Condo median sold price, units, DOM, and $/sq.ft.

As promised here is the median sold data for condos and town homes.

March’s median condo sales price was $88,000; up over 12% from February’s median of $78,000, however because of the small number of condo sales each month substantial monthly fluctuations are common.

Longer trends are more telling.  The Reno Sparks condo market peaked in April 2007 at $251,950.   Today’s condo median sold price is now 65% off that peak.

Similarly, on a price per square foot basis, condos hit a high of $241.34 in January 2007.  Today’s median sold $/sq.ft. of $86.76 represents a 64% drop from the peak.

 

Closing Date

# Sold

Sold Price

Sold Price per SqFt

Average DOM

Mar 2009

33

$88,000

$86.76

217

Feb 2009

24

$78,450

$81.76

209

Jan 2009

29

$98,000

$86.95

187

Dec 2008

32

$98,450

$100.68

128

Nov 2008

28

$91,000

$91.02

162

Oct 2008

48

$113,000

$117.93

149

Sep 2008

28

$144,750

$128.40

173

Aug 2008

44

$132,500

$131.80

215

Jul 2008

37

$160,500

$134.35

167

Jun 2008

35

$170,000

$143.93

248

May 2008

34

$145,000

$138.39

162

Apr 2008

32

$149,500

$150.13

205

Mar 2008

18

$117,450

$128.34

149

Feb 2008

31

$179,000

$149.92

156

Jan 2008

33

$210,000

$177.45

147

Dec 2007

27

$170,000

$148.72

172

Nov 2007

36

$160,725

$154.62

177

Oct 2007

33

$185,000

$164.14

172

Sep 2007

48

$174,000

$159.85

127

Aug 2007

48

$188,975

$170.99

109

Jul 2007

60

$189,500

$171.69

118

Jun 2007

51

$195,000

$172.81

99

May 2007

76

$222,500

$209.42

225

Apr 2007

79

$251,950

$206.77

202

Mar 2007

65

$224,000

$203.58

177

Feb 2007

65

$208,000

$198.17

180

Jan 2007

89

$244,900

$241.34

159

Dec 2006

70

$215,013

$221.94

148

Nov 2006

55

$170,000

$187.29

134

Oct 2006

67

$195,000

$180.34

116

Sep 2006

66

$206,000

$181.23

102

Aug 2006

60

$168,550

$183.21

90

Jul 2006

60

$164,750

$176.30

82

Jun 2006

64

$184,000

$191.33

85

May 2006

72

$190,000

$189.99

105

Apr 2006

65

$194,000

$189.17

96

Mar 2006

69

$178,000

$177.08

79

Feb 2006

55

$185,000

$190.42

106

Jan 2006

61

$208,000

$195.24

112

Dec 2005

68

$220,000

$200.91

110

Nov 2005

80

$205,000

$198.22

66

Oct 2005

91

$172,000

$184.88

65

Sep 2005

100

$204,500

$193.32

64

Aug 2005

125

$199,900

$192.05

59

Jul 2005

81

$190,000

$179.50

56

Jun 2005

118

$181,875

$185.49

57

May 2005

93

$185,000

$181.62

57

Apr 2005

108

$181,200

$156.34

78

Mar 2005

107

$159,900

$158.65

64

Feb 2005

76

$172,118

$153.53

86

Jan 2005

57

$165,000

$155.91

78

Dec 2004

75

$159,000

$141.94

76

Nov 2004

77

$141,000

$144.23

41

Oct 2004

96

$149,593

$140.82

43

Sep 2004

85

$146,000

$139.86

44

Aug 2004

93

$140,500

$133.51

54

Jul 2004

78

$139,950

$129.77

38

Jun 2004

78

$110,100

$120.45

49

May 2004

96

$124,950

$126.61

57

Apr 2004

85

$118,000

$115.49

54

Mar 2004

78

$115,000

$112.50

69

Feb 2004

69

$115,000

$113.80

65

Jan 2004

46

$117,600

unavailable

68

Dec 2003

52

$115,000

unavailable

80

Nov 2003

53

$117,500

unavailable

80

Oct 2003

48

$112,250

unavailable

81

Sep 2003

86

$109,450

unavailable

62

Aug 2003

69

$89,900

unavailable

79

Jul 2003

59

$104,000

unavailable

70

Jun 2003

56

$106,000

unavailable

61

May 2003

62

$97,000

unavailable

60

Apr 2003

59

$92,000

unavailable

98

Mar 2003

55

$96,500

unavailable

80

Feb 2003

45

$94,000

unavailable

