Santa Barbara Real Estate: March 2013

Friday, March 29, 2013

2013 Home Prices Soar

The Mortgage Corner

2013 Home Prices Soar

Housing prices are soaring, with both the S&P Case-Shiller Home Price Index 3-month average (for November, December and January) and FHFA conforming loan indexes accelerating. Mortgage delinquencies also continue to decline, which should help depleted inventories.

The S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices showed average home prices increased 7.3 percent for the 10-City Composite and 8.1 percent for the 20-City Composite in the 12 months ending in January 2013.

“The two headline composites posted their highest year-over-year increases since summer 2006,” says David M. Blitzer, Chairman of the Index Committee at S&P Dow Jones Indices. “This marks the highest increase since the housing bubble burst."

In January 2013, nine cities -- Atlanta, Charlotte, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Phoenix, San Francisco and Tampa -- and both Composites posted positive monthly returns. Dallas was the only Metro Area where the level remained flat.

Graph: Calculated Risk

The FHFA price index for January increased 0.6 percent, following a rise of 0.5 percent the prior month. The January gain was led by the Pacific region, increasing 1.6 cent. The weakest region was New England, down 0.7 percent for the month. But the index is up 6.5 percent year-over-year.

More good news was the continuing decline in mortgage delinquencies, according to LPS lenders’s services, as reported by Calculated Risk. LPS reported the U.S. mortgage delinquency rate (loans 30 or more days past due, but not in foreclosure) decreased to 6.80 percent from 7.03 percent in January. The percent of loans in the foreclosure process declined to 3.38 percent in February in January.

Both numbers are still high, with 4.25 percent being the long term delinquency rate and 1 to 2 percent the historical foreclosure rate. This decline is already showing up in increasing for sale inventories, with Calculated Risk also reporting that through March 25th - inventory is increasing faster than in 2011 and 2012. But Housing Tracker reports inventory is down -21.2 percent compared to the same week in 2012—still a rapid year-over-year decline (2013 is red line in graph).

Graph: Calculated Risk

What does all this mean? As delinquency/foreclosure rates continue to decline, inventory should continue to increase, which means more housing sales. Although new-home sales declined slightly in February, sales are still 12.3 percent higher than February 2012.

And February existing home sales rose 0.8 percent to an annualized pace of 4.98 million units. January was revised to up 0.8 percent from the initial estimate of 0.4 percent. Low supply had been holding down sales but that appears to be changing as higher prices are bringing more homes into the market. Supply jumped 9.6 percent to 1.94 million units. Months’ supply rose to 4.7 months from 4.3 months in January.

Harlan Green © 2013

Monday, March 11, 2013

Accuracy of Zillow, Trulia listing data under fire again

Summary of ZipRealty study findings

Site	% of listings on the site versus the MLS	% of listings on the site listed as for sale while not listed for sale in the MLS
Zillow	73%	16%
Trulia	78%	17%
ZipRealty	99%	1%

Source: ZipRealty

ZipRealty looked at a control set of 2,981 homes actively listed for sale in the 16 MLSs in the markets above on Oct. 28, 2012. That set of homes was then cross-referenced, using both the properties' addresses and MLS listing identification numbers, with the homes listed for sale on Zillow, Trulia and ZipRealty in those markets.

If an MLS-listed home was not found on one of the three sites, ZipRealty manually double-checked for incorrect information and updated its results as needed.

For homes listed for sale on the three sites that were not listed for sale in the MLS, the properties' historical information in the MLS was looked at.

"In many cases," the report noted, "these 'extra' homes shown within the portals' home listings results reflected listings that had previously expired, sold or otherwise been deactivated within the MLS database while still shown as 'for sale.'"

Last fall, technology-based brokerage Redfin hired a consulting firm, WAV Group, to compare the accuracy of listing data published by Zillow and Trulia in 11 major markets with IDX listing data displayed by Redfin and two other brokerages.

The WAV Group study found that about 36 percent of the listings shown as active on Zillow and Trulia were no longer for sale in the local MLS, while brokerage websites had few or no such errors.

