Well, it has finally happened. The median sold price for Reno and Sparks, Nevada has now fallen below $200,000. And in a BIG way! January’s median sold price of $194,450 represents a HUGE drop from the previous month’s $209,900 – a whopping 7.4% decrease. And I thought December’s 4% drop from November’s was big; but now the decline seems to be accelerating. When will it stop?
The only bright spot I can see is that unit sales are way up Y-o-Y. In fact, 28% more properties were sold in January 2009 than in January 2008. But when houses are selling at a 27% discount off of last year’s median price, I suppose a greater number of sales can be expected.
For you price banders out there, January’s sales break out as follows:
- 53% sold for under $200,000
- 72% sold for under $250,000
- 85% sold for under $300,000
- 13% of the sales were short sales
- 66% of the sales were bank-owned properties
- …only 18% of the sales were “normal” equity sales
We are now more than 43% off of July 2005’s peak median price of $345,000.
| Month and Year | # Houses For Sale | Median Asking $ | # Houses Sold | Median Sold $ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Jan 2009 |
4,306 | $239,900 | 244 |
$194,450 |
| Dec 2008 | 4,352 | $240,000 | 325 | $209,900 |
| Nov 2008 | 4,572 | $249,000 | 285 |
$217,000 |
| Oct 2008 | 4,722 | $251,000 | 391 |
$222,000 |
| Sept 2008 | 4,789 | $260,000 | 365 |
$235,000 |
| Aug 2008 | 4,806 | $269,898 | 352 |
$240,000 |
| Jul 2008 | 4,902 | $275,000 | 418 |
$247,000 |
|
Jun 2008 |
4,797 | $280,000 | 394 |
$255,000 |
| May 2008 | 4,761 | $279,900 | 344 |
$255,000 |
| Apr 2008 | 4,536 | $282,700 | 337 |
$269,000 |
|
Mar 2008 |
4,216 | $289,694 | 246 |
$261,000 |
| Feb 2008 | 4,068 | $293,998 | 221 |
$271,632 |
|
Jan 2008 |
4,123 | $299,895 | 191 |
$268,000 |
|
Dec 2007 |
4,156 | $307,250 | 249 |
$275,000 |
|
Nov 2007 |
4,518 | $310,000 | 231 |
$286,000 |
| Oct 2007 | 4,880 | $316,000 | 268 |
$288,000 |
| Sept 2007 | 5,022 | $320,000 | 271 |
$285,000 |
| Aug 2007 | 5,468 |
$325,000 |
348 |
$295,000 |
| Jul 2007 | 5,413 | $330,000 | 351 |
$295,995 |
| Jun 2007 | 5,368 | $337,495 | 378 |
$300,000 |
| May 2007 | 5,174 | $339,900 | 427 |
$296,000 |
| April 2007 | 4,925 | $340,000 | 393 |
$295,000 |
| Mar 2007 | 4,667 | $340,000 | 391 |
$297,000 |
| Feb 2007 | 4,408 | $340,000 | 334 |
$285,000 |
| Jan 2007 | 4,688 | $342,000 | 336 |
$279,950 |
| Dec 2006 | 4,548 | $344,950 | 347 |
$293,995 |
| Nov 2006 | 5,182 | $349,000 | 330 |
$300,000 |
| Oct 2006 | 5,640 | $349,900 | 422 |
$300,000 |
| Sept 2006 | 5,960 | $352,000 | 396 |
$301,000 |
| Aug 2006 | 6,252 | $355,000 | 393 |
$310,000 |
| Jul 2006 | 6,123 | $360,000 | 416 |
$324,750 |
| Jun 2006 | 5,949 | $364,000 | 473 |
$329,000 |
| May 2006 | 5,407 | $369,900 | 432 |
$318,750 |
| April 2006 | 4,626 | $369,000 | 415 |
$317,000 |
| Mar 2006 | 4,295 | $369,900 | 437 |
$329,000 |
| Feb 2006 | 3,899 | $374,900 | 326 |
$315,250 |
| Jan 2006 | 4,245 | $370,000 | 325 |
$325,000 |
| Dec 2005 | 4,040 | $375,000 | 385 |
$319,900 |
| Nov 2005 | 4,432 | $376,448 | 443 |
$331,000 |
| Oct 2005 | 4,694 | $376,700 | 559 |
$335,000 |
| Sept 2005 | 4,567 | $380,000 | 603 |
$336,500 |
| Aug 2005 | 4,370 | $385,700 | 695 |
$334,950 |
| Jul 2005 | 3,860 | $387,000 | 677 |
$345,000 |
| Jun 2005 | 3,411 | $384,500 | 607 |
$335,000 |
| May 2005 | 3,113 | $375,000 | 717 |
$326,000 |
| April 2005 | 2,808 | $365,000 | 650 |
$315,000 |
