10,851 53.35%
12/21/2005 1,189 30.37% 2,012 36.31% 6,908 61.63% 633 52.90% 10,742 51.81%
12/22/2005 1,187 30.15% 1,983 34.35% 6,831 59.83% 627 51.45% 10,628 50.20%
12/23/2005 1,175 28.84% 1,957 32.59% 6,773 58.47% 622 50.24% 10,527 48.77%
12/26/2005 1,164 27.63% 1,943 31.64% 6,677 56.22% 613 48.07% 10,397 46.93%
12/27/2005 1,156 26.75% 1,935 31.10% 6,654 55.69% 609 47.10% 10,354 46.33%
12/28/2005 1,141 25.11% 1,906 29.13% 6,629 55.10% 601 45.17% 10,277 45.24%
12/29/2005 1,132 24.12% 1,889 27.98% 6,563 53.56% 597 44.20% 10,181 43.88%
12/30/2005 1,123 23.14% 1,884 27.64% 6,561 53.51% 598 44.44% 10,166 43.67%
12/31/2005 1,110 21.71% 1,869 26.63% 6,497 52.01% 585 41.30% 10,061 42.18%



Population versus Homes for Sale

This next set of data is trying to show the relationship between the total number of people in a given area to the number of homes for sale in that area.  This allows us to compare number of homes for sale today to the number of homes for at some time in the past on a population adjusted basis (this is only one of many factors that may be considered for comparative purposes, such as Incomes, Job Growth, Home Prices versus Rent ratios, Inflation, etc).

  • For example:
         - October 21, 2005, Sacramento County with an estimated population of 1,384,680 and 8,006 homes for sale has a population to homes for sale ratio of 173.
         - April, 1995,  Sacramento County with an estimated population of 1,132,359 and 6,600 homes for sale has a population to homes for sale ratio of 172.

  El Dorado County Placer County Sacramento County Yolo County Total
Year Popu- lation # Homes Pop/ Home Popu- lation # Homes Pop/ Home Popu- lation # Homes Pop/ Home Popu- lation # Homes Pop/ Home Popu- lation # Homes Pop/ Home
                               
07/01/90 125,995     172,796     1,041,219     141,092     1,481,102    
07/01/91 129,115     180,649     1,059,447     143,959     1,513,170    
07/01/92 132,236     188,502     1,077,675     146,826     1,545,239    
04/30/93 135,356 1,550 87 196,355 1,869 105 1,095,903 7,487 146 149,693 698 215 1,577,307 11,604 136
04/30/94 138,476 1,395 99 204,208 1,682 121 1,114,131 6,739 165 152,560 628 243 1,609,376 10,444 154
04/30/95 141,597 1,400 101 212,062 1,700 125 1,132,359 6,600 172 155,427 628 247 1,641,444 10,328 159
04/30/96 144,717 1,400 103 219,915 1,675 131 1,150,587 5,800 198 158,294 615 257 1,673,512 9,490 176
04/30/97 147,837 1,350 110 227,768 1,600 142 1,168,815 5,400 216 161,161 615 262 1,705,581 8,965 190
04/30/98 150,957 1,150 131 235,621 1,200 196 1,187,043 4,400 270 164,028 615 267 1,737,649 7,365 236
04/30/99 154,078 1,000 154 243,474 1,100 221 1,205,271 4,000 301 166,895 200 834 1,769,718 6,300 281
04/30/00 157,198 650 242 251,327 800 314 1,223,499 2,800 437 169,762 100 1,698 1,801,786 4,350 414
04/30/01 161,397 650 248 264,874 1,000 265 1,266,480 2,800 452 174,742 50 3,495 1,867,493 4,500 415
04/30/02 165,767 650 255 279,011 1,025 272 1,301,716 2,250 579 179,327 50 3,587 1,925,821 3,975 484
04/30/03 169,199 650 260 293,630 1,050 280 1,330,730 2,300 579 181,898 225 808 1,975,457 4,225 468
04/30/04 172,899 625 277 307,004 650 472 1,352,445 1,700 796 184,364 200 922 2,016,712 3,175 635
04/30/05 176,824 594 298 320,923 1,070 300 1,384,680 2,545 544 188,015 214 879 2,070,442 4,423 468
05/31/05 176,824 710 249 320,923 1,280 251 1,384,680 3,044 455 188,015 256 734 2,070,442 5,290 391
06/30/05 176,824 839 211 320,923 1,511 212 1,384,680 3,594 385 188,015 302 623 2,070,442 6,246 331
07/31/05 176,824 975 181 320,923 1,757 183 1,384,680 4,179 331 188,015 351 536 2,070,442 7,262 285
08/31/05 176,824 1,147 154 320,923 1,973 163 1,384,680 6,374 217 188,015 538 349 2,070,442 10,032 206
09/30/05 176,824 1,259 140 320,923 2,197 146 1,384,680 7,293 190 188,015 675 279 2,070,442 11,424 181
10/21/05 176,824 1,338 132 320,923 2,376 135 1,384,680 8,006 173 188,015 743 253 2,070,442 12,463 166
10/31/05 176,824 1,421 124 320,923 2,551 126 1,384,680 8,704 159 188,015 775 243 2,070,442 13,451 154
 

Population Adjustments from 1990-2000 and 2000-2004 (estimates)

Since I only have Census Bureau information for 1990, 2000 and 2004, I tried to "estimate" population changes for 1991-1999 and for 2005.  This is by no means 100% accurate on a year by year basis, but tries to provide some estimation for comparative purposes during those years.  I used a very basic calculation to calculate the change.