70

Jan 2003

43

$82,000

unavailable

79

Dec 2002

42

$96,140

unavailable

63

Nov 2002

49

$90,000

unavailable

88

Oct 2002

59

$89,500

unavailable

65

Sep 2002

56

$91,800

unavailable

65

Aug 2002

60

$91,500

unavailable

67

Jul 2002

61

$96,000

unavailable

85

Jun 2002

53

$87,500

unavailable

70

May 2002

49

$87,000

unavailable

65

Apr 2002

42

$85,700

unavailable

65

Mar 2002

60

$84,750

unavailable

86

Feb 2002

35

$81,950

unavailable

72

Jan 2002

34

$76,500

unavailable

73

Dec 2001

43

$88,000

unavailable

100

Nov 2001

36

$85,750

unavailable

77

Oct 2001

44

$80,500

unavailable

87

Sep 2001

45

$88,000

unavailable

72

Aug 2001

63

$92,000

unavailable

63

Jul 2001

54

$94,500

unavailable

105

Jun 2001

56

$80,250

unavailable

75

May 2001

51

$78,000

unavailable

93

Apr 2001

54

$78,750

unavailable

101

Mar 2001

47

$78,200

unavailable

80

Feb 2001

39

$84,900

unavailable

108

Jan 2001

40

$95,350

unavailable

111

Dec 2000

37

$65,000

unavailable

107

Nov 2000

41

$67,700

unavailable

96

Oct 2000

42

$86,750

unavailable

83

Sep 2000

41

$85,000

unavailable

108

Aug 2000

51

$85,900

unavailable

84

Jul 2000

47

$84,000

unavailable

121

Jun 2000

54

$79,500

unavailable

83

May 2000

46

$78,250

unavailable

109

Apr 2000

44

$72,500

unavailable

100

Mar 2000

46

$66,000

unavailable

122

Feb 2000

49

$82,000

unavailable

96

Jan 2000

23

$72,000

unavailable

96

Dec 1999

38

$83,750

unavailable

86

Nov 1999

41

$60,000

unavailable

102

Oct 1999

53

$78,500

unavailable

103

Sep 1999

49

$81,500

unavailable

125

Aug 1999

49

$79,900

unavailable

117

Jul 1999

44

$85,200

unavailable

103

Jun 1999

42

$85,450

unavailable

92

May 1999

45

$82,500

unavailable

105

Apr 1999

39

$90,000

unavailable

113

Mar 1999

40

$63,250

unavailable

116

Feb 1999

36

$82,000

unavailable

97

Jan 1999

31

$84,000

unavailable

103

Dec 1998

34

$81,250

unavailable

104

Nov 1998

34

$79,500

unavailable

87

Oct 1998

44

$79,000

unavailable

96

Sep 1998

34

$71,750

unavailable

91

Aug 1998

39

$76,900

unavailable

100

Jul 1998

51

$76,500

unavailable

80

Jun 1998

62

$79,000

unavailable

90

May 1998

43

$77,500

unavailable

87

Apr 1998

39

$79,500

unavailable

107

Mar 1998

52

$73,750

unavailable

106

Feb 1998

40

$76,750

unavailable

107

Jan 1998

32

$84,450

unavailable

118

Note: The medians table above is updated on a monthly basis. The median home price data reported covers the cities of Reno, Nevada and Sparks, Nevada {NNRMLS Area #100]. Data includes Condo/Townhouse properties only. Data excludes Site/Stickbuilt, Manufactured/Modular and Shared Ownership properties. Data courtesy of the Northern Nevada Regional MLS – April 2009.

Avatar

About Guy Johnson

I am a licensed Nevada REALTOR® living and working in Reno, Nevada. Give me a call at 775-722-4011. My team and I will be happy to assist you with your real estate needs.
This entry was posted in Agent Insights, Market Trends and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Condo median sold price, units, DOM, and $/sq.ft.

  1. Avatar billddrummer says:

    It doesn’t look like lots of Montage condos were included in the March number, does it?

  2. Avatar Otto says:

    So if you bought a condo back in January of 1998, it would now be worth…the same as in January 1998.
    What am I missing?
    I thought that real estate only goes up.