| Mar 2005 | 2,611 | $350,000 | 660 |
$309,000 |
| Feb 2005 | 2,198 | $348,250 | 411 |
$301,000 |
| Jan 2005 | 2,078 | $349,000 | 381 |
$295,000 |
Note: The median table above is updated on a monthly basis. The median home price data reported covers the cities of Reno, Nevada and Sparks, Nevada. Residential data includes Site/Stick Built and Condo/Townhouse properties. Data excludes Manufactured/Modular and Shared Ownership properties. Data courtesy of the Northern Nevada Regional MLS - February 2009.
53 comments
For years, this is the moment I’ve been waiting for. Sweet vindication, and time for a celebration. I was laughed at a few years ago when I maintained that prices would drop below the $200k threshold. Not even my good friend RI bought into my aggressive predictions. It was only within the past few months that anybody else joined me in my bold stance on Reno prices.
What’s to stop us from that $175k threshold? The reality is that Reno area home prices are showing that they will, once again, represent what LOCAL WAGES afford. Anyone still confused? Derrick? DonC?
Good call BB. A year ago I was one of the choir who didn’t think the median sales price would break $200K! Although Guy reports sales volume is up Y2Y [remember, January of 2008 was the absolute bottom of the market, at least sales volume wise], I see it slowing down M2M [essentially the lowest since February of 2008, and off 25% of December alone]. That tells me we’re getting close to a bottom median sales pricewise. But I guess we’ll soon find out.
Unemployment increasing, credit markets still tight which will eventually lead to a return to traditional lending standards, and oversupply of homes on the market with tons of bank-owned and pre-foreclosures on the market.
Sounds like a recipe for further price declines.
I don’t make predictions because I don’t presuppose I’m smart enough to predict the future, but if I was forced to guess fair value for the median home in Reno, I would say median household income x 3.5 = 40,000 * 3.5 = 157,500, let’s just call it about $150K.
Reno is a great town, a nice mixture of older and younger people, nice restaurants; but I wouldn’t feel comfortable buying a home there until the median home price is about 150K, and when evaluating specific homes I would be looking at valuations below 100/sq ft, probably closer to 80/sq ft.
On a positive note, if you have a single family detached home that’s within the Reno city limits, the price hasn’t dropped that much..median price is still $290,000. If you don’t believe that, check out the Altos page.
Well you called this one BB. A tip of my ‘hostile pessimist’ hat to you.
I have a graph from Dickson Realty that charts the median sales price in Reno/Sparks all the way back to December of 2001. The last time the median sales price was $194,450 was June, 2003.
According to the Dickson graph, the median in December, 2001, was $165,000.
There are some sobering numbers in this data. The sales:listings ratio is still absolutely dismal, around 6:100. This is no better than it has been for the last three years. Still years and years of inventory. The over $300K segment is dissapearing quickly, and the over $500K segment, I suspect, has become an irrelevancy. I just have to laugh when I watch the slideshow on the right of the screen of all those over $1 million listings. Those folks, and their realtors, just don’t get it, do they?