For 1991-1999:

  1.  I took the difference in population between 2000 and 1990 (1,223,499 - 1,041,219 = 182,280) and then divided that by 10 to come up with an average population change per year of 18,228 (182,280 / 10 = 18,228).

  2. I took the starting population in 1990 and added the average change to come up with the population for 1991 (1,041,219 + 18,228 = 1,059,447.  I then repeated this procedure for each year through 1999.

For 2005:

  1. I took the difference in population between 2004 and 2000 (1,352,445 - 1,223,499 = 128,946) and divided that by 4 to come up with 32,236 for an average change over those 4 years.

  2. I then added that to the 2004 population for an estimated 2005 population.

  • NOTE:  Again, this is by no means a 100% accurate representation of population changes over the course of 1991-1999 or for 2005.  A population change of 18,228/year during the 90's compared to a population change of 32,236/year during the 2000's should make that clear.   Obviously there would be year to year changes in population growth versus the same number (18,000) every year.  What would be a more realistic scenario is a gradual change along the way  (1991 - 14,000, 1992 - 16,000, 1993 - 19,000, 1994 - 18,000, 1995 - 21,000, etc).  However, for the purpose of this experiment, I chose to use this procedure.  If I find the actual population data for those years, I'll change it.

Year Pop Chg   Years Avg/ Year Pop Chg   Years Avg/ Year Pop Chg   Years Avg/ Year Pop Chg   Years Avg/ Year      
2000 157,198     251,327     1,223,499     169,762          
1990 125,995     172,796     1,041,219     141,092          
  31,203 10 3,120 78,531 10 7,853 182,280 10 18,228 28,670 10 2,867      
                               
                               
                               
2004 172,899     307,004     1,352,445     184,364          
2000 157,198     251,327     1,223,499     169,762          
  15,701 4 3,925 55,677 4 13,919 128,946 4 32,236 14,602 4 3,650      
                               
                               
                               
Inventory Adjustment from 1994 to 1993 (used to calculated Regional Homes Available for 1993 since I only had a 4 county total for 1993)
                               
  Pop % Chg Adj Pop % Chg Adj Pop % Chg Adj            
1994 10,444     10,444     10,444     10,444          
1993 11,604     11,604     11,604     11,604          
    11.11%     11.11%     11.11%     11.11%        
      1,395     1,682     6,739     628      
      111%     111%     111%     111%      
      1,550     1,869     7,487     698      
Notes:



Job Growth in the Four County Region from 1994-2004
Things to notice:
1) Steady decline in job growth after a peak in 1999.
2) High percentage of new jobs being real estate related.
Year Total Jobs Total New Jobs New Real Estate Jobs Percent
1994 643,800 17,800 1,600 9.0%
1995 662,800 19,000 400 2.1%
1996 681,500 18,700 2,800 15.0%
1997 702,000 20,500 4,000 19.5%
1998 731,400 29,400 5,900 20.0%
1999 770,500 39,100 8,100 20.7%
2000 797,100 26,600 4,500 16.9%
2001 818,900 21,800 7,100 32.6%
2002 832,200 13,300 1,700 12.8%
2003 846,000 13,800 7,000 50.7%
2004 856,200 10,200 4,100 40.1%

Notes:

  • Job numbers were taken from a recent article in the Sacramento Bee, which was quoting numbers by the Employment Development Department in Sacramento.




Notes:
  • Inventory chart on the left depicts the inventory data in the tables above  (last updated 12/31/2005).
  • The National City chart on the right was pulled from a recent report by National City regarding overvalued and "extremely overvalued" (over 30% overvalued) cities in America.   At that point, they considered Sacramento roughly 54% overvalued, which fell into the "extremely overvalued" category.




