Free Credit Report - and why you NEED it

Have you seen the commercial with guy asking "I'm thinking of a number between 300 and 800, do you know what it is?" For the life of me I can't recall what he's selling, but he's talking about Credit Scores. Fortunately you don't need him, or any other company trying to sell you something to get your scores. BUT, if you're going to buy a home, the higher your credit score, the more you can save in mortgage costs, so checking your credit is a MUST. Do NOT under estimate these savings. And do not delay if you are thinking of Buying a home within the next 12 months because it takes time to clean up your credit reports.

Yes, I said reportS. There are three, but don't worry about that, just visit www.AnnualCreditReport.com. By law, you get one free Credit Report per year for any reason. This one site will lead you to the three credit reporting agencies, Transunion, Equifax and Experian. To get your report is free, to get your score from each agency costs money. If you want to see your score, I highly recommend taking advantage of their initial offer when you first get to the site. You'll get a score for about $5 or $6, but if you wait to get your score, minutes later the cheapest you can get it is often $15. But the Reports are what I want you focused on. Or you can go to MyFico.com
and get a free 30-day trial, but you must remember to cancel the membership. MyFico's home page also shows you what interest rates you can get by Score range. You'll see just how much it's worth to you.

Once you have all three, be sure to save them or print them out, and then pour through them looking for "bad" or mis-information. I found $10,000 in unpaid medical bills on one (only one) of the three bureau's reports, AND the bills were in someone elses name completely. Yet that name was on my report dragging down my score as if I actually had two names. What's more is that I actually was called about 10 different names on this same report. These were easy to fix, I called the 800# and the customer service guy had it all removed in minutes because it was so obviously not me or mine.

Aside from obvious mistakes, you should be looking for the following items:

1. credit card balances that are too high. High credit limits are great, high balances are not. The ideal is to have balances that are 15.5% or lower vs. your limits. One way to improve your score is to pay down your balances, but another EQUALLY effective way is to call each of your credit card companies and ask for a limit increase. When you call, do NOT allow them to check your credit. If they insist, hang up and try again, OR ask for a supervisor, and the key question is "how much are you authorized to raise my limit to right now without damaging my credit score with an unecessary look?"

2. Too many "bad" cards. Close you department stores cards now. And stick with only the "best" names in banking and credit. AmEx is #1, then names like WellsFargo, Chase, CitiBank, Bank of America - are all good. ANYONE who does a LOT of TV advertising is BAD, BAD, BAD. You know who I mean... they advertise that they are good, but they are terrible for your credit. If you don't know who I mean, just stick with the advice - if they advertise on TV, stay away. When you do close a card, make sure the Credit Report says "Closed at Consumer Request". Do not let it say they closed it for you - that's bad.

3. "Inquiries" of your credit. If you go to a Dept store and agree to a credit card, they will check your credit. This is an inquiry, and drags your score down. If you did not authorize the inquiry, write a letter (yes, written is better, and certified mail is best, and the nastier, more threatening you are, is best-er :) You'll see on each Credit Report a long list of "soft" inquiries that the report lets you know does NOT effect your score. They don't, so don't worry about them. But if you got an inquiry, and didn't get the card, get rid of it. If they inquired, and you did get the card, there is proof you allowed it, so don't fight it.

4. Any late payments are bad. Fight these if you can... and that leads to advice on fighting anything on your report....

STEPS TO CLEAR UP YOUR REPORTS:

1. Put it in writing, send it certified mail, threaten the heck out of the Bureau. The squeaky wheel gets the oil, everyone else gets put into a big pile that barely gets touched

2. If they don't remove something, or they put it back on, then write a new letter asking for a "reinvestigation" and again, be nasty, and DEMAND that you be given the name, phone number and email address of the Bureau's representitive that did the reinvestigation, as well as the names and numbers of the people they contacted for the investigation. If this doesn't work the first time, the 2nd and 3rd reinvestiation certainly will get them to just take the problem item off.