Well - My husband and I just moved here from Orlando Florida (I had been scanning home prices for months before the move) and all I can say is one thing …
PRAISE THE LORD
Guy,I think pretty soon you are going to have to start to report on sales under $175K and also under $150K. I believe that sales at these price levels are going to constitute the majority of sales in the coming months. As the market returns to one of sanity, based upon AFFORDABILITY, we shall see what prices here in Reno really are, without the fog up a mirror loans that drove prices to the absurdity from which they are now falling.
Congrats to BB for the call. Where is derrick?
I think the slideshow is pretty comical also. Here we have Guy announcing that the median is down to $194K, and then we have the slideshow of listings priced at 8 or 9 times the median.
Is it that realtors just can’t admit that they are selling $200K houses to survive, but rather want people to think they are high fliers representing only the wealthy?
The median price in Sacramento is now under $175,000, and dropping.
The median in LV is $180,000, and dropping.
What possible reason is there to think the median in Reno won’t continue to drop??
Oh wait, I know. It’s different here,right?
For those on this blog who say the bottom is near, you are joking right? 600,000 people lost their jobs just in January, the biggest monthly drop in 34 years. The commerce dept. says we may see 3,500,000 people lose their jobs this year. The economy is falling into oblivion, and giving people a $1000 tax break isn’t going to do squat.
But this has nothing to do with Reno? Oh yea, I forgot. It’s different here.
The listings on the sidebar have been on the market so long that many of their pet names are ingrained in my mind. Many of these homes will NEVER sell.
It appears on the surface that they are just delusional sellers- praying that somebody with the proverbial bucket of money and box of stupid shows up. But, that ship has sailed. Not only did these people miss the boat, but they’re riding an air mattress in a hurricane, and the shoreline is a rocky cliff face. I’d like to suggest an old Bruce Springsteen song for these dreamers: “Glory days, yeah, they’ll pass you by, glory days”.
smarten, have you looked at this one: 90000358
Came out today as price reduced (839k) loan amt is 751K (GMAC).
Can’t tell from pictures much about the condition, but it isn’t in an HOA - thought that was unusual for Incline area! Just curious as to whether it was on your radar screen.
This is the same rhetoric Ive been hearing for the past 3 years, If I would have bought last year when my realtor was telling me to buy I would have lost $50-60k And that was last year, Things have gotten a whole lot worse,In my opinion with all the compounded problems now, Your going to see a ton more foreclosures, resulting in massive price reductions, And the future equity loss vs. the tax breaks of buying now will be hugely negative + lost interest. Besides who wants to own a home that isn’t worth what was paid. When the dust settles it could be 10-20 years before this market rebounds. I was thinking prices would end up at 99 levels, Now more like 94 levels, I going to ask of my realtor to just be patient just as I will, There will plenty of good sales for him @ a realistic price for me.. But this is just my opinion.
The median buyer who purchased the median house with 20% down exactly one year ago has not only lost their entire down payment- they are in the hole another 8%. Does anyone believe that everyone who purchased a home last year put 20% down? It’s only a matter of time until we start seeing large numbers of foreclosures of homes which were purchased in 2008.
I think Reno real estate is cooked until the city can reinvent itself. The tourism based economy is dead. Given the dire economic circumstances, I see no reason why the median cannot fall well below $150k. This was a bubble of epic proportions, and the bust will be even more spectacular. It’s all about incomes, and that picture is not a pretty one.
Thank God we can say good-bye to those insane and idiotic signs that advertised: “Homes in the Low 400’s.”
BB makes a very insightful comment - tourism/gaming in northern Nevada is dead. That means the local economy is going to be in the tank, with the resulting downward pressure on housing prices, until the whole region finds something else to do. This could be well after the nation’s economy as a whole hits bottom and recovers.
Under this scenario, Las Vegas could recover long before Reno does.
We may end up being the Flint Michigan of the West. Google amongst yourselves. Or just watch “Roger & Me”.