Home Inventories

(1993 to 2005)

El Dorado Placer Sacramento Yolo Total
Date # of
Homes
%
Change
# of
Homes
%
Change
# of
Homes
%
Change
# of
Homes
%
Change
# of
Homes
%
Change
4/30/1993 11604
4/30/1994 1395 0.00% 1682 0.00% 6739 0.00% 628 0.00% 10444 0.00%
4/30/1995 1400 0.36% 1700 1.07% 6600 -2.06% 628 0.00% 10328 -1.11%
4/30/1996 1400 0.36% 1675 -0.42% 5800 -13.93% 615 -2.07% 9490 -9.13%
4/30/1997 1350 -3.23% 1600 -4.88% 5400 -19.87% 615 -2.07% 8965 -14.16%
4/30/1998 1150 -17.56% 1200 -28.66% 4400 -34.71% 615 -2.07% 7365 -29.48%
4/30/1999 1000 -28.32% 1100 -34.60% 4000 -40.64% 200 -68.15% 6300 -39.68%
4/30/2000 650 -53.41% 800 -52.44% 2800 -58.45% 100 -84.08% 4350 -58.35%
4/30/2001 650 -53.41% 1000 -40.55% 2800 -58.45% 50 -92.04% 4500 -56.91%
4/30/2002 650 -53.41% 1025 -39.06% 2250 -66.61% 50 -92.04% 3975 -61.94%
4/30/2003 650 -53.41% 1050 -37.57% 2300 -65.87% 225 -64.17% 4225 -59.55%
4/30/2004 625 -55.20% 650 -61.36% 1700 -74.77% 200 -68.15% 3175 -69.60%
4/30/2005 594 -57.42% 1070 -36.39% 2545 -62.23% 214 -65.92% 4423 -57.65%
5/31/2005 710 -49.07% 1280 -23.92% 3044 -54.83% 256 -59.24% 5290 -49.35%
6/30/2005 839 -39.87% 1511 -10.17% 3594 -46.67% 302 -51.88% 6426 -40.20%
7/31/2005 975 -30.08% 1757 4.46% 4179 -37.99% 351 -44.04% 7263 -30.46%

Notes:

  • No regional data available for 1993, just a 4 county total.

  • No regional data available for May-July of 05, just the 4 county totals.  To estimate individual county numbers for those months, I used the percentage of the 4 county total that each region had for April of 2005, and then applied that percentage to the 4 county total to come up with individual county data for May through July of 2005.

  • Historical data (1993 to 2004) were taken from different graphs and charts found on the web.  Since some of the data was in graphic form I had to guess the actual number, so I'm sure they're off a bit (for example, El Dorado County from 2000-2003 having an inventory of 650.   Obviously the number should not be the exact same every year, but I don't care if back in 2001 the number should have been 643 or 662, the overall trend is what matters.

Inventory Changes Beginning 8/8/2005
(INCLUDING "Pending Sales")
El Dorado Placer Sacramento Yolo Total
Date # of
Homes
%
Change
# of
Homes
%
Change
# of
Homes
%
Change
# of
Homes
%
Change
# of
Homes
%
Change
                     