3. Do not hire a 3rd party company to do the above for you. They charge too much, and generally have a non-skilled person just doing what I'm suggesting. But if you want to go the extra mile, find a lawyer who fights credit bureau's, and just CC him/her on every letter. Also threaten to report the Bureau to the FTC (Federal Trade Commission).

4. Start this 3+ months before you need it. If you pay your credit card balances down, they credit bureau's don't report that for 30 to 90 days. But even if you're buying in the next 30 days, you are better off doing it than not, so get started now.

There are other advanced suggestions, but this will take care of 95% of your problems, and dramatically raise your credit scores. And whatever you do, when you are in the process of buying a home, do NOT make any other big purchases like a car. If you do something to drag down your credit at the last second, you may not get a loan at all - or at least not one that is any where as good as what you were expecting.

Call or email me if you'd like to ask a question about your credit.

Cost of a Buyer's Agent

Buyer's Agents are "free". Free means you don't have to pay them, but of course they do get paid to help you. Listing Agents represent Seller's and agree to the commission. The vast majority of San Francisco homes are sold with a Buyer Agent representative, so Listing Agents know to advertise a certain commission to Buyer's Agents to encourage them to bring their Buyers. Some naysayers still see this as a conflict of interest with Buyer's Agents trying to push Buyers to buy. Certainly, there are those kinds of agents, but most Buyers of any product can usually see the sleazy, untrustworthy, "sales" guy/girl a mile away. Plus, you should sign a "Buyer-Broker" agreement which spells out your Agent's duty to you. If you don't sign the agreement, your supposed representative is actually legally representing the Seller. This can be a problem.

But the real problem is with the Listing Agent who is DEFINITELY representing the Seller's interest over yours. If you run into a Listing Agent who says "don't worry, you can just write the contract with me", you ought to be smelling something fishy. He/she is just trying to make both ends of the commission, and/or will likely skew all data, information, and reports in favor of a higher sales price, and other things that favor the Seller. I've seen properties that have sat on the market for 3 months sell for the "asking" price intead of below it when a Buyer came along who was represented by the Listing Agent and not their own representative. A good Buyer's Agent knows a "stale" listing is ripe for under-bidding.

A good Buyer's Agent can do so much more for Buyers, but at the very least, since the cost is "free", and Listing Agents care about you second, if at all, you ought to find a good agent as early in your home search as possible.

Most & Least expensive Listings in SF

I usually get buyers looking for homes or condos well below the lowest possible prices in San Francisco, but thought it would be interesting to share the most expensive homes for sale, as well as the least expensive. Check out the following:

2845 Broadway. Remember Michael Douglas in "The Game" calling the cops and saying he lives in the "biggest house on Broadway. Well, I guess he was talking about this $65 million home. Interestingly enough it sold for $32 million in November 2002. The above link will only be active for 30 days, so if you're reading this late, drop me an email and I'll send you the new link.

Personally, I'd rather live in the most expensive Condo in the city at 990 Green St, #6. Check out those photos.

Now for the cheapest. This Studio apartment with no parking, 83 McAllister St #312 for $260,000. You'd get a golf course mansion in many States, but this puts you a block from busy Market Street in a closet size space.

The cheapest home, 74 Neptune Street, is a $449,000 fixer that is tenant occupied and is "subject to court confirmation".

So if you're looking for a Single Family Home under $500,000, you may have to look outside of San Francisco unless you want a problem property.

PropertyShark.com - great property tool

I believe Buyers & Sellers ought to have more information, and more control, and the internet is doing just that for them. In my continual search for best of breed internet services, I'm adding PropertyShark.com. It allows you to find property tax records, including past sales, for almost any property in San Francisco. I have private access to sites like this one, and do all of the homework for my clients, but if my clients are anything like me they'll want to see the actual data for themselves. PropertyShark.com provides a wealth of information, so when you find a property you like on either of my MLS sites, SF-MLS-Search.com or CleanOffer.com you can then go to PropertyShark.com and find out almost everything about it that I've got access to.... still not everything, but an big improvement never the less.