It’s been more than a year ago that we got so sick and tired of Derrick’s irrational exuberance that I proposed to wager dinner with him at the Lone Eagle Grill. That was a free dinner for all who would like to attend, call it a message board meet and greet, depending on prices being either lower or higher by Jan 2009. Well Derrick, if you are still out there, I’d be happy to let you double down for Jan 2010. Derrick, are you out still out there? Or did the <$200k prices finally shame u off this board?
Love the banding reports, Guy. Assuming today’s ratios aren’t much different that January’s, and based on the 3954 listings on the MLS this morning:
$300K - 29% of listings, 15% of sales.
We seriously need to be breaking out the bands below $200K, since that’s where the action (if not high commissions) is. Here is the banding of current listings:
$1M - 204 (5.2%)
Numbers aren’t exact since they are coming from 3 separate data sources, but still, WOW.
GreenNV, et al,
What price bands would you like to see?
- Guy
Thanks Sully -
Familiar w/591 Rockrose. It’s a REO so there’s no mortgage thereagainst.
The property’s NOT on my radar. It’s located below grade so it has water intrusion problems. Plus a very long downhill driveway - perfect for coming home in the snow and attempting to stop before you plow into the side of your house. Not my cup of tea!
Nor do I find the property to be unusual. We are starting to see quite a number of good deals. It’s just for me, I want something more - a home that’s a good deal. So I’ll continue to look.
But thanks for thinking of me!
Guy, I was serious when I suggested that you start to report on sales between $175K and $200K and between $150K and $175.
Before the bubble came along, paying $175k for a house was on the upside of the median and on the upper end of affordability for the median household income. I agree with BB that we are returning to the past in that the chief factor will be AFFORDABILITY. According to RI, the median in 12/01 was $165K. The bubble began in 2001 when the Fed started bringing rates way down to offset the dot com bust. Don’t be a bit surprised to see the median return to that level, because real wages and income are no better today than they were in 2001. In fact, for many people, they are worse off today than they were in 2001 in terms of buying power. It was only the greatest speculative bubble in history that enabled prices to go as high as they did.
this is such a great time to buy especially with the new home buyer tax incentives
When Californians were poring over tourism brochures while luxuriating in their sumptuous housing bubble bath, Reno looked like the place for a fun weekend getaway. Now Reno seems to be looking more like the four-letter word among cities. Maybe what Californians did with their own real estate was all the gambling they could handle for awhile.
As California goes, so goes Reno.
Since 85% of sales are under 300k, It is safe to assume that the over 500k homes are not even a factor in the median price, because they are such a small part of the equation. The question is then, what does this mean for the long term median price? Will these 500k and up homes eventually start selling and bring the median up, or will the sellers eventually have to unload them at much cheaper prices and keep the median low? Either way, the median is definitely skewed towards the low end, simply because the upper end home market is currently on life support.
Let’s put these numbers into some perspective. Let’s say Mr. Debtowner bought a house in July of 2005 for $345,000. Let’s say Mr. Debtowner’s house has mirrored the median price decline exactly. Thus, his house today is worth $194,500. That’s a decline of about 44%.
Ok class here’s today’s assignment: by what percent would Mr. Debtowner’s house have to increase in value, starting today, for it to get back to being worth the $345,000 he paid?
About 77%.
Yes, in order for Mr. Debtowner’s house to get back to being worth what he paid for it, it would have to appreciate 77% from today.
If a house loses 50% of it’s purchase price, it would then have to appreciate 100% to get back to its original price.
How long will it take for prices to appreciate 77% from today’s values? Unless we go back to the no job, no income, no assets liar loans, we may not see July 2005 prices for decades. If prices started appreciating at 5% annually, it would take until 2025 to get back to the July 2005 median. And the liklihood of 5% annual appreciation starting today is…….nill.
It was the greatest speculative bubble in history, and anybody who thinks we are going to see 2005 prices anytime in the next 20 years, wake up, wake up.