8/08/2005 1058 0.00% 1798 0.00% 5361 0.00% 481 0.00% 8698 0.00%
8/09/2005 1060 0.19% 1779 -1.06% 5409 0.90% 481 0.00% 8729 0.36%
8/10/2005 1065 0.66% 1782 -0.89% 5450 1.66% 480 -0.21% 8777 0.91%
8/11/2005 1073 1.42% 1802 0.22% 5508 2.74% 487 1.25% 8870 1.98%
8/12/2005 1069 1.04% 1806 0.44% 5549 3.51% 490 1.87% 8914 2.48%
8/13/2005 1068 0.95% 1837 2.17% 5666 5.69% 486 1.04% 9057 4.13%
8/14/2005 1071 1.23% 1842 2.45% 5690 6.14% 482 0.21% 9085 4.45%
8/15/2005 1080 2.08% 1839 2.28% 5676 5.88% 480 -0.21% 9075 4.33%
8/16/2005 1088 2.84% 1841 2.39% 5727 6.83% 477 -0.83% 9133 5.00%
8/17/2005 1084 2.46% 1855 3.17% 5774 7.70% 483 0.42% 9196 5.73%
8/18/2005 1077 1.80% 1878 4.45% 5820 8.45% 487 1.25% 9262 6.48%
8/19/2005 1089 2.93% 1889 5.06% 5869 9.48% 499 3.74% 9346 7.45%
8/20/2005 1101 4.06% 1930 7.34% 5990 11.73% 507 5.41% 9528 9.54%
8/21/2005 1095 3.50% 1926 7.12% 6012 12.14% 508 5.61% 9541 9.69%
8/22/2005 1094 3.40% 1923 6.95% 6007 12.05% 506 5.20% 9530 9.57%
8/23/2005 1111 5.01% 1924 7.01% 6018 12.26% 511 6.24% 9564 9.96%
8/24/2005 1118 5.67% 1929 7.29% 5051 12.87% 514 6.86% 9612 10.51%
8/25/2005 1118 5.67% 1928 7.23% 6088 13.56% 516 7.28% 9650 10.95%
8/26/2005 1112 5.10% 1927 7.17% 6180 15.28% 524 8.94% 9743 12.01%
8/27/2005 1126 6.43% 1976 9.90% 6336 18.19% 529 9.98% 9967 14.59%
8/28/2005 1129 6.71% 1975 9.84% 6345 18.35% 535 11.23% 9984 14.79%
8/29/2005 1132 6.99% 1974 9.79% 6341 18.28% 531 10.40% 9978 14.72%
8/30/2005 1141 7.84% 1970 9.57% 6344 18.34% 529 9.98% 9984 14.79%
8/31/2005 1147 8.41% 1973 9.73% 6374 18.90% 538 11.85% 10032 15.34%
9/1/2005 1143 8.03% 1966 9.34% 6384 19.08% 541 12.47% 10034 15.36%
9/2/2005 1152 8.88% 1959 8.95% 6427 19.88% 554 15.18% 10092 16.03%
9/3/2005 1176 11.15% 2014 12.01% 6557 22.31% 563 17.05% 10310 18.53%
9/4/2005 1183 11.81% 2016 12.12% 6591 22.94% 566 17.67% 10356 19.06%
9/5/2005 1181 11.63% 2013 11.96% 6593 22.98% 570 18.50% 10357 19.07%
9/6/2005 1179 11.44% 2008 11.68% 6587 22.87% 575 19.54% 10349 18.98%
9/7/2005 1182 11.72% 2014 12.01% 6608 23.26% 581 20.79% 10385 19.40%
9/8/2005 1190 12.48% 2001 11.29% 6675 24.51% 591 22.87% 10457 20.22%
9/9/2005 1197 13.14% 2020 12.35% 6722 25.39% 593 23.28% 10532 21.09%
9/10/2005 1210 14.37% 2066 14.91% 6864 28.04% 607 26.20% 10747 23.56%
9/11/2005 1212 14.56% 2063 14.74% 6875 28.24% 616 28.07% 10766 23.78%
9/12/2005 1207 14.08% 2069 15.07% 6877 28.28% 616 28.07% 10769 23.81%
9/13/2005 1223 15.60% 2082 15.80% 6867 28.09% 615 27.86% 10787 24.02%
9/14/2005 1223 15.60% 2085 15.96% 6891 28.54% 620 28.90% 10819 24.38%
9/15/2005 1225 15.78% 2101 16.85% 6931 29.29% 626 30.15% 10883 25.12%
9/16/2005 1229 16.16% 2118 17.80% 6929 29.25% 621 29.11% 10897 25.28%
9/17/2005 1232 16.45% 2167 20.52% 7044 31.39% 632 31.39% 11075 27.33%
9/18/2005 1225 15.78% 2162 20.24% 7063 31.75% 627 30.35% 11077 27.35%
9/19/2005 1233 16.54% 2159 20.08% 7080 32.06% 625 29.94% 11097 27.58%
9/20/2005 1241 17.30% 2155 19.86% 7071 31.90% 636 32.22% 11103 27.65%
9/21/2005 1242 17.39% 2156 19.91% 7105 32.53% 641 33.26% 11144 28.12%
9/22/2005 1241 17.30% 2146 19.35% 7145 33.28% 646 34.30% 11178 28.51%
9/23/2005 1242 17.39% 2178 21.13% 7204 34.38% 649 34.93% 11273 29.60%
9/24/2005 1241 17.30% 2175 20.97% 7293 36.04% 659 37.01% 11368 30.70%
9/25/2005 1247 17.86% 2173 20.86% 7298 36.13% 652 35.55% 11370 30.72%
9/26/2005 1243 17.49% 2174 20.91% 7270 35.61% 652 35.55% 11339 30.36%
9/27/2005 1252 18.34% 2161 20.19% 7262 35.46% 664 38.05% 11339 30.36%
9/28/2005 1246 17.77% 2176 21.02% 7247 35.18% 664 38.05% 11333 30.29%
9/29/2005 1254 18.53% 2179 21.19% 7283 35.85% 674 40.12% 11390 30.95%
9/30/2005 1259 19.00% 2197 22.19% 7293 36.04% 675 40.33% 11424 31.34%
10/1/2005 1249 18.05% 2200 22.36% 7332 36.77% 676 40.54% 11457 31.72%
10/2/2005 1250 18.15% 2207 22.75% 7329 36.71% 678 40.96% 11464 31.80%
