On Wednesday, September 16, the Federal Open Market Committee raised its benchmark interest rate by a quarter point, to a target range of 3.75 to 4.00 percent. The Federal Open Market Committee, or FOMC, is the twelve-member panel inside the Federal Reserve that sets short-term interest rates. The vote was unanimous, 12 to 0, and it was the first increase since 2023.
The question every owner in the South Bay has asked since is the same one: what does that do to my house.
There are two honest answers, and it is worth separating them at the outset. The first is arithmetic, it is already fully determined, and it is large enough to matter. The second is behavioral, which is to say how buyers and sellers here actually respond, and one week of local data cannot answer it. We pulled the local numbers anyway, out of the California Regional Multiple Listing Service, the database where local agents record every listing, price change and escrow. We are publishing them as a baseline rather than as a finding, and the last section explains exactly why that distinction matters.
What can be said now, with confidence, is structural. That is where we will start.
What the Fed actually did, and what it does not control
The single most useful thing a homeowner can understand this month is that the Federal Reserve does not set mortgage rates.
The Fed sets the overnight rate that banks charge each other. Thirty-year mortgage rates track the 10-year Treasury yield, which is the return investors demand to lend the federal government money for a decade. That yield is set in the open bond market, by buyers and sellers, and the Fed influences it only indirectly.
You can watch the difference in the data from the hike week itself. According to the Federal Reserve’s own H.15 release, the 2-year Treasury yield, which follows Fed policy closely, moved from 4.67 percent on September 17 to 4.76 percent on September 21. The 10-year, which is what a buyer’s mortgage actually follows, went 4.94, then 5.01, then back to 4.96 over the same days. It finished the week roughly where it started.
The 10-year had already crossed 5 percent on September 14, two days before the Fed met, for the first time since October 2023. The bond market moved first. The Fed followed.
Chair Kevin Warsh was direct about the reasoning. “The plain fact is that inflation is too high and has been for too long,” he said at the September 16 press conference. Asked why long-term yields have climbed, he gave three reasons: “First is economic strength. Second reason, competition for capital. The third, is geopolitics.” On what the bond market is signaling going forward, he declined to interpret it: “What bond market prices do prospectively, I want to let them do. I want to let them tell me any story they wish to.”
That is where the Fed left it. Sixteen of the nineteen policymakers expect at least one more increase before the end of the year, so the direction is telegraphed. The magnitude is not.
The inflation number underneath it is stranger than the headline
The August Consumer Price Index, the government’s main inflation measure, came in at 3.4 percent over the year, released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on September 11. That is the number that appeared in every headline.
The number that did not appear: core CPI, which strips out food and energy because both swing violently, rose 2.4 percent. That is close to the Fed’s 2 percent target.
The gap between 3.4 and 2.4 is mostly gasoline. Gasoline rose 3.9 percent in August alone and 27.4 percent over twelve months, and by the BLS’s own accounting it was responsible for more than a third of the monthly increase in the all-items index. Energy overall is up 16.3 percent on the year.
Inflation driven by energy prices behaves differently from inflation embedded in wages and services. It can reverse quickly. We are not forecasting that it will. The point is narrower: the case for rates holding at this level permanently is weaker than the headline number suggests, and the case for them falling soon is weaker than sellers would like. For now, the rate on the table is the rate the market is working with.
What 31 basis points actually costs
This is the part that is already determined, and it does not require a sample size.
The 30-year fixed rate averaged 7.01 percent on September 17, per the Optimal Blue index, up 13 basis points on the week and 31 basis points over the month. A basis point is one hundredth of a percentage point, so 31 of them is roughly a third of one percent. Mid-August, that same loan was near 6.70 percent.
That sounds like nothing. Run it on a South Bay loan and it stops sounding like nothing.
| Loan amount | Payment at 6.70% | Payment at 7.01% | Monthly increase | Annual increase |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $880,000 | $5,678 | $5,861 | $182 | $2,186 |
| $1,650,000 | $10,647 | $10,989 | $341 | $4,098 |
| $2,100,000 | $13,551 | $13,985 | $435 | $5,215 |
| $3,000,000 | $19,358 | $19,979 | $621 | $7,451 |
Principal and interest only. Taxes, insurance and any association dues sit on top.
Now invert it, because inverting it is what shows up in pricing. Hold the payment constant and ask how much less a buyer can borrow. The answer is 3.11 percent, and the number worth holding on to is this: it is 3.11 percent at every loan size. An $880,000 borrower and a $3,000,000 borrower lost exactly the same share of their purchasing power in the last thirty days. The percentage does not care how large the loan is.
So a buyer who could write a check for a given house in August now needs that house to cost roughly 2 to 3 percent less to write the same check. Nobody sent an announcement. It is simply where the arithmetic sits now.