Along those same lines, I have a neice who bought a house with her husband in 2005 in Reno for $320,000. They bought with nothing down and interest only. The house in now worth about $200,000 more or less. In other words, they now owe $320,000 on their $200,000 house. What is the chance that their house will ever get back to being worth what they paid? If I understand SkrapGuy, this house will have to appreciate about 55% just for it to get back to its original price. I can’t imagine that happening for years and years and years.
Carla, pardon me for my bluntness. But perhaps a more accurate way to look at it is that your neice paid $320K for a $160K house. The market is simply returning to normalcy, and sanity. The fact your neice overpaid drastically, is not the markets concern. I suspect that once the market has finally hit bottom, which may be years away yet, and your neice realizes that she owes twice what the house is worth, she will walk. Unless she desires to continue to feed a hole that will never again be full, she may decide to walk sooner.
Myrle Beach, give it a rest already. No offense, but you are so ‘2005′. “Great time to buy” - disingenuos realtor speak!
See above data - if you bought in Dec and had the current $7,500 ‘rebate’ (which needs to be paid back, so its called a loan, not a gift), you’d have lost $15,450 in value in the month of January alone. If you hold for say 10 yrs, sure you might be fine, but you’d also have paid back the ‘rebate’. So, its a gimmick, but many realtors have proven themselves to be quite comfortable with gimmicks.
Accept the fact that, no, its NOT always a great time to buy.
Zen asks:
“Will these 500k and up homes eventually start selling and bring the median up, or will the sellers eventually have to unload them at much cheaper prices and keep the median low? Either way, the median is definitely skewed towards the low end, simply because the upper end home market is currently on life support.”
Contrary to what asking prices might lead one to believe, many are NOT $500k and up homes. Their value has yet to be determined, as they sit on the market idle.
The market is not “skewed towards the low end”. This IS the market. The houses selling are in the price ranges that people can afford. There will be no miraculous influx of wealthy people “snapping up” discounted higher end properties, and raising the median. Aside from the occasional sale, there really is no market for a lot of those higher end houses, barring liar loans. It’s over.
This whole mess is getting out of hand!
How many times do I have to hear about walking away from a mortgage because the house is not worth it anymore. It just makes me wonder how many people have left with the ability to pay.
Seems to me some people forgot what personal responsibility is about. But in these times with our leaders “honesly” forgetting to pay simple things like taxes, I see where they get thier role models from.
Yes I do realize many people have hit hard times with job losses, and many people where misled into mortgages with little chance of paying back.
ANybody remember the kid Casey Serin buying over 2 million properties with no job? Seems this mess was created by simple greed.
Now we have a so called stimulus bill which as far as I can see will only inflate the next bubble and push more problems into the future. What we need are sustainable jobs which are competive in the world. And we need a leader to make sure we are playing on a level playing field.
One thning I am happy about is leaving California. How that state is going to get out of it’s mess is going to be real interesting.
2 million dollars worth of properties. I think it was something like 8 of them.
http://www.caseypedia.com
He’s still around, off and on.
Seems like the housing market in Reno has two problems. (1) California is in the toilet, and (2) industry in Reno consists of warehouses and slot macnines.
I suppose median income in Reno is stuck in the mud.
I would not be surprise if some serious wage-price inflation moves the housing market back to 2005 price levels sooner than anyone thinks possible.
And don’t forget we still have more resets coming which means more walk outs.
Price banding for January Sales
≤$150K … 23.7% of sales
≤$175K … 44.3% of sales
≤$200K … 56.1% of sales
≤$225K … 64.9% of sales
≤$250K … 74.8% of sales
≤$300K … 85.1% of sales
≥$500K … 4.6% of sales
Going forward, are these the price bands you guys would like to see? I’m open to suggestions. I may also put together a table showing the numbers (price bands) going back a few months (or years).
Let me know.
“I would not be surprise if some serious wage-price inflation moves the housing market back to 2005 price levels sooner than anyone thinks possible.”
Oh, really?! Care to share how you draw such a conclusion in the face of skyrocketing unemployment and pay cuts? We’re in a deflationary spiral. We already had inflation.