  3. Avatar 3niner says:

    Interesting, the condo pattern isn’t quite as regular as the SFR pattern, but we still see DOM minimum, followed by volume peak, then pps peak, and selling price peak.

    The peak (and predictors) are streched out over a longer period of time, but it’s still useful information.

    Also, it’s interesting that condos took longer to peak, but have corrected more rapidly once the bubble burst.

  4. Avatar bondstevenbond says:

    3niner (or others),

    Interest observation that you made, 3niner.

    Does the series of events; DOM minimum, followed by volume peak, followed by pps peak, followed by price peak at the top imply the opposite series of events at the bottom? i.e., DOM max, then volume min, then pps min, then price bottom?

    If so, what is the rationale? Is it a reliable series of events?

    Thanks very much

  5. Avatar KingBud says:

    Condo market is more volatile for sure in terms of pricing.

    For example, a couple years ago I looked at the condos at Tanamera in South Meadows. Nice units in terms of amenties, but were asking 250K for units that were about 900 sq ft in size.

    Looked up an article in RGJ this morning, there’s an article from 2/2009 profiling a unit about 1100 sq ft, asking 259K. Link is here: http://www.rgj.com/article/20090221/HOMESCAPE0304/902210340/1208

    Hard to imagine any condo in Reno is worth over 200/sq ft in this market, so this pricing strikes me as curious.

    Anyone with any thoughts ?? Wishful thinking on Tanamera’s part or are they making sales at these price points ??

  6. Avatar DonC says:

    Guy, thanks for taking the time to provide all this information. You don’t get too many kudos for it but it is appreciated.

    Condos are usually more volatile because one larger project can really add to the inventory, and usually you see several larger projects coming on line at once.

    I’m thinking that with all the Montage still overhanging the market there may be some real carnage in the downtown market.

    KingBud, I’m really not familiar with Reno in general or South Meadows in particular, but from the other properties I’ve seen the listing seems unrealistically high.

  7. Avatar billddrummer says:

    Great data, Guy.

    You must be a master at time management, since your real estate business is still working (and you’re working it).

    As far as the medians for condos, I think a reasonable price in this environment is around $115-$120/sf, depending on amenities and the HOA burden. Lots of people forget that those assessments can be huge, especially if you buy into a project that’s poorly absorbed. Unless there’s some type of assessment protection in place, prudence rules.

  8. Avatar 3niner says:

    bondstevenbond said:

    “Does the series of events; DOM minimum, followed by volume peak, followed by pps peak, followed by price peak at the top imply the opposite series of events at the bottom? i.e., DOM max, then volume min, then pps min, then price bottom?”

    If you change “volume min” to “volume peak”, then I would say there’s a qualified “yes” to that question.

    The DOM minimum indicates a strong sellers’ market. This would be a time when prices are rising very rapidly, as sellers find that they can charge more and more for houses. Conversely, the DOM maximum indicates a strong buyers’ market, and prices should be falling rapidly at that point in time. We should expect these events to come well before the peak and bottom, respectively.

    The volume peak indicates maximum price agreement between buyers and sellers. During the bubble, it indicated that many buyers were excited about the prospects of getting rich, by speculating in real estate, while many sellers were excited about being able to cash in, and were getting cautious about the prospects of future price increases. After the volume peak, more buyers were starting to become nervous about high prices.

    We would expect to see a similar volume peak as prices continue to fall. I would expect both the DOM extreme and volume extreme to precede the price extreme in either direction, but I’m less certain that the DOM extreme would come before the volume extreme.

    As for the price per SqFt peak and purchase price peak, it seems to me that these are simply two different ways of looking at the same thing. I know of no reason that one would necessarily occur before the other, and suspect that differences in timing are simply an aspect of statistical noise.

    The useful thing to learn here, is that there are two indicators (DOM min and volume peak) that anticipated the price peak. These occurred early enough, and the price peak lasted long enough, for them to be a useful guide in making decisions. Keep in mind that it takes a few months to be certain you’ve actually seen a peak or bottom in one of these numbers.

    Conversely, I would expect DOM max and volume peak to anticipate the price bottom. If we have a “U” shaped bottom (as some are predicting), there will be plenty of time to recognize the bottom as it occurs.

    Keep in mind that what really matters to a buyer or seller is their individual deal. The broad market indicators merely suggest the prospects of getting the desired deal.

    I hope this helps. Hopefully others will weigh in with their own thoughts on this.