Housing boom going to continue?

Finally I've found articles that actually take the opposite tack as most others... read this one from a Van Eck-Tillman Advisors who supposedly has predicted all major market moves for 32 years.
http://www.millionaireriches.com/wpblogger/?p=36#more-36

After reading the above, we may actually be in a lull, with a new housing boom coming as soon as Buyers realize the newspapers are wrong. So check out my internet links for home searches in San Francisco, and if you're interested in investment properties outside of city, I've found some pretty good investments, so drop me an email if you're interested.

Yes, another "Bubble" comment

Each time I read another article, I can't help but add my two cents. There are so many "Bubble Blogs" out there with 100% certainty that we're about to have a major crash just like the dot-com crash or the early 1990s when home prices took a dive. Unfortunatly for them (fortunately for us homeowners) the comparisons are way off. One big one is that job losses and unemployment caused so much of the duress in the 1990's when Seller's had to sell, and there were few buyers. Now, job reports are all positive, and Seller's are not under duress. Another is that there was an 18 month supply of homes in the early 90's, now it's about 6 months which is dividing line between a Buyer's market and a Seller's market. We've got a LONG way to go to 18 months supply.

The reason bubble pundits are so positive is that in 2007 about 12% of the nation's mortgage debt will switch to adjustable payments. But is this 12% of all homes? Not likely. About 8% of all homes change hands each year. With about 40% of loans being the risky ARMs the bubble pundits are so worried about in the last couple of years, that means about 3.2% of homes are at risk each year for the 2 or 3 year period that ARM's were so prominent. These ARM's also varied in length, generally from 3 to 10 years which spreads it out even further.

But let's say that 3.2% of homes are at risk each year. First off, 8% of homes change hands each year. That leaves nearly 5% not at risk, who don't need to sell. Plus, don't you think ARM holding homeowners know their rates are going to adjust? Don't you think they realized that they needed to Sell or refinance before their ARM's adjusted? If they got a 5 year ARM, maybe they realized that 3 to 5 years is the average length of time many homeowners stay in their homes? How many of these homeowners will really be at risk? My guess is a very few will not act proactively and end up in Foreclosure or in a rush sale. Definitely not enough to "crash" the market. Additionally, banks HATE foreclosure. And with money supply so massive, it's likely that Banks will do what they can to alleviate the situation, including offering great refinance programs. Banks are used to a very brisk mortgage business, and are doing what they can to keep that business high. So the so-called bad debt is likely to be sold, or rolled into a new mortgage. Yes, foreclosures will rise, and yes the media will jump all over thos new numbers. Personally, that just means it will be a GREAT time to invest in real estate to pick up cheap properties in an overall strong real estate market.

Finally, many of those whose ARM's are going to adjust are in the money - they're homes have appreciated quite nicely, so they can refinance and either keep their payments low, or cash out. Or they can sell comfortably without being upside down and having to do a Short Sale. The bottom line.... the bubble pundits need to look a little harder at the facts they use to justify their predictions. 3 trillion in adjustable debt coming due in 2007 sounds horrible at first glance, but upon closer inspection, it's likely to be a minor blip on the housing market radar.

sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/16/realestate/16arm.html?ei=5088&en=d4ea9a4dd01af4d5&ex=1276574400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
http://www.financialservicesfacts.org/financial2/mortgage/homeown/

Home Size - the meaning of Square Feet

A common question among home buyers is what is included in "Square Feet" measurements. I'll explain what a home appraiser explained to me, and add my own thoughts that you ought to be aware of when comparing homes.

First, no outdoor space of any kind is included in Square Feet (SqFT) measurements. That includes decks, yards, roof decks, etc. Of course each of these add greatly to value. Imagine a deck right off your kitchen allowing you to BBQ or just relax right outside. Two condos with 1,200 SqFt would justifiably feel much different in size, so when comparing Price Per SqFt be careful to take this into consideration.