BB…the Move to Reno comment may not be so unreal.
My stock broker says that in about two years there will be much higher prices for homes than people think, but the catch is this: it will happen in numbers only, not in terms of true economic value of the properties, for the following reason:
He believes that the only way the Administration will be able to pay for the current financial chumming being tossed out in the hundreds of billions of dollars, is to print money 24/7. The government cannot pay its debt, nor can it repudiate its debt, but it can inflate its way out; there is no other reimbursement source. So it is the value of the dollar which will drop substantially–like 25%, and not the true value of the houses that will go up; yet the purchase price will be much higher, in numbers only.
If my guy is right, that is spooky in terms of what it projects will happen to the value of our savings accounts.
Tom:
I’ve heard the argument before. IMO, it doesn’t hold water. The amount of money being destroyed right now dwarfs what is being created. There is only one way out of this: jobs. That’s it. You can’t sell houses, when you don’t have buyers.
I have a suggestion for Tom, his stock broker (gag), Move to Reno, and anyone else who buys into the hyperinflation HYPE. Run out right now and buy as many houses as you possibly can. Seriously! I mean, if what you say is true, then you’ll be golden.
Maybe so; I think that high unemployment will remain. The jobs that will exist will carry much higher inflated dollar wage numbers, but that doesn’t mean that the actual purchasing power of those workers will be increased–just that the number on their paycheck will be larger.
High unemployment plus concurrent runaway inflation, is that a hat trick? My broker says it will happen.
The only way to increase total job numbers is to stop sending our jobs to foreign sites. We cannot raise the standard of living of the world on the backs of our former workers, but that is what is happening when we discard our workers to send jobs to cheaper labor markets.
We need to start making things in this country again, and some protective import duties would help.
BB, what Tom’s stock broker is predicting is really another way of saying hyper-inflation. You will recall this is something I opined some time ago is in our future.
If we’re heading for hyper-inflation, I don’t want to be sitting on as many houses as I can afford to buy now because no one will be able to afford the interest rates on purchase money mortgages to buy them from me.
What I want to be sitting on are commodities like oil, natural gas, gold, platinum and [my personal favorite] low LTV mortgages! If anyone thinks we’re currently in an environment where cash is king, hold on; you haven’t seen anything yet.
I really hope I’m wrong but I don’t think I’m going to be.
Spoken like a true stockbroker. Runaway inflation just around the corner. In other words, better
buy stocks today while they are cheap.
Has anybody ever met a stockbroker who said that stocks will be cheaper in the future?
I’ve never met a stockbroker that didn’t say infaltion was on the horizon. With the implication that stocks will only be more expensive in the future.
Perhaps a barber is not the best person to ask if you need a haircut.
“The only way to increase total job numbers is to stop sending our jobs to foreign sites. We cannot raise the standard of living of the world on the backs of our former workers, but that is what is happening when we discard our workers to send jobs to cheaper labor markets.
We need to start making things in this country again, and some protective import duties would help.”
I am 100% in agreement with this, Tom.
First, excellent point Smarten about interest rates. For you all who suggest that we are going to see runaway inflation, well, nobody really knows. But if we do, we sure as hell are not going to see hyperinflation and 5% mortgage money. Tom and I are old enough to remember the Carter administration and Mr. Volker. Yes, inflation was horrendous, and mortgage interest rates were about 15%.
Thanks Guy for the price band data. It looks like the median will continue to drop. 44% of sales are under $175K. If we get to 50% of sales under $175K, then, by definition, that will be the median.
I am old enough to remember big inflation and Volker and 15% mortgage rates. I owned property in Reno then and let me tell you the prices of houses DID NOT appreciate much at all. The only thing buyers cared about was the monthly payment and what they could afford to borrow. All they knew was that increasing the price just increased the payment. I remember those times well, and they were NOT a bonanza for sellers. The only way you could sell anything at all was to do a contract of sale or a wrap around mortgage in an attempt to keep the bank from finding out the property had been sold and invoking the due-on-sale clause in the mortgage.