The range exists because down payment structure changes the result. If a buyer keeps the same down payment percentage, the price has to fall the full 3.11 percent. If they are putting down a fixed amount of cash, the price effect is smaller: about 2.2 percent at 30 percent down, and about 1.6 percent at 50 percent down.
That last distinction matters more here than almost anywhere else in the country, and the next section is why.
Why the national median does not describe this market
When a national outlet reports that housing is stalling, it is describing a $429,100 median home, which is what the National Association of Realtors reported for August. Understand what that means for financing. The 2026 conforming loan limit in Los Angeles County, meaning the largest loan Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will buy, is $1,249,125. The national median house is nowhere near that ceiling. Almost every buyer of it is using a conforming loan, at a conforming rate, and conforming rates are what every headline quotes.
Now count the local inventory against that same line. This is not a sample or a survey. It is every active residential listing in these cities on the day we pulled it.
| Market | Active listings | Months of supply | Share priced above the conforming limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palos Verdes Peninsula | 194 | 2.7 | 77% |
| Beach cities | 245 | 2.2 | 72% |
| Torrance and San Pedro | 297 | 2.4 | 19% |
| Eleven cities combined | 736 | 2.4 | 52% |
Roughly half this market does not use the loan that the national story is about.
Above the conforming limit a loan is in jumbo territory, where pricing is set by individual lenders and portfolios rather than by the agencies, where underwriting is tighter, and where a meaningful share of buyers are not primarily payment-driven at all. Nationally, 27 percent of August buyers paid cash. In the upper tier here the mechanism is often different again: buyers with concentrated equity compensation who borrow against a portfolio rather than sell into a tax event, and for whom the relevant comparison is not this month’s mortgage rate but the after-tax cost of liquidating the position.
That is a structural difference, not a weekly one, and it is the reason national coverage consistently fails to describe what happens on this peninsula. Value here is measured in price per square foot and in land, at the level of the individual street and the individual price band, not in a county median and certainly not in a national one.
The supply picture, which is also structural
Absorption rate measures how fast a market consumes its own inventory. The usual expression is months of supply: how long the current listings would last at the current pace of sales, with nothing new added. Under about three months, sellers hold the leverage. Above about six, buyers do.
Every submarket above sits between 2.2 and 2.7 months. Nationally, NAR reported 4.9 months of supply in August, the highest reading in more than a decade, on existing-home sales running at a 3.98 million annual rate, down 1.2 percent from a year earlier. The West region was down 2.7 percent.
The South Bay is carrying roughly half the national supply. That is the sellers’ real leverage here, it is a level rather than a weekly change, and as of this pull it is intact.
What one week can and cannot tell you
Now the part that most market updates skip.
We measured three things across the eleven cities: new listings, new escrows, and price changes on listings already on the market. Here is the full reading, the six full days after the hike against the six full days before it.
| Market | New listings | New escrows | Price changes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palos Verdes Peninsula | 14 to 16 | 13 to 17 | 24 to 13 |
| Beach cities | 14 to 21 | 25 to 22 | 26 to 34 |
| Torrance and San Pedro | 28 to 29 | 17 to 23 | 37 to 34 |
| Eleven cities combined | 56 to 66 | 55 to 62 | 87 to 81 |
Read down that table and you can build almost any story you like. Peninsula escrows up 31 percent. Beach cities escrows down 12 percent. Torrance and San Pedro up 35 percent. Every one of those is a real count, and we are not going to build the story, because the numbers are too small to carry it.
A count of about 55 escrows varies by roughly seven in either direction from week to week on randomness alone, before any economic force touches it. Seven out of 55 is 13 percent. The all-cities change we measured was 13 percent. The finding and the noise are the same size. For that number to mean something, escrows would have had to reach about 79 rather than 62.
There is a second problem, and it is larger than the first. A purchase contract signed between September 16 and 21 reflects a decision that began weeks earlier, through showings, an offer and a negotiation. The lag between a rate move and a signed contract is measured in weeks, not days. Whatever those escrow columns are showing, very little of it could have been caused by a hike that landed on the first day of the window.
The week was not a clean experiment in any case. The 10-year crossed 5 percent on September 14, before the Fed met. Of the 31 basis points the 30-year gained, only 13 arrived during the hike week. The rest had already happened. And the first full week after Labor Day is the known autumn listing ramp in this market, which is a more ordinary explanation for a jump in beach cities listings than anything the Fed did.
So what is the table for. It is a starting line. It is the first of four or five readings, and the value of taking it now is that the comparison in late October will have something to sit against. If Peninsula price changes really did fall by half, that will still be visible in a month, on a sample large enough to trust. If it was noise, it will wash out, and we will say so.
The honest summary of week one is that the arithmetic moved, decisively and measurably, and local behavior has not yet had time to answer it.