Trulia and Zillow, which have both instituted programs to improve listings accuracy, said the WAV Group study did not tell the whole story.

Both companies said they offer tools that are often now found on broker and MLS sites that allow consumers to research market conditions. Some homes -- such as those being sold by owners, and newly constructed homes -- are not listed in the MLS because they are not represented by a real estate broker.

Trulia spokesman Ken Shuman said ZipRealty didn't detail which ZIP codes were looked at in its report, or why the markets that were studied were chosen.

"I raise an eyebrow at this," Shuman said. "Did they look at all 15 ZIP codes in San Francisco. or just the four where Trulia had the most discordant match with the MLS?"

Shuman said Trulia has "invested heavily in delivering quality data to consumers," pointing out the firm's Trulia Broker Program, which gives brokers incentives for providing a direct listing feed to the portal, and new continuously updated protocol for data it gets directly from MLSs.

Zillow has also been focused on improving listing coverage and accuracy. Itannounced its 49th broker in the Zillow Pro for Brokers program last month and in July it started ramping up its efforts at getting listing feeds directly from MLSs.

"What's more important to understand about a study like this is that there is no gold standard for real estate listings," said Zillow spokeswoman Cynthia Nowak.

Nowak said Zillow has information on many listings -- like for-sale-by-owner, pre-market and new construction homes -- that aren't in MLSs because they aren't represented by real estate brokers.

Nowak also pointed out that home shoppers use Zillow for reasons beyond looking for for-sale homes, but also for "deep information on all homes, the Zestimate, price cuts, communities, rental listings and historical home information."

"If (Zillow and Trulia) are saying this isn't right, God bless them. Let's see the data," ZipRealty CEO Lanny Baker told Inman News. The study looked at the prime ZIP codes in the markets covered, he said.

Baker says he's aware that consumers use real estate sites for different reason. The new ZipRealty tool and study, he said, is an effort to point out where he thinks ZipRealty excels -- providing search for MLS-listed homes.

Baker said many consumers aren't aware that popular portals like Zillow and Trulia don't have all the for-sale listings in some markets. Studies like ZipRealty's are meant to bring the issue to light, he said.

Editor's note: This story has been updated with comments from Zillow and Trulia, and additional details on ZipRealty's study of listings accuracy.

Following in the footsteps of Redfin, ZipRealty Inc. is emphasizing the timeliness and accuracy of the Internet Data Exchange (IDX) listing data it serves up on its website in comparison to the sometimes dated and incomplete information on third-party listing portals like Zillow and Trulia.

ZipRealty is offering a "Listing Check" tool that it says will allow consumers to use its website to double-check whether a home they've seen listed for sale on another site is actually for sale.

The Listing Check tool is available in 34 markets where ZipRealty has access to IDX listings. The company operates as a brokerage in 19 markets, and is also able to display IDX listings in 15 other "Powered by Zip" markets where it provides leads and customer relationship management tools to other brokerages.

Websites operated by real estate brokerages and agents receive listings directly from multiple listing services, which provide IDX listing feeds to members. The feeds include all listings represented by participating brokerages in a given market.

Thanks to its ties to the National Association of Realtors, Realtor.com gets listings directly from most of the nation's more than 900 MLSs.

Other third-party listing portals, like Zillow and Trulia, receive some of their listings directly from MLSs. But brokers have the right to withhold listings they represent from the portals, and in many markets, portals must rely on individual brokerages, agents and third-party syndicators for listing data. Difficulties in managing feeds from multiple sources means that portals sometimes have incomplete or inaccurate listing data.

Brokerages in "Powered by Zip" markets can withhold listings from third-party websites like Zillow and Trulia, but cannot prevent their listings from appearing on ZipRealty.com without withdrawing entirely from IDX agreements.

To emphasize the accuracy of the IDX listing data displayed on ZipRealty.com, the company says it analyzed listings published by Zillow and Trulia in 50 ZIP codes across the following 13 major metropolitan areas: Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Portland, the San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, Seattle and Washington, D.C.