Second, I was told appraisers measure from the outside of the walls in, and include ALL interior space. This means closets are included, and it of course means an extra wide hallway that can only be used as a hallway, and foyer's or other types of "wasted" space are included. This is VERY important too. The same 1,200 SqFt Condos would have dramatically different living spaces. In many older Victorian or Edwardian Condos you'll find very wide hallways. Whereas in new Condos, or even in other Victorians, you'll find minimal hallway space. I've seen 1,600 SqFt Condos that felt smaller than well laid out 1,200 SqFt Condos.

Lastly, it is not unusual to see significant differences in SqFt measurements. One appraiser might measure from the outside of the wall inward. This adds about 1 foot of space if the walls are 6 inches thick. And then there are just plain old mistakes made in measurements. So as a Real Estate Agent who does VERY thorough "CMA's" (Comparative Market Analysis) to help my Buyers and Sellers understand the value of homes, I DO use price per SqFt to make comparisons. But it is only one of the many things I compare and analyze. I'll try to visit the comparable homes, but when I can't I thoroughly review the photos from the Listing, I read the marketing and "agent-only" remarks, I check the tax records for SqFt size, and I'll call both the Seller's agent and the Buyer's agent in the transaction for the comparable home that sold. After gathering and analyzing all of this information, only then will I be able to include or eliminate some of the ones that seemed comparable based on SqFt size.

The bottom line for you.... as long as the space is livable, and what you want, that should be much more important than a home that claims to be larger, yet doesn't feel it.

Supply-Demand & the "Bubble"

U.S. Population growth is roughly 3 million people per year, yet in one of the most expansive housing booms in history the U.S. added "only" 1.8 million new housing units. With all the bubble fears, builders may slow in new construction, but population growth seems to be rising.

The current average household size is about 2.37 people per household, yet new home growth vs. population growth is equivalent to building one new home for every 1.53 people. While this might seem that we're overbuilding, in fact household size seems to be shrinking rapidly with more single people buying homes, delaying marriage, and limiting their households when they finally do marry and have children. Plus, the retiring Baby Boomers are buying second and even third homes, which is 1 person per household if you consider a retired couple with 2 homes.

Whats more, certain states are growing even faster than the U.S. in population vs. housing unit growth. Arizona's new construction must squeeze in 2.29 persons per household, yet this is a retirement and second home mecca (and you thought Arizona was a bad investment now - NOT!!!). Texas is at 2.17 persons, and Utah at 2 persons per household. California is "only" 1.59 person per new household being built, but that is higher than the national average, and here in San Francisco, the persons per household is likely much lower than the rest of the country, AND we're not building many new units.

As of today, Monday August 28th 2006, interest rates have slipped for 5 consecutive weeks. Rising rates is the #1 culprit cited by Bubble maniacs as the cause of the so called Bubble. But with rates staying steady, and population on a never ending upward spiral with land not increasing, demand should continue to outweigh supply and continue to increase property values for eternity. Personally, I think the bubble has already burst earlier this year. Now home prices are steady, and are likely to start an average increase each year around 3% or so. However, when you read news reports in the coming months that show a turn down in prices, longer time on the market, and fewer homes being sold, keep in mind that what you're reading is older news. The news about the decline I saw from September 2005 through March of 2006 has yet to come out. When it does come out it will scare the heck out of everyone. To me that means that between right now and when that news comes out will be the ideal time to pick up homes for bargain prices just before everyone realizes prices are already on the rise once again.

Sources for this article included:
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2006/cb06-127table3_rev.xls
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/statepop05table.xls
http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SanFranciscoCounty.htm
wikipedia.org/

http://www.blogcatalog.com/directory/business/real_estate

Hiring a Listing Agent

First - why hire a listing agent to sell your home? Mainly because you are more than likely to get more money, and have to do much less work. "More for less" vs. trying to sell on your own, and having to work very hard without knowing the tricks of the trade that only experience can bring. What those tricks of the trade are is an entire article, or book, unto itself, but rest assured, any mistake can cost you lots of money in selling too low, or taking too long to sell, or setting yourself up for potential law suits by missing important disclosures.