10/3/2005 1247 17.86% 2212 23.03% 7326 36.65% 680 41.37% 11465 31.81%
10/4/2005 1257 18.81% 2197 22.19% 7331 36.75% 684 42.20% 11469 31.86%
10/5/2005 1270 20.04% 2186 21.58% 7349 37.08% 688 43.04% 11493 32.13%
10/6/2005 1267 19.75% 2189 21.75% 7389 37.83% 691 43.66% 11536 32.63%
10/7/2005 1262 19.28% 2192 21.91% 7431 38.61% 696 44.70% 11581 33.15%
10/8/2005 1272 20.23% 2206 22.69% 7524 40.35% 695 44.49% 11697 34.48%
10/9/2005 1268 19.85% 2200 22.36% 7544 40.72% 696 44.70% 11708 34.61%
10/10/2005 1260 19.09% 2196 22.14% 7536 40.57% 694 44.28% 11686 34.35%
10/11/2005 1278 20.79% 2193 21.97% 7531 40.48% 695 44.49% 11697 34.48%
10/12/2005 1277 20.70% 2207 22.75% 7527 40.40% 691 43.66% 11702 34.54%
10/13/2005 1286 21.55% 2214 23.14% 7499 39.88% 695 44.49% 11694 34.44%
10/14/2005 1285 21.46% 2233 24.19% 7508 40.05% 701 45.74% 11727 34.82%
10/15/2005 1297 22.59% 2261 25.75% 7620 42.14% 699 45.32% 11877 36.55%
10/16/2005 1312 24.01% 2273 26.42% 7690 43.44% 704 46.36% 11979 37.72%
10/17/2005 1316 24.39% 2289 27.31% 7721 44.02% 707 46.99% 12033 38.34%
10/18/2005 1323 25.05% 2298 27.81% 7751 44.58% 712 48.02% 12084 38.93%
10/19/2005 1334 26.09% 2321 29.09% 7813 45.74% 725 50.73% 12193 40.18%
10/20/2005 1335 26.18% 2344 30.37% 7890 47.17% 738 53.43% 12307 41.49%
10/21/2005 1338 26.47% 2376 32.15% 8006 49.34% 743 54.47% 12463 43.29%
10/22/2005 1352 27.79% 2417 34.43% 8139 51.82% 751 56.13% 12659 45.54%
10/23/2005 1355 28.07% 2430 35.15% 8164 52.29% 753 56.55% 12702 46.03%
10/24/2005 1362 28.73% 2437 35.54% 8172 52.43% 751 56.13% 12722 46.26%
10/25/2005 1376 30.06% 2459 36.76% 8251 53.91% 755 56.96% 12841 47.63%
10/26/2005 1393 31.66% 2500 39.04% 8339 55.55% 758 57.59% 12990 49.34%
10/27/2005 1391 31.44% 2495 38.77% 8444 57.50% 762 58.51% 13092 50.52%
10/28/2005 1397 32.04% 2516 39.93% 8512 58.78% 772 60.50% 13197 51.72%
10/29/2005 1414 33.65% 2548 41.71% 8657 61.48% 776 61.33% 13395 54.00%
10/30/2005 1424 34.59% 2556 42.16% 8694 62.16% 779 61.95% 13453 54.67%
10/31/2005 1421 34.31% 2551 41.88% 8704 62.36% 775 61.12% 13451 54.64%
11/1/2005 1433 35.44% 2569 42.88% 8768 63.55% 776 61.33% 13546 55.74%
11/2/2005 1452 37.24% 2599 44.55% 8832 64.75% 778 61.75% 13661 57.06%
11/3/2005 1462 38.19% 2630 46.27% 8884 65.72% 783 62.79% 13759 58.19%
11/4/2005 1473 39.22% 2652 47.50% 8945 66.85% 790 64.24% 13860 59.35%
11/5/2005 1480 39.89% 2685 49.33% 9081 69.39% 792 64.66% 14038 61.39%
11/6/2005 1479 39.79% 2698 50.06% 9119 70.10% 796 65.49% 14092 62.01%
11/7/2005 1476 39.51% 2699 50.11% 9128 70.27% 795 65.28% 14098 62.08%
11/8/2005 1491 40.93% 2701 50.22% 9206 71.72% 798 65.90% 14196 63.21%
11/9/2005 1493 41.12% 2721 51.33% 9272 72.95% 801 66.53% 14287 64.26%
11/10/2005 1502 41.97% 2731 51.89% 9353 74.46% 812 68.81% 14398 65.53%
11/11/2005 1500 41.78% 2757 53.34% 9445 76.18% 812 68.81% 14514 66.87%
11/12/2005 1502 41.97% 2783 54.78% 9552 78.18% 820 70.48% 14657 68.51%
11/13/2005 % % % % %
11/14/2005 1507 42.44% 2792 55.28% 9594 78.96% 824 71.31% 14717 69.20%
11/15/2005 1513 43.01% 2800 55.73% 9646 79.93% 827 71.93% 14786 69.99%
11/16/2005 1508 42.53% 2791 55.23% 9553 78.19% 830 72.56% 14682 68.80%
11/17/2005 1499 41.68% 2779 54.56% 9555 78.23% 832 72.97% 14665 68.60%
11/18/2005 1483 40.17% 2780 54.62% 9572 78.55% 831 72.77% 14666 68.61%
11/19/2005 1487 40.55% 2776 54.39% 9604 79.15% 833 73.18% 14700 69.00%
11/20/2005 1488 40.64% 2779 54.56% 9592 78.92% 833 73.18% 14692 68.91%
11/21/2005 1490 40.83% 2773 54.23% 9564 78.40% 832 72.97% 14659 68.53%
11/22/2005 1484 40.26% 2767 53.89% 9500 77.21% 828 72.14% 14579 67.61%
Notes:
  • Daily inventory numbers are coming off the MLS.
  • On a daily basis, I've seen different inventory numbers reported by different sources.  However, if you use the same source of data over a period of time, the numbers should be pretty consistent.