In the areas studied, ZipRealty claims that more than 15 percent of homes shown for sale on Zillow and Trulia weren't actually on the market, and up to 30 percent of homes that were listed for sale in an MLS were not identified by the portals as being on the market.

"Finding that perfect home online and then discovering that it's already been sold presents an extremely frustrating scenario to homebuyers," said ZipRealty CEO Lanny Baker in a statement. "Other major online real estate websites continue to show homes listed as 'for sale' for several days -- even weeks -- after they have sold, and no homebuyer wants to waste time chasing after properties that are already off the market."

Saturday, March 9, 2013

Housing Prices, Mortgage Applications, Surging

CoreLogic reported that home prices nationwide, including distressed sales, increased on a year-over-year basis by 9.7 percent in January 2013 compared to January 2012. This change represents the biggest increase since April 2006 and the 11th consecutive monthly increase in home prices nationally. Excluding distressed sales, home prices increased on a year-over-year basis by 9.0 percent in January 2013 compared to January 2012. On a month-over-month basis excluding distressed sales, home prices increased 1.8 percent in January 2013 compared to December 2012. The five states with the highest home price appreciation, including distressed sales, were: Arizona (+ 20.1 percent), Nevada (+17.4 percent), Idaho (+14.9 percent), California (+14.1 percent) and Hawaii (+14.0 percent).

This is a huge increase, and means borrowers and buyers see interest rates rising later this year, as some Federal Reserve Governors are objecting to the sustained purchase of QE3 securities until the unemployment rate drops to 6.5 percent from its current 7.8 percent. A major reason for the price increases is increased mortgage activity due to a drop in interest rates to previous lows. The Mortgage Bankers Association reported both the Refinance and Purchase Indexes increased 15 percent from the previous week and were at the highest levels since mid-January.

The 30-year fixed conforming rate has fallen to 3.375 percent for a 1 point origination fee, and the high-balance fixed rate is now 3.625 percent for 0 points origination. Another reason for such rising prices is the decline in mortgage delinquency and foreclosure rates. The delinquency rate for mortgage loans on one-to-four-unit residential properties fell to a seasonally adjusted rate of 7.09 percent of all loans outstanding at the end of the fourth quarter of 2012, the lowest level since 2008, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association’s (MBA) National Delinquency Survey. The delinquency rate includes loans that are at least one payment past due but does not include loans in the process of foreclosure. The percentage of loans in the foreclosure process at the end of the fourth quarter was 3.74 percent, the lowest level since the fourth quarter of 2008, down 33 basis points from the third quarter and 64 basis points lower than one year ago.

-Harlan Green © 2013

Thursday, March 7, 2013

15-year mortgage rate Vs. 30-year mortgage rate

A 30-year mortgage financing loan has always been the most popular for consumers purchasing a house, but another loan is starting to increase its popularity. The 15-year mortgage loan, as a result of the record-low interest rates that are available nationwide, are increasing in popularity amongst buyers.

Consumers are slowly turning to 15-year loans because of how affordable they have grown since 2010.Statistics from the Mortgage Bankers Association show that a 15-year loan accounted for 23 percent of refinancing applications in November of last year. This is up 51 percent from a year earlier. For the whole year, 15-year mortgages made up 35 percent of all refinance loans. In 2007, 15-year mortgage loans made up for only 8.5 percent of the refinance market.

Rates are becoming extremely affordable for a 15-year loan, so more consumers do not mind the higher monthly payment because of amount that they are saving in the long run. Consumers are saving themselves in the tens of the thousands in interest over the life of the loan vs. the life of a 30-year loan.

The chart below illustrates the savings generated from obtaining a 15-year mortgage vs the traditional 30-year one. On a median priced home of $366,930, a homeowner could save up to $117,000. Figure 1 breaks down payment and interest schedule for the two types of loans.

The saving is the result of the historically low rates, which are also lower for 15-year loans. While the mortgage rates are not going to stay this low, as Frank Nothaft, chief economist at Freddie Mac, said "a 15-year fixed is three-quarters of a percentage point even lower.... You can lock that in and never have to worry about refinancing again.”