I'll touch on a few of the key tricks of the trade that you ought to ask about when you are comparing and interviewing Listing Agents. Just about every expert says "interview at least three listing agents". I couldn't agree more, even though that means I'll have at least two competitors each time I meet with a potential Seller client.

So what questions should you ask each Listing Agent? Here are some key ones:
1. How will you attract the most amout of buyers to my home?
2. How will you generate and/or negotiate the highest possible price for my home?
3. What do you do differently than other Listing Agents?
4. Do you offer any guarantees?
5. What is my home worth - show me how you got to that number?
6. What commission do you charge - how does that effect my bottom line?

From the above answers you will discover how confident the Agent is, how knowledgable, and you will have much to compare between the three or more agents you interview. One of the "new" tricks of the trade is use of the internet to attract buyers. The internet has taken over for print (magazines and newspapers) in a big way, and effective use of the internet is only practiced by a small percentage of Listing Agents even though research shows this is what Buyers use to find homes. If Buyers use the internet, why isn't your Listing Agent? If you're selling on your own, are you an internet expert? Do you know how buyers find homes and what they're looking for?

What about commission. The biggest mistake Sellers make is in trying to save commission rather than thinking about how a low commission is more than likely to lead to a much lower sales price. So ask what you're likely to Net in a sale, and how the Listing Agent thinks he/she can get more for your home. But commission is negotiable, and you ought to have a thorough discussion about it. Those that say "take it or leave it" ought to be left in the dust. Keep interviewing until you find a great agent who can illustrate how the commission can actually help you sell your home.

Finally, a true testament to whether or not an agent is experienced is in their "CMA" or Comparable Market Analysis which estimates your home's value in the current market. This requires market expertise, and is one of the most critical elements in any sale since the CMA is what you'll base your "Asking Price" on. Price it too high and you may lose money in the end. In San Francisco, pricing it too low is rarely a mistake, but pricing it just right, is a must to guarantee the most buyers coming through, and the most and best offers.

If you'd like to interview me to get all of the above answers, then just drop me an email to robr@kw.com

State of the market - August 2006 update

Someone living out of state just asked, so I'll recap my basic findings given my recent Listings, and my recent Buyers who have bought properties.

1. Desireable properties, in desirable neighborhoods are flat at worst, with some areas up from last year, and some properties still getting multiple offers. Although it's usually 3 to 5 offers, not 10 to 30 offers.

2. Undesirable properties, in undesirable neighborhoods have taken a beating.

3. Areas like South Beach and SOMA where new construction continues to go up, thereby continually increasing supply is a unique area all to itself. It still looks like a stand off to me. Enough buyers are buying to keep prices from falling, but the inventory is growing every month with Seller's choosing to just wait for the right offer without dropping the price. I estimate a 3 to 4 month supply of homes for sale right now, which is very high for San Francisco. Then again, 6 months is what the experts say is the dividing line between a Seller's market and a Buyer's market. But my feeling is we may jump up to a 6 month supply in September since many Seller's wait out the Summer before listing their homes. If that happens, Seller's may blink first, and prices would start coming down.

4. Even if South Beach and SOMA come down in prices, I still don't see that effecting the very pricy north eastern part of the city, or neighborhoods like Noe Valley where there is next to no new supply. Demand is still higher than supply, and well priced homes are selling quickly. Plus there are still a ton of buyers on the sidelines just waiting for these areas to drop so they can get in. So if it were to drop, these buyers would prop it right back up.

Finally, interest rates have remained steady right around the 7% market, and as long as they don't go up further, there is no new pressure on prices.