  9. Avatar billddrummer says:

    To 3niner,

    Well-reasoned analysis. And it points to the market dynamics which dictate buyer psychology, not the other way around.

    So what we should look for is a peak in volume, coupled with a decrease in DOM. That would signal the beginning of a recovery.

    Now how does the inventory supply factor into this picture? Would it be reasonable to assume that as inventory drops while DOM falls, that ‘recovery’ then resumes?

    I think days’ supply is a key component (not setting aside your trend analysis, which was excellent). I think all the levers need to be moving–DOM falling, volume peaking, and days’ supply falling as well–then, you might presume that the hole we’ve found ourselves in is finally beginning to reverse.

    Well don!

  10. Avatar 3niner says:

    To billddrummer,

    Looking to Japan’s bubble cycle, and noting that our’s has tracked their’s (adjusted for inflation), I expect that our price drops will continue for some time, as they slow down. I also expect that prices may stay near the bottom for a few years, after we get there.

    This is all talking national averages, however, and Reno’s market seems to be moving through the cycle faster than the average. Also, the condo portion of the market seems to be moving even faster.

    I have trouble using “inventory” as an indicator, because various factors cause properties to move in or out of the MLS. Right now, regardless of what the numbers might say, inventory must be extraordinarily high, because foreclosures are happening almost as fast as houses are selling.

    “Inventory” is like asking price, in that both are incomplete statistics. There is an important part of the story that isn’t reflected in the number. For example, the asking price is only good information if you also know the offering price. In equity (stock) investing this is known as the bid-ask spread. When the spread is high, the volume will be low.

    In reality, every house in the area is part of our inventory. My house has not been on the market for many years, but I would sell it in a heartbeat for $1,000,000 (it’s worth about 1/3 of that).

    Kind of rambling here. I hope this makes sense.

  11. Avatar billddrummer says:

    Good point. And the inventory number leaves out the ‘shadow inventory’ that never makes it into the MLS–FSBOs, REOs that haven’t been listed, etc., so I see your point about the nebulous nature of the inventory figure.

    Guy mentioned in another thread that more than twice as many homes are entering the NOD/NOS category than are being sold, which begs the question: What happens when they come on the market?

    I don’t see sales momentum rising much from this level, because of stricter underwriting criteria that is shutting out buyers who used to qualify with no problem. (The best rates, the ones advertised, presume 20% down and 750+ credit scores. How many people have both, and are shopping for homes?)

    A trader, commentator and expert on markets, John Mauldin, has referred to the recovery as a “Muddle Through Economy.” Things will get better, but they’ll feel bad for a long time, and growth will be in imperceptible increments, not like the V shaped recessions familiar to most Americans. A U with a looong bottom is probably what’s in the cards.

  12. Avatar 3niner says:

    To billddrummer,

    Falling prices always bring new buyers into markets. I know some young people, with good credit, who simply wouldn’t buy when they thought houses were overpriced. At some point in the next year or two, I expect them to do so.

    People of limited means have discovered that buying a house can be very risky, and many will be renters for a number of years to come. People of greater means will see opportunity in becoming landlords. They will take on the ownership risk with the expectation of making a profit.

    Markets work, if they are allowed to do so.

  13. Avatar Guy Johnson says:

    DonC, billdrummer, et al, thank you for the words of appreciation.

  14. Avatar bondstevenbond says:

    Diane, Guy, Niner, Bill, BanterBear, Ignoramous, and many, many others; thanks so much for making this such a educational and informational blog!

    Niner, your analysis makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks again.

  15. Avatar 3niner says:

    To bonstevenbond,

    You’re welcome. I would have to say that I have only become knowledgable about this subject in the last year or so, and that much of what I’ve learned was a direct or indirect result of things said by those already involved with this blog.

    Back around the market peak, I had a gut feeling that prices had gone up too much, and suggested to my wife that we sell our house and become renters. She hated the idea, and I didn’t try very hard, because I lacked knowledge. If I had been reading this blog then, we might have done it, and been $200,000 – $300,000 ahead of where we are now.

    As we approach the market bottom, there will be other opportunities. The actual bottom may be years away, but it looks like there might already be individual bargains, priced below likely market bottom prices. Of course, this looks like it’s mostly just condos right now, and not much to choose from there, but the bargain opportunities seem to be expanding, and should continue to do so for some time.

    🙂

Leave a Reply