Click on graph for larger view

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Multiple Offers Increased as the Market Became More Competitive

By Oscar Wei, Senior Research Analyst

To be competitive in a housing market with tight inventory and a restrictive lending environment, many buyers who wanted to have an edge over other buyers opted to make an “All Cash” offer for their home purchase. Since an “All Cash” transaction does not have to go through lengthy lending approval process, the escrow process is faster and is less likely to fall through, making the offer more attractive and more assured.

According to results based on C.A.R.’s 2012 Annual Housing Market Survey, “All Cash” buyers has been on the rise since the mid of 2000’s, increasing from 11 percent in 2005 to 30 percent in 2012. Almost one-third of all home buyers paid with all cash in 2012, which is more than 3 times what it was in 2001 when “All Cash” buyers were merely 8.8 percent. The share of all cash buyers in 2012 was also nearly double the long-run average of 15.1 percent since 1998.

Monday, March 4, 2013

C.A.R. reports 4th quarter 2012 housing affordability

LOS ANGELES (Feb. 25) – Higher home prices offset lower interest rates to reduce housing affordability in California during the fourth quarter of 2012, the CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (C.A.R.) reported.

The percentage of home buyers who could afford to purchase a median-priced, existing single-family home in California decreased to 48 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012, down from 49 percent in third-quarter 2012 and from 55 percent in fourth-quarter 2011, according to C.A.R.’s Traditional Housing Affordability Index (HAI).

C.A.R.’s HAI measures the percentage of all households that can afford to purchase a median-priced, single-family home in California. C.A.R. also reports affordability indices for regions and select counties within the state. The Index is considered the most fundamental measure of housing well-being for home buyers in the state.

Home buyers needed to earn a minimum annual income of $66,940 to qualify for the purchase of a $353,190 statewide median-priced, existing single-family home in the fourth quarter of 2012. The monthly payment, including taxes and insurance on a 30-year fixed-rate loan, would be $1,670, assuming a 20 percent down payment and an effective composite interest rate of 3.49 percent. The effective composite interest rate in third-quarter 2012 was 3.72 percent and 4.30 percent in the fourth quarter of 2011.

Housing affordability results were mixed at the regional level, with affordability improving from the third quarter of 2012 in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Los Angeles, Ventura, San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, Fresno, and Kings counties. However, homes in San Francisco, Solano, Riverside, San Bernardino, Monterey, Santa Barbara, Madera, Sacramento, and Tulare counties were less affordable during fourth quarter 2012.

At an index of 76 percent, San Bernardino and Kings counties were the most affordable counties of the state. Conversely, San Francisco County was the least affordable, with only 22 percent of the region’s households able to purchase the county’s median-priced home.

See C.A.R.’s historical housing affordability data.

See first-time buyer housing affordability data.

Leading the way…® in California real estate for more than 100 years, the CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (www.car.org) is one of the largest state trade organizations in the United States with 155,000 members dedicated to the advancement of professionalism in real estate. C.A.R. is headquartered in Los Angeles.

CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®
Traditional Housing Affordability Index

STATE/REGION/COUNTY	Q4 2012	Q3 2012		Q4 2011
Calif. Single-family home	48	49		55
Calfi. Condo/Townhomes	59	60		63
Los Angeles Metropolitan Area	50	51		56
Inland Empire	67	68		71
San Francisco Bay Area	34	35		42
U.S.	69	67		70

San Francisco Bay Area
Alameda	36	34		39
Contra-Costa (Central County)	31	28		37
Marin	28	27		29
Napa	48	45		50
San Francisco	22	25		26
San Mateo	24	24		29
Santa Clara	32	32		40
Solano	73	77		76
Sonoma	46	46		51
Southern California
Los Angeles	44	42		48
Orange County	34	34		38
Riverside County	62	63		66
San Bernardino	76	77		78
San Diego	43	43		46
Ventura	48	47		49
Central Coast
Monterey	50	52		56
San Luis Obispo	40	37		41
Santa Barbara	27	31		41
Santa Cruz	34	30		37
Central Valley
Fresno	70	69		71	r
Kings County	76	74	r	75
Madera	74	76		75
Merced	74	74		77
Placer County	64	64		67
Sacramento	71	73		74
Tulare	71	73		73

r = revised

CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®
Traditional Housing Affordability Index