So is it a good time to buy? Well, that depends. Not if think you'll get the same kind of crazy price appreciation of prior years. But it is if you want to buy and hold for at least a few years. Buy in a less desireable area, and you've got your bargain at 10% to 20% below last year - you can wait for the next crazy market to prop up prices. Buy in a more sought after higher priced area you will still pay a premium, but at least you don't have to fight to buy it against 10 to 30 other offers. Don't expect these areas to drop, so if you want to own a home, now is a good time to buy.

Stay on top of the market at www.SF-MLS-Search.com and email or call me if you're looking for more help.

TIC's (Tenancy in Common) basics

TIC stands of Tenancy in Common which most of the country just sees as one of the many ways a married couple can hold Title to their home. But in San Francisco it's become a way for individuals (or couples) to buy apartments in building's that are not Condos. In most of the rest of the country, converting an apartment building into Condos is a "relatively" easy process. In San Francisco, it is anything but easy. Condo conversion is severely restricted here, so buying via Tenancy in Common has become the only way for individuals to purchase exclusive use of an apartment in a building that looks, acts and feels like a Condo, but isn't a Condo (and may never become one).

To get a fully detailed legal primer on what TIC's are, you should visit either http://www.g3mh.com/articles.htm or http://www.andysirkin.com/HTMLArticle.cfm?Article=1

This post is not intended to be legal advice, and given how often things change, this post could be severly outdated by the time you read it. So this post is simply to alert buyers to what the heck a TIC is when they see it come up time and again in their general searches for apartments to buy.

The #1 reason I hear from Buyers about their interest in TIC's is that they are cheaper than Condos. Unfortunately, they are cheaper for several reasons that many buyers don't want to deal with, or can't. One is that often times the downpayment requirements are for 20% or more, whereas with Condos many buyers can get loans that require 10% or less cash. The other big issue for buyers is that TIC's require you to go on the same loan as the other buyers (or current owners) of apartments in the building. In a condo you get your own loan. In a TIC you get a loan with every other owner/buyer. In a 6 unit building that means you've got 5 other parties who share loan payments with you. There are several banks that have come up with individual loans for TIC buyers recently, but these generally require higher down payments, and have higher interest rates. Over time, these loans may get better and better, but for many these loans aren't all that attractive just yet.

So in general, if you don't have a good downpayment, and you don't care to deal with others for your loan, then TIC's are most likely not for you. On the other hand, TIC's have become so common in San Francisco that they're starting to look and feel like Condos more and more. You will or should have a TIC agreement and usually all the house rules that you get with Condo associations. The TIC agreement spells out what happens if someone defaults on their loan. And in all buildings with 6 or fewer apartments, you have a chance to Condo convert some time in the future.... at least for now. The city's board of supervisors always seems to be coming up with ways to limit or eliminate Condo conversions, so again, visit the above two sites for much more indepth information on TIC's, and for more questions or concerns, consult one of the attorney's that you'll find at both of the above sites. And you should also keep in mind, that while a Condo allows you to get your own loan, you still share common areas and neighbors and have an HOA board making decisions for the building.

So.... TIC's are cheap because they are hard to understand, they often require more cash, you often pay higher interest rates, the city seems to hate them and makes owning them more difficult when they can, and sharing ownership with people you don't know just doesn't work for some people. So if you like TIC's, keep the above in mind when you try to re-sell it down the road. The pool of buyers is likely to be far less than a comparable Condo's pool of buyers. On the other hand, if you want to own an apartment for 5%, 10% and even 20% and 30% below comparable Condos, then TIC's are the way to go. In the sub $400,000 price range TIC's are probably your only option. And in all higher price ranges you'll get a bigger, nicer TIC apartment than a similarly priced Condo apartment.