Comments:
Love it James. I plan to short a good bunch of housing stock tomorrow; the data is no longer anecdotal.
 
James, where do you get your data from (current and historical)? I'd like to do similar things with other cities?
 
I got the historical figures from different charts, graphs and tables I found on the web.

The current data I pull off the MLS daily listings. You can get them from some Newspapers home sections, many realtors' websites, Help-U-Sell, etc.
 
Nice work. Do you know what the population numbers are for the area, compared to 15 years ago?
 
Thanks for the continued update James. Big day tomorrow. We'll blast our 1993 record.
 
njdoc,

Sorry, I don't have those numbers.
 
amazedrenter,

Yes I was wondering when that would happen. I'm curious to see what happens over the next few months. Usually inventories decline in the fall as fewer people put their homes on the market. So far that's not holding up. It's still early though, so we'll see.
 
Nice. For a second it looked to be slowing down; this weekend it sped up a notch.

Fascinating to watch.
 
Much of the growth of jobs in the Sacramento are, prehaps half of the groth in recent years, is real estate related, my guess is that subdivsions started allready will continue to be built till the end of the year, and maybe even next year, but once this dries up, so will these jobs.
 
Here is the population data for Sacramento County:
1990 1,066,695
2000 1,223,499
2004 1,352,445 (est.)

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06067.html

26.8% growth between 1990 and 2004.
So between 1993 and 2005 it should be about 23%.
That means we need to get to 14,300 to be at the 1993 level, population growth-adjusted.

Something tells me we'll get there before the end of the year.

Thank you for monitoring the data, James!
 
John,

I've added some data regarding the job growth over the last 10 years.
 
sf bear,

Thanks for the info and link. If I get a chance, I'll put up some data regarding those.
 
This just looks to get worse and worse. The state has no room to add more jobs because of its financial situation, and business that used to find Sacramento a cheap market to locate in now look elsewhere. As current developments in areas like Antelope and Elk Grove are completed by next summer, the inventory overhang will be massive even by historical standards.
 
Keep'm coming folks. At this pace we'll be at 14300 before Christmas.
 
Wow, it seems to add 100-150 every day now! With this rate we'll get to 14300 by mid November.

Actually, there is another factor to consider when comparing current inventory to 1993: these numbers don't take FSBOs into account. I believe that percentage of FSBOs is much higher now than in 1993.
Reasons: 6% commission is now too much money to throw away; information on how to do it alone is easier to find; sellers tend to hire realtors more often when it's known that the buyers are difficult to find, like it was in 1993.

If this theory is true, the total number of properties for sale now could be higher than what it was in 1993, even population-adjusted.
 
I've added some population numbers. 1990, 2000 and 2004 numbers were pulled from the census stats. (thanks for the link SF Bear).

Calucalations for 1991-1999 and for 2005, are just estimates. For example, using the method I did, Sac County's population changed at a rate of around 18k per year in the 1990's versus a rate of around 32k in the 2000's.

In reality the number is more of a progressive change through the years.
 
Things seem to be getting uglier at a faster clip in Sacramento county. What are people saying on the gound level there?
 
James, I continue to be amazed by the pace. Two weeks ago, I wrote "14300 by Christmas." We're well on our way for 16k by Christmas if this trend continues. We'll see...at some point we should probably expect sellers to pull their property off the market, at least temporarily reducing the inventory.
 
Looking at these listing, I can see a big reason why there are so many homes on the market. A 3 bd 2 ba home in Citrus Heights going for around $400K is not going to sell in this enviroment, especially when the same home 5 years ago went for $150K or less. Rents on the other hand have not budged since 2001.
 
amazedrenter,

I'm surprised by how many homes have come onto the market myself. I never expected this, at least not this quick. I think many of the homes on the market right now are there by people just throwing up high prices just hoping to catch the top (or near), even though they really don't need to sell. Some of them will probably pull their homes off the market at some point when they realize they won't get close to what they hoped for.
 
john,

I agree with you. Many of these will just NOT sell at these prices. Everyday you're seeing more articles in the papers, on the tv news, etc about prices having peaked, inventories skyrocketing, etc.

As each day goes by, more people are coming to the conclusion (at least I think they are) that hmmmm...maybe home prices will not go up every year as the real estate "professionals" try to tell them.

This will help convince many would be buyers to either hold back and see where things (inventories and prices) go for a few months. Or possibly at a bare minimum to start putting in offers at below asking price, demanding more concessions by sellers, quit listening to the hype by real estate agents, brokers, etc.
 