C.A.R. Region	Housing Affordability Index	Median Home Price	Monthly Payment Including Taxes & Insurance	Minimum Qualifying Income
Calif. Single-family home	48	$ 353,190	$ 1,670	$ 66,940
Calif. Condo/Townhomes	59	$ 272,760	$ 1,290	$ 51,690
Los Angeles Metropolitan Area	50	$ 326,470	$ 1,550	$ 61,870
Inland Empire	67	$ 209,260	$ 990	$ 39,660
San Francisco Bay Area	34	$ 593,220	$ 2,810	$ 112,420
U.S.	69	$ 178,900	$ 850	$ 33,900

San Francisco Bay Area
Alameda	36	$ 522,890	$ 2,480	$ 99,100
Contra-Costa (Central County)	31	$ 631,530	$ 2,990	$ 119,680
Marin	28	$ 812,490	$ 3,850	$ 153,980
Napa	48	$ 385,200	$ 1,830	$ 73,000
San Francisco	22	$ 777,090	$ 3,680	$ 147,270
San Mateo	24	$ 782,500	$ 3,710	$ 148,300
Santa Clara	32	$ 685,000	$ 3,250	$ 129,820
Solano	73	$ 225,540	$ 1,070	$ 42,740
Sonoma	46	$ 382,560	$ 1,810	$ 72,500
Southern California
Los Angeles	44	$ 350,080	$ 1,660	$ 66,350
Orange County	34	$ 568,600	$ 2,690	$ 107,760
Riverside County	62	$ 240,840	$ 1,140	$ 45,640
San Bernardino	76	$ 152,860	$ 720	$ 28,970
San Diego	43	$ 405,360	$ 1,920	$ 76,820
Ventura	48	$ 440,250	$ 2,090	$ 83,430
Central Coast		0
Monterey	50	$ 329,000	$ 1,560	$ 62,350
San Luis Obispo	40	$ 399,310	$ 1,890	$ 75,680
Santa Barbara	27	$ 546,510	$ 2,590	$ 103,570
Santa Cruz	34	$ 520,000	$ 2,460	$ 98,550
Central Valley		0
Fresno	70	$ 152,360	$ 720	$ 28,870
Kings County	76	$ 146,210	$ 690	$ 27,710
Madera	74	$ 133,750	$ 630	$ 25,350
Merced	74	$ 133,450	$ 630	$ 25,290
Placer County	64	$ 302,630	$ 1,430	$ 57,350
Sacramento	71	$ 193,190	$ 920	$ 36,610
Tulare	71	$ 141,810	$ 670	$ 26,880

Friday, March 1, 2013

January home sales and price report

Continued shortage of homes on the market and seasonal slowdown send California home sales and prices lower in January, C.A.R. reports

LOS ANGELES (Feb. 21) – A typical seasonal slowdown, combined with a scarcity of available homes for sale put a damper on the California housing market in January, with both home sales and median price declining from December, the CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (C.A.R.) reported.

“A rush by home buyers trying to complete sales of higher-priced homes by the end of last year in order to avoid capital gains increases pulled forward sales that might have closed in January instead,” said C.A.R. President Don Faught. “Additionally, the extreme shortage of homes for sale continues to hinder California’s housing market, as demonstrated by the nearly two months’-supply drop compared with last year.”

Closed escrow sales of existing, single-family detached homes in California totaled a seasonally adjusted annualized rate of 491,720 units, according to information collected by C.A.R. from more than 90 local REALTOR® associations and MLSs statewide. Sales in January were down 6 percent from a revised 523,090 in December and down 3.9 percent from a revised 511,760 in January 2012. The statewide sales figure represents what would be the total number of homes sold during 2013 if sales maintained the January pace throughout the year. It is adjusted to account for seasonal factors that typically influence home sales.