Remodeling - buy for less, sell for more

Buying a home for less can be compared to buying a car for less. Buy last year's model, and be willing to walk away during negotiations. Last year's model can be just that. In the SOMA/South Beach/Mission Bay where all the new construction is going up, you can buy a condo in a building that was "hot" last year, or 5 years ago. There is so much new construction, that there is a glut of inventory, and older condos aren't as interesting to most buyers. But this year's new construction is next year's old news, so why pay a premium when it will just be old next year?

Most of the rest of the city where there is hardly any new construction, you can look for non-remodeled, older condition homes. The trick is to find something that looks terrible, but is structurely sound. A home that smells is a perfect example. Most buyers just walk out. But most smells can usually be eliminated by getting rid of an old carpet and repainting and cleaning up.

When it comes to remodeling, you must think about whether you are remodeling for yourself, or remodeling to sell at a profit. A recent Seller of mine did a $100,000 remodel that was entirely to her taste, and not necessarily what the majority of Buyers would want. I estimated she got about $20,000 in value out of her remodel, and then she needed to sell 1.5 years later so she barely enjoyed her remodeled home. She probably could have spent $20,000 on her remodel, and gotten $30,000 or $40,000 out of it has she done it in a more generic way.

So go ahead and get hardwood floors, but you can buy good looking ones that cost less, not the highest end, and still get full value out of them. Get your home painted just before you sell, but find the cheapest painter, not the one who says he's worth more, because he really isn't when it comes to selling the home. Don't get the highest end appliances for your kitchen, get ones that look good, but cost less. Don't get custom granite counters, get the ones on sale. Don't change the structure of your home unless it will dramatically improve the value of your home.

Your goal is for it to "show" well, and cost you the least possible. When you buy, look for homes that just need these cosmetic upgrades, and find the cheapest ways of getting the work done. Then spend a couple of thousand dollars on staging, and that will make the home look even better, and sell for more. Again, take the opposite advice when buying... buy unstaged homes, that need paint. They will sell for less even though their value is virtually the same as a staged home that has been newly painted.

Condo vs. Single Family Home?

There is much to consider when deciding whether to buy a Single Family Residence (SFR) or a Condo. Size and space is one, which leads to a cost difference too. In general, Condos are much cheaper than homes, partly because you can't find 1 bedroom SFR's, and few 2 bedroom SFR's whereas these are the most common Condo sizes. But SFR's are more expensive mostly because you get much more space in an SFR even when they're listed as the same size as a Condo. For example, a 2 bedroom, 2 bath, 1500 SqFt Condo is going to be smaller than the same SFR where the SFR usually has a garage or basement area, maybe an attic and a yard, none of which are included in the Square Feet. Plus you get to store extra items in your garage or anywhere you choose.

The same can not be said of every condo where you may not have common area space, you may not have your own storage area. The rules may even say that you can't store anything in your parking space except a car. Not bikes, not anything.

So why buy a Condo? Again, they are usually cheaper. A 2 bedroom condo in District 7 of San Francisco (Marina, Pac Heights, etc) averages about $800,000. A 2 bedroom SFR is rare in this area, and probably starts at $1.2 million. The downsides of condos are that you share walls, may have a neighbor below you, and/or one above you.

If you can find a top floor Condo with as many as 3 un-shared walls you have a lot less noise or nuisance issues to worry about. Condos with "deeded" storage ("deeded" means you own it, you take title to it with your condo) will add to convenience and value and size. A shared yard, or common roof deck is a nice to have, but it not quite as valuable as your own yard or deck in your own house. However, if you can find all of those things in a Condo, while it will sell for more than other condos, it will still be cheaper than an SFR.

With condos you also don't have to take care of any of the common areas, most condos hire vendors to do landscaping, cleaning and repairs. Of course you also have forced payments, called HOA dues (Home Owners Association) to pay for common area expenses, including building insurance, but you'll end up paying similar amounts in your own home.

So size and space, vs. cost are things to consider when deciding whether or not to buy a Condo or an SFR. When using internet search tools to find homes, be sure to pre-select one or the other in your search like you can at www.SF-MLS-Search.com/welcome.php