What the data supports for a seller this fall
Five observations follow from the structural numbers above, not from the six-day counts. They describe the market. They are not a recommendation about any particular house, because pricing, timing and structure depend on the specific property, the specific owner and the specific transaction, and none of that is knowable from a spreadsheet of eleven cities. Our guide to selling a home covers the mechanics.
The spring comp is older than it looks
A comparable sale closing today went into contract 45 to 60 days ago, at a rate that no longer exists. The buyer who set that price has since lost 3.1 percent of their borrowing power. In a flat rate environment a recent comp is a reliable guide. In this one it carries a built-in lag, and the lag now has a number attached to it.
Two price tiers, two different sensitivities
Below $1,249,125, a house is generally sold to a conforming, payment-driven buyer, and that buyer’s qualification just shrank by a measurable amount. Well above the limit, the buyer is more often using jumbo financing, portfolio lending or cash, and for that buyer 31 basis points sits closer to noise. The same rate move lands differently on either side of that line. In this market, 52 percent of active inventory sits above it, which is why a single South Bay strategy does not exist.
Time carries a measurable cost in a rising rate market
When rates are rising, each week on market shrinks the pool that can qualify at a given price. If the 30-year moved to 7.50 percent, a buyer at the $3,000,000 level would lose a further $99,833 of purchasing power. That is arithmetic rather than opinion, and it applies to any listing that sits through the move.
Why concessions are turning up as rate buydowns
One structural note, because it is showing up in contracts. A seller concession applied to buying down the buyer’s rate reaches the same monthly payment for less nominal money than the equivalent price reduction. On the common rule of thumb that roughly one discount point moves a rate about a quarter percent, recovering 31 basis points would run near $26,250 on a $3,000,000 purchase with 30 percent down, against roughly $65,261 for the price cut that reaches the same payment. That ratio held near 40 percent across every price point we modeled.
That is an illustration of how the math works, not a quote and not a recommendation. Buydown pricing is set by the lender, it moves daily, and whether any such structure is available or advisable in a given transaction is a question for the buyer’s lender and for the parties’ own advisors.
Supply is the number to watch, and it is still favorable
Two and a half months of supply against a national 4.9 is the structural advantage this market currently carries. It is a level, it is measured across hundreds of listings rather than dozens of weekly events, and it is the most reliable figure in this entire post. If that number starts climbing toward four, that will be the signal that conditions have genuinely changed. It has not moved yet.
What we are watching next
The Fed’s next move is the least interesting number on the list, because it is already telegraphed. These are the ones that will actually tell us something.
The 10-year Treasury yield, daily, because it is what mortgage rates follow. The spread between the 30-year mortgage and the 10-year, currently near 2.0 percentage points against more than 3 at the 2023 peak, because a narrowing spread can deliver rate relief even if the Treasury does not move. Months of supply, because it is the figure here with the most statistical weight behind it. New escrows by price band, split at the conforming limit, because that is where any real divergence would show up first. And price changes on inventory older than thirty days, which is the earliest reliable sign that sellers are adjusting.
We will run this same pull again at the end of October, when there is a full thirty days of public data sitting on the other side of the hike rather than six, and publish what it says, including if it contradicts what is above.
This post is a starting point rather than a conclusion. It is the first reading in a developing conversation, and the findings worth anything will be the ones still standing once the data has had time to gather and report in. The end-of-October follow-up is where that begins to get settled.
If you want to know what these numbers mean on your actual street and in your actual price band, that is a conversation about your house rather than about eleven cities, and it is the conversation we are here for. The preparation guide is a reasonable place to start reading.
About the author. Neil Chhabria is the Broker and CEO of Chhabria Real Estate Company, an independent boutique brokerage serving the Palos Verdes Peninsula and the South Bay beach cities. DRE# 01821437. The Chhabria family has been selling South Bay real estate since 1984. Reach Neil at 310.798.3122.
Market figures were pulled from the CRMLS on September 22, 2026, and cover residential listings in Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, El Segundo, Torrance and San Pedro. The post-hike window is September 16 through 21 and the comparison window is September 10 through 15, both six full days. Same-day data was excluded because it was incomplete at the time of the pull. Price change counts reflect listings that were already active before each window opened and recorded a price or status change during it. Payment figures assume a 30-year fixed loan and cover principal and interest only. Months of supply is calculated as active listings divided by the average monthly pace of new escrows over the trailing 90 days. This article is a study of local market data against current economic data. It is general market information only. It is not advice of any kind, including real estate, tax, lending, financial or investment advice, and nothing in it is a recommendation to buy, sell, hold, list or price any property at any particular number. It does not account for the circumstances of any individual property, owner or transaction. Loan pricing, buydown costs and qualification are specific to each borrower and should be confirmed with your own lender, and tax questions with your own CPA.
Have a question about this? Neil answers personally.