The statewide median price of an existing, single-family detached home fell 8.1 percent from December’s $366,930 median price to $337,040 in January. January’s price was up 24.1 percent from a revised $271,490 recorded in January 2012, marking the 11th consecutive month of annual price increases and the seventh consecutive month of double-digit annual gains.

“The drop in the median price from December to January is in line with the seasonal pattern that we’ve observed in recent years, when the sales share of lower-priced homes usually increases at the start of the year,” said C.A.R. Vice President and Chief Economist Leslie Appleton-Young. “For example, homes priced under $200,000 made up 28 percent of sales in January, up from 25 percent in December. Conversely, homes priced $500,000 and higher made up nearly 24 percent of sales in January, down from nearly 28 percent in December.”

Other key facts of C.A.R.’s January 2013 resale housing report include:

• The available supply of homes for sale loosened in January, primarily as a result of fewer home sales. The January Unsold Inventory Index for existing, single-family detached homes rose to 3.5 months in January, up from 2.6 months in December, but down from a revised 5.8 months in January 2012. The index indicates the number of months needed to sell the supply of homes on the market at the current sales rate. A six- to seven-month supply is considered normal.
• Mortgage rates edged up in January, with the 30-year fixed-mortgage interest rate averaging 3.41 percent, up from 3.35 percent in December 2012 but down from 3.92 percent in January 2012, according to Freddie Mac. Adjustable-mortgage interest rates also edged up, averaging 2.58 percent in January, up from 2.54 percent in December but down from 2.76 percent January 2012.
• Homes moved off the market faster in January, with the median number of days it took to sell a single-family home decreasing to 36.6 days in January, down from 38.1 days in December and down from 59.6 days for the same period a year ago.

Multimedia:

• Unsold Inventory by price range.
• Change in sales by price range.
• Share of sales by price range

Note: The County MLS median price and sales data in the tables are generated from a survey of more than 90 associations of REALTORS® throughout the state, and represent statistics of existing single-family detached homes only. County sales data are not adjusted to account for seasonal factors that can influence home sales. Movements in sales prices should not be interpreted as changes in the cost of a standard home. The median price is where half sold for more and half sold for less; medians are more typical than average prices, which are skewed by a relatively small share of transactions at either the lower-end or the upper-end. Median prices can be influenced by changes in cost, as well as changes in the characteristics and the size of homes sold. Due to the low sales volume in some areas, median price changes in January may exhibit unusual fluctuation. The change in median prices should not be construed as actual price changes in specific homes.

January 2013 County Sales and Price Activity
(Regional and condo sales data not seasonally adjusted)

January-13	Median Sold Price of Existing Single-Family Homes							Sales
State/Region/County	Jan-13	Dec-12		Jan-12		MTM% Chg	YTY% Chg	MTM% Chg	YTY% Chg
CA SFH (SAAR)	$337,040	$366,930		$271,490	r	-8.1%	24.1%	-6.0%	-3.9%
CA Condo/Townhomes	$265,600	$273,000		$212,230	r	-2.7%	25.1%	-25.4%	2.0%
Los Angeles Metropolitan Area	$318,950	$333,140		$256,000		-4.3%	24.6%	-20.1%	6.2%
Inland Empire	$207,530	$221,710		$169,280		-6.4%	22.6%	-12.6%	-2.7%
S.F. Bay Area	$548,890	$598,100		$415,120		-8.2%	32.2%	-30.1%	-7.9%

