Comments on: Total Delistings by Year: 2001-2008

By: Gerry

Gerry — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:40:15 +0000

I think "delisted" is an inaccurate term for properties no longer listed in the MLS. "Expired listings" is more accurate a title. It is rare that a property is "delisted" i.e. "cancelled". Home listings that do not sell usually just expire, unsold.

Reply - Quote

By: Lurker

Lurker — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:09:40 +0000

Did the inventory shoot up about 1K for King County? I'm not seeing this reflected on redfin

Reply - Quote

By: Cheap South

Cheap South — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:03:19 +0000

Unlike the customary start of the month cleansing (drop), the inventory has shot up.What gives?

Reply - Quote

By: Kary L. Krismer

Kary L. Krismer — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:35:03 +0000

RE: Ray Pepper @ 10 - Actually, this market is probably harder for the rebate brokers. I wonder how long Redfin can last with this kind of volume levels.Don't get me wrong. If they do fail I think that will be a bad thing. But their business model needs volume.

Reply - Ray Pepper @ 10<\/a> - Actually, this market is probably harder for the rebate brokers. I wonder how long Redfin can last with this kind of volume levels. \r\n\r\nDon\'t get me wrong. If they do fail I think that will be a bad thing. But their business model needs volume.',''); return false;">Quote

By: Flotown

Flotown — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:19:30 +0000

what happened to the SF inventory? why the huge jump last night?

Reply - Quote

By: Ray Pepper

Ray Pepper — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 01:43:00 +0000

RE: Dogggis @ 7 -Quickly going the route of the dinosaur...They did NOT adapt to change and eliminate overhead .The buffet is over and its just a matter of time!

Reply - Dogggis @ 7<\/a> - \r\n\r\nQuickly going the route of the dinosaur...They did NOT adapt to change and eliminate overhead . \r\n\r\nThe buffet is over and its just a matter of time!',''); return false;">Quote

By: Kary L. Krismer

Kary L. Krismer — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 01:30:41 +0000

RE: WestSideBilly @ 8 - Depends on the structure. Where an agent has to pay over $300 a month to be with a firm, yes, where it's something under $50 a month they probably lose money on new agents if they aren't productive.

Reply - WestSideBilly @ 8<\/a> - Depends on the structure. Where an agent has to pay over $300 a month to be with a firm, yes, where it\'s something under $50 a month they probably lose money on new agents if they aren\'t productive.',''); return false;">Quote

By: WestSideBilly

WestSideBilly — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:15:31 +0000

Because of their structure, it benefits the Real Estate houses to have as many agents as possible. That the income potential for new agents is quite poor right now is irrelevant to them.

Reply - Quote

By: Dogggis

Dogggis — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:07:25 +0000

Off topic but I got a chuckle out of thishttp://seattle.craigslist.org/see/rej/1058517469.html

Reply - Quote

By: Raj

Raj — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:34:00 +0000

Dow closed today @ 6726. I am just checking ur earlier polls.Where will the Dow Jones close for 2009?* Below 6,000 (17%, 118 Votes) * 6,000 to < 7,000 (18%, 124 Votes) * 7,000 to < 8,000 (22%, 156 Votes) * 8,000 to < 9,000 (20%, 139 Votes) * 9,000 to < 10,000 (16%, 112 Votes) * Above 10,000 (8%, 55 Votes)Total Voters: 704

Reply - Quote

By: alex

alex — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:31:09 +0000

Tim, I don't like you anymore! Your blog has kept someone from buying my house :)

Reply - Quote

By: The Tim

The Tim — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:09:42 +0000

RE: Me @ 3 - That's correct. That's what I was trying to explain in the post.

Reply - Me @ 3<\/a> - That\'s correct. That\'s what I was trying to explain in the post.',''); return false;">Quote

By: Me

Me — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:08:26 +0000

quick question: what is the definition of stale listing?Is it any listing that has been open more than 1 month?Example: property first lists in in Jan. but sells in june counts as 5 instances of a stale listing (Feb, March, April, May, June).

Reply - Quote

By: Dave0

Dave0 — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:28:31 +0000

By Kary L. Krismer @ 1:

I'm not sure I'm following you totally. First, I don't see why a delisting or even a sale would occur only once within a year for any given property. In 2007 (maybe 2008) I think there was even a large Seattle office building sold twice.

I think he's saying it would show up once per listing, not once per property.

Reply - Kary L. Krismer @ 1<\/a>:

I\'m not sure I\'m following you totally. First, I don\'t see why a delisting or even a sale would occur only once within a year for any given property. In 2007 (maybe 2008) I think there was even a large Seattle office building sold twice. <\/blockquote>\r\n\r\nI think he\'s saying it would show up once per listing, not once per property.',''); return false;">Quote

By: Kary L. Krismer

Kary L. Krismer — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:27:52 +0000

I'm not sure I'm following you totally. First, I don't see why a delisting or even a sale would occur only once within a year for any given property. In 2007 (maybe 2008) I think there was even a large Seattle office building sold twice. But that's a minor point. When you have fewer sales and roughly the same amount of inventory, the number of "stale" listings would rise, and thus so would the monthly count if you count them every month. What other explanation are you looking for?Stated maybe a bit differently, I think it was during 2007 we saw an inventory rise. Assuming I have the right year, during most of that year the increase in inventory for the year was extremely close to the decrease in sales YTD. Buyers (or the lack of them) were controlling the numbers.

Reply - Quote