Those were not great days for sellers at all, believe me.
Smarten posted:
“If we’re heading for hyper-inflation, I don’t want to be sitting on as many houses as I can afford to buy now because no one will be able to afford the interest rates on purchase money mortgages to buy them from me.
What I want to be sitting on are commodities like oil, natural gas, gold, platinum and [my personal favorite] low LTV mortgages!”
If hyperinflation panned out, then you would be sitting on piles of low LTV mortgages for properties which provided exceptional cash flow. It’s easy money, for those who are convinced of hyperinflation. My question again: why not run out and buy a bunch of houses?
Martin, the broker I mentioned actually didn’t say buy stocks; he mentioned instead residential property, similar to what BB above humorously referred to, but not in most areas…he suggested high net worth enclaves such as Holmby Hills, Beverly Hills, Hancock Park, & Brentwood. His reasoning is that there always will be people who can afford and desire houses there, unlike other locations tied to regional wage medians.
Who knows, nobody has the answer, I sure don’t and I don’t think the people in Washington do, they are just hoping against hope that something will happen.
BB, I tried to answer your question “why not run out and buy a bunch of houses?” I guess I didn’t do a good enough job.
Buy a bunch of low LTV, high interest bearing mortgages today [or tomorrow when interest rates go through the roof]! This actually plays into your belief that the value of houses will continue to drop. Therefore should owners default on their mortgages and mortgagees-investors become property owners, it will be at a much lower price point than running out NOW and buying a bunch of houses.
If you think houses will cash flow as rentals once the median sales price drops to the levels you think, why wouldn’t you think they would cash flow even MORE under my scenerio?
Tim Geithner today has GUARANTEED hyper-inflation.
Some sectors may be dead or still deflate but the currency will be devalued when compared to when resources with limits. Will it show up in currency indices maybe, but all of the nations will be following this path so you can’t focus on FX rates.
Tom -
We spoke before about the proposed $15K tax credit for purchasing a property. Well now I’ve found a bit more on the subject you can read at: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-home-front/2009/02/06/the-15000-home-buying-tax-credit-6-things-to-know.html
The credit is 10% of the purchase price up to a maximum of $15K! And unlike the previous $7,500 tax credit, you DON’T need to be a first time homebuyer. However, you DO need to make the home your principle residence in two of the next five years. And unlike the previous $7,500 tax credit, you DON’T have to repay the $15K.
Furthermore according to this article, you can purchase the home in 2009 and apply the tax credit to your 2008 income tax return.
Sounds to me like a pretty good deal assuming the home you purchase doesn’t go down in value in two of the next five years.
Uncle Sam is contributing $15k toward the purchase price, essentially. That is always helpful, thanks for the update.
“I don’t think the people in washington (have the answer)they are just hoping against hope that something will happen.”
Thus sayeth Tom. More accurate words have never be posted on this blog.
I am amused by all the prognostication going on about interest rates, the rate of inflation, the liklihood that the government bailout efforts will have any impact, etc. It seems to me that after the events of the last 6-7 months, how can anybody predict anything? Who amongst us would have said a year ago that Bear Stearns and Merril would cease to exist, that the entire investment banking industry would have evaporated, that AIG would have received $140 billion in govt money to stay in existence, that the shares of BoA and Citi would be trading at $3 and are no sure bet to remain as private entities, that the economy would lose 600,000 jobs in one month?
We are in unchartered water here. I don’t think any of the old maps are of much use anymore. I’m not ready to bet my financial salvation on such untested prophecies.
The $15,000 Tax/stimulus really seams to be targeted at the $80-100k + yearly income, Average people $50-60k will see about a $3800 credit a year x2 And I believe are not eligible if have owned a home in the past 3 years, The complete details seem to bee sketchy right now, But I would sure do the math, Doesn’t look to stimulating to me…Just all my opinion
The $15K credit is gone! Wiped out by more of Pelosi’s social issues I’m sure.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29136678