S.F. Bay Area
Alameda	$520,680	$529,910		$395,830		-1.7%	31.5%	-29.0%	-5.0%
Contra-Costa (Central County)	$592,100	$637,250		$476,470		-7.1%	24.3%	-36.9%	-1.9%
Marin	$799,110	$796,880		$694,440		0.3%	15.1%	-44.7%	-18.9%
Napa	$411,110	$360,340		$344,740		14.1%	19.3%	-16.1%	-14.3%
San Francisco	$687,500	$775,000		$561,270		-11.3%	22.5%	-18.9%	31.1%
San Mateo	$695,000	$775,000		$578,500		-10.3%	20.1%	-33.3%	2.5%
Santa Clara	$652,500	$681,000		$495,000		-4.2%	31.8%	-39.8%	-10.9%
Solano	$243,520	$230,830		$184,440		5.5%	32.0%	-3.9%	-21.3%
Sonoma	$367,780	$396,310		$326,920		-7.2%	12.5%	-24.5%	-16.5%
Southern California
Los Angeles	$349,720	$367,400		$290,900	r	-4.8%	20.2%	-22.7%	9.4%
Orange County	$566,500	$582,930		$483,510		-2.8%	17.2%	-24.5%	22.3%
Riverside County	$244,780	$251,520		$196,050		-2.7%	24.9%	-17.8%	-4.4%
San Bernardino	$154,500	$158,540		$129,920		-2.5%	18.9%	-2.8%	0.2%
San Diego	$390,890	$418,290		$350,680		-6.6%	11.5%	-22.1%	16.3%
Ventura	$440,670	$446,150		$386,870		-1.2%	13.9%	-30.2%	6.3%
Central Coast
Monterey	$339,500	$346,500		$280,000		-2.0%	21.3%	-11.6%	-3.3%
San Luis Obispo	$398,980	$414,660		$363,640		-3.8%	9.7%	-38.6%	9.4%
Santa Barbara	$503,570	$588,230		$355,770	r	-14.4%	41.5%	-29.1%	-6.9%
Santa Cruz	$482,000	$530,000		$422,500		-9.1%	14.1%	-30.5%	2.9%
Central Valley
Fresno	$151,450	$157,620		$128,200	r	-3.9%	18.1%	-6.7%	1.1%
Kern (Bakersfield)	$164,900	$161,150	r	$130,000		2.3%	26.8%	-12.8%	-12.1%
Kings County	$153,330	$146,000		$140,000	r	5.0%	9.5%	-21.0%	-5.9%
Madera	$98,330	$144,290		$113,750		-31.9%	-13.6%	0.0%	0.0%
Merced	$137,000	$136,920		$112,000		0.1%	22.3%	-17.0%	1.1%
Placer County	$292,710	$300,420		$259,560	r	-2.6%	12.8%	-26.4%	0.3%
Sacramento	$201,010	$195,630		$161,080	r	2.8%	24.8%	-22.2%	-8.7%
San Benito	$310,500	$364,480		$260,000		-14.8%	19.4%	-23.3%	-9.8%
San Joaquin	$182,430	$184,320		$160,000		-1.0%	14.0%	-26.9%	-18.5%
Stanislaus	$155,450	$161,610		$134,580		-3.8%	15.5%	-10.5%	-6.6%
Tulare	$135,560	$144,440		$116,670		-6.1%	16.2%	-25.2%	-26.3%
Other Counties in California
Amador	$184,000	$177,500		$135,000		3.7%	36.3%	-2.3%	16.7%
Butte County	$208,930	$236,460		$194,000		-11.6%	7.7%	-19.4%	5.1%
El Dorado County	$283,570	$292,420		$250,000		-3.0%	13.4%	-19.9%	0.5%
Humboldt	$234,720	$216,670		$220,000		8.3%	6.7%	1.2%	20.8%
Lake County	$134,440	$127,500		$118,570		5.4%	13.4%	-11.5%	0.0%
Tuolumne	$175,000	$194,280		$147,140		-9.9%	18.9%	-3.7%	15.6%
Mendocino	$245,000	$246,430		$190,000		-0.6%	28.9%	-43.1%	-21.6%
Shasta	$174,000	$170,740		$151,670		1.9%	14.7%	-10.7%	-5.6%
Siskiyou County	$106,670	$133,330		$123,330		-20.0%	-13.5%	-16.7%	11.1%
Tehama	NA	$130,000		$110,000		NA	NA	NA	NA
Yolo	$260,940	$273,860		$195,550		-4.7%	33.4%	-16.8%	-6.6%