I think the majority of the sellers right now are empty nesters looking to cash in and get out. There are also alot of speculators. I don't think alot of the sellers are looking to sell their own homes just for the profits.
 
Its amazing how fast the inventory continues to rocket upwards. I have a feeling many speculators are near panic levels. If the rates get near 7%, the panic will only get worse, as many with ARMs will no longer be able to afford their homes.

My opinion is the median price of a home in the Sacramento area should be $150K. If it will get there or not depends on how successful the govrenmnet is in being able to continue to cheap money party.

One thing people have to keep in mind is that in t he 90s with the previous real estate bust, intrest rates went down from 10% to 7.5% by 96, and also the Sacramento region starting in 94 started to gain well paying jobs again, with companies such as HP in rapid expansion. This is what proved to be a nice cushion that prevented priced from going down more than 25%, does anyone really think rates will go down and growth of well paying jobs to return?
 
Just blew though the 14300 number. Wait untill the new banckrupcy laws take full effect.

If the investors who have bid up Sacramento homes since 3Q of 2000 remain to be greedy, and unrealistic, trying to unload a 3bd/2ba circa 1970 home in Citrus Heights for close to $400 that is not even worth $200K, then we may see Sacramento inventory numbers go towrds 20K by spring.
 
Toooo cool. 14300 even before 11/15. What was I thinking when suggesting Christmas.

Hey, quick question: Why are your numbers slightly different from bubbletracking.blogspot.com? (Especially lately, bubbletracking's numbers have been flat, yours are going up).

Any clues, let me know. Thanks for this great info.
 
Anyone watching Solano County ? Pls. let me know. Thanks.
 
A friend who lives in Antioch, CA says the home builders are passing out flyers in the neighborhood to tell friends and families who may be interested in buying a home and if someone buys they get a $3000 reward. Sounds like the builders are desperate...gone are the days when you have to stand in line to bid on house.
 
Hey guys,

I've been noticing the difference in reported numbers coming off the MLS also. I've been trying to figure out where the descrepancies are, and I think I've figured out a couple things.

When I first started following this stuff, I used Sacbee's website. I then switched over to IDXCentral's site (# 2 below) since they had better search functionality, easier to bookmark searches (which they've unfortunately changed since then), etc.

The last couple days, I've run identical searches on 4 different sites:
1) Sacbee's MLS Search
2) IDXCentral's MLS Search
3) GoLyon's MLS Search
4) Zip Realty's MLS Search.

1) Sacbee's search results in the highest overall numbers, but those also include pending sales. Sacbee includes mobile homes in their searches which adds some to the inventory.

2) IDX's numbers seem to be 2nd highest, BUT, as I was scrolling through some particular search results, I found some duplicate entries (NOT good if that counts towards overall numbers). IDX also includes mobile homes which in some areas adds quite a bit of inventory.

3) GoLyon's numbers are pretty much in the middle range and they include pending sales. So you'd have to go through and subtract them out. GoLyon does not appear to include mobile home listings.

4) Zip Realty's numbers are the lowest, but do not include pending sales. I don't think they include mobile home sales either, but I didn't register to view entire details about listed properties, so I can't say for sure. Maybe someone else knows?

Those are some preliminary findings on differences in inventory numbers. Since I have been using IDX's site for some time know, I'm disappointed in finding duplicate entries in their system. Their numbers seem to be about 10-12% higher than GoLyon and Zip, but they also include mobile homes in their search.

I've noticed that different sites include different cities in their searches. For example, if you look for West Sacramento:

1) Sacbee puts it in Yolo county (which it is according to county boundaries).

2) IDX puts it in Yolo county.

3) GyLyon puts it in Yolo county.

4) Zip puts it in Sacramento county.

Although that in itself should not change total inventories (all 4 counties), I'm starting to wonder if all website searches actually include the exact same geographic regions and access to all data.

Anyways, these are just some initial findings. I think the true numbers are probably somewhere in the middle between the low and high numbers reported. If I change searches and skip using IDX, which is pretty likely....I'll go back and modify the numbers (possibly a 10% drop right off the top). Or, maybe just footnote where the numbers are coming from to explain the change. Any thoughts?
 
There are 2 things I look at when I check this awesome page.

1. How the inventory changes over time.
Even if the source overstates the inventory by 10%, as long as that overstatement is constant, it doesn't matter.

2. How these numbers compare to what we think was the peak in 1993.
We don't know whether 1993 numbers include duplicates, pending listings and mobile homes. So it's not clear which source today would give the most accurate comparison.

Also, don't forget about FSBOs. I read somewhere that FSBOs are now 10-15% of all inventory. If you factor those in, it will negate the 10% overstatement that comes from the duplicates.
 
james, this was a good question that amazed brought up.

it does appear ziprealty is by far the most conservative of all tracking services. that was primarily why I like using them. because if the most conservative inventory figures are showing increases, it really add strength to such increases.

as for issue of mobile homes, yes, ziprealty do include them. and their policy on pending sales are extremely strict, a home becomes immediately unsearchable once it become pending (makes for good business, don't want the agents to waste time with listings already pending).

tracking other areas, I have found ziprealty to be consistantly at the low end as far as inventory count is concerned. especially in comparison to realtor.com or newspaper sites.

but anyhow, I think the bottomline is to remain consistant and stay with one MLS service. the trend will speak for itself.

I do also echo this point SF bear pointed out. what is the 1990's numbers? so far the only data I have is a 1995 number for San Diego, which worked out to a listing per population ratio of 1:140, if we apply that to all metro areas as the breaking point for the bubble, Sac is awefully close if not already there!!
 
Hey James,

Ziprealty appears to be the way to go based on your comments and OCrenter's input. Of course, final choice is up to you. Looking forward to future updates :).
 
james, again, consistancy in the number is the key. may want to just stay with the same source.
 
hey guys,

Thanks for the input. For now, I'll stay using IDXCentral. They're obviously way up on the upper end as far as numbers go. I'll stick with them just for consistency purposes. At some point, if I change, I'll document that, to reflect the change in numbers.

OCRenter, Thanks for the clarification on how Zip tracks current inventory. I agree they're definitely the lowest (and probably the best numbers to go by).

As far as IDX is concerned, as I said the other day, I'm concerned with some of their listings, and how accurate they are. The more I look into it, the more I wonder.

For example, today I searched on Sac County. The first 175-200 or so records that pop up are mobile homes. Those do not show up on Zip, Sacbee's site, etc. When I search Zip and Sacbee's site by MLS number, they both report no record and invalid MLS numbers which really has me baffled.

So either these guys have an exclusive on mobile homes (ha ha), or they've possibly got something messed up going on in their system.

If you get a chance, try this out...click on a couple of the results, grab the MLS number and go over to another site and plug it in and see what happens.

IDX Sample Result Page

 
Probably some people pulling homes off the market is starting to take place, also the morons/fools/etc trying tyo "lock in" low rates with the recent ease of intrest rates in the last week or so. This was the biggest daily drop since the numbers started to be tracked.

That said, it will not be pleasant next spring unless non real estate job growth returns in a big way.
 
What do you guys think about the impact of REO's on inventory levels?

REO = Real Estate Owned = bank owned property. Banks temporarily own the property after a foreclosure. Until a real estate agent can unload it for them at typically a very reduced price.

Won't people who are 100% financed start walking away from their homes when they realize the house is worth less than the loan amount? Couldn't this create an influx of foreclosures and REO's on the market?

It would also be interesting to know at what point people will give up? 10%? 15%? Let's seeā€¦.if you have a $500K home that's 100% financed and you loose 10% that's $50K. All of a sudden you owe half a million on a house that's only worth $450K.

Back in the late 80's early 90's banks would let people "sell short". That is....sell the property for less than the loan amount. For the lending institution, it's cheaper than going thru foreclosure process.

Things could get real ugly in the next couple of years.
 
Numbers are coming down, although the question is, are homes starting to sell again, or is inventory being pulled off the market in hope of a better spring? My guess the latter. With the new bankrupcy laws, plus many developments being finished in spring, we will see what 2006 will bring.
 
Selling short still happens today to prevent a foreclosure going through the entire process. One lady who specializes in it typically can get a 30% to 50% discount. There are companies that just deal with properties that are in the foreclosure process. They follow up with Notice of Default leads and bail out the borrower. They only do deals where they can profit with a lot of equity, but still sell below market to move it fast.

I once went door to door to follow up my own leads, but I was never fruitful. During this credit boom, everyone was able to refi.
 
Hey Guys,

Starting last week (11/23/05 I think), the place I was quoting inventories numbers from changed the way they count inventories. It looks like they don't count "Pending Sales" anymore because now their numbers are right in line with other sources (Lyon, Zip, etc).

That being the case, I took the % difference for each county on an individual basis on the date the change took place, and then changed all the daily numbers from 8/8/05 to reflect the new method of counting inventories. The numbers are not exact, but close.

I've kept the old numbers (including pending sales) at the bottom of the page for comparisons if anyone's interested.

I will go back and redo the population adjusted numbers when I get a chance. Also, I've found "yearly" population numbers on the Employment Development Department's website, so I will use those for 1991-1999 and 2001-2005 instead of a calculated number. Yearly numbers are provided by the California Department of Finance.
 
Very cool, thanks for the details.

Inventory is only modestly retreating....I suspect an interesting spring.
 
Hey Fellow, you have a great blog here! I have a web
site & blog about real estate equity loan.
Yours is top-notch!
If you have a moment, please visit my site
real estate equity loan
I wish you all the best!
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

Archives

09/10/05   01/03/06   08/29/06  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?