Ouch! January’s numbers took a big plunge. January’s median sold price dropped to $167,000. That’s more than five percent off of December’s median sold price.
Similarly, the median sold price per square foot also experienced a large decline. January’s $97.06 per square foot represents a four percent drop from December’s number, and also the first time we’ve seen the sold price per square foot fall below the $100 mark.
FWIW, January’s $97.06/square foot represents a 56 percent fall from the peak sold price per square foot of $223.06 reached in October 2005. The latest median sold price of $167,000 is off 54 percent from the median high of $365,000 reached in January 2006.
To look at it another way, today’s median price of $167,000 has returned to 2001 levels.
The make-up of January’s sales is as follows:
- Bank-owned properties – 40%
- Short sales – 35%
- Equity sales – 24%
Short sale closings bumped up from 30 percent of December sales to 35 percent of sales in January. Hopefully, this indicates quicker turnaround times for short sale transactions going forward.
For those readers who prefer the median sold price for houses and condos combined, January’s combined median sold price was $159,400; down 2.8 percent from December’s combined median of $164,000.
| Month Year | #Sold | Sold Price | Sold Price per SqFt | Average DOM |
| Jan 2010 | 334 | $167,000 | $97.06 | 133 |
| Dec 2009 | 420 | $176,500 | $101.15 | 127 |
| Nov 2009 | 460 | $175,000 | $103.51 | 112 |
| Oct 2009 | 560 | $180,000 | $103.65 | 124 |
| Sep 2009 | 520 | $185,948 | $103.31 | 128 |
| Aug 2009 | 482 | $179,900 | $102.64 | 116 |
| Jul 2009 | 515 | $180,000 | $103.45 | 126 |
| Jun 2009 | 536 | $180,317 | $104.09 | 136 |
| May 2009 | 425 | $175,000 | $102.31 | 139 |
| Apr 2009 | 429 | $190,000 | $105.71 | 133 |
| Mar 2009 | 369 | $200,000 | $105.85 | 133 |
| Feb 2009 | 293 | $205,000 | $111.52 | 132 |
| Jan 2009 | 233 | $200,000 | $113.04 | 117 |
| Dec 2008 | 294 | $218,950 | $121.74 | 145 |
| Nov 2008 | 269 | $220,000 | $122.24 | 152 |
| Oct 2008 | 354 | $230,000 | $131.43 | 144 |
| Sep 2008 | 358 | $239,250 | $136.72 | 145 |
| Aug 2008 | 321 | $250,000 | $142.14 | 140 |
| Jul 2008 | 397 | $251,000 | $145.48 | 139 |
| Jun 2008 | 369 | $262,500 | $148.05 | 142 |
| May 2008 | 314 | $260,215 | $152.30 | 134 |
| Apr 2008 | 314 | $275,000 | $154.05 | 172 |
| Mar 2008 | 238 | $274,000 | $150.93 | 166 |
| Feb 2008 | 195 | $289,000 | $156.48 | 149 |
| Jan 2008 | 165 | $285,000 | $170.23 | 146 |
| Dec2007 | 228 | $283,950 | $167.22 | 143 |
| Nov2007 | 204 | $299,750 | $172.24 | 126 |
| Oct2007 | 241 | $296,000 | $173.55 | 116 |
| Sep2007 | 230 | $299,945 | $179.46 | 114 |
| Aug2007 | 311 | $305,000 | $182.49 | 118 |
| Jul2007 | 300 | $315,000 | $189.78 | 113 |
| Jun2007 | 329 | $320,000 | $196.78 | 104 |
| May2007 | 364 | $313,200 | $190.81 | 107 |
| Apr2007 | 320 | $309,500 | $193.93 | 121 |
| Mar2007 | 324 | $315,000 | $189.61 | 121 |
| Feb 2007 | 269 | $315,000 | $191.18 | 126 |
| Jan 2007 | 245 | $312,900 | $199.79 | 133 |
| Dec2006 | 291 | $309,000 | $193.51 | 114 |
| Nov2006 | 281 | $318,000 | $197.32 | 111 |
| Oct 2006 | 363 | $312,400 | $201.44 | 105 |
| Sep2006 | 344 | $314,950 | $198.08 | 98 |
| Aug2006 | 349 | $325,000 | $210.92 | 94 |
| Jul2006 | 373 | $335,000 | $210.62 | 93 |
| Jun2006 | 424 | $339,000 | $214.54 | 91 |
| May2006 | 374 | $339,950 | $219.05 | 99 |
| Apr2006 | 368 | $334,600 | $212.08 | 88 |
| Mar2006 | 387 | $340,000 | $215.54 | 99 |
| Feb 2006 | 283 | $335,000 | $217.29 | 101 |
| Jan 2006 | 274 | $365,000 | $216.38 | 98 |
| Dec2005 | 333 | $355,000 | $217.31 | 89 |
| Nov2005 | 385 | $349,000 | $220.00 | 81 |
| Oct2005 | 484 | $359,450 | $223.06 | 77 |
| Sep2005 | 531 | $354,500 | $219.26 | 77 |
| Aug2005 | 582 | $360,500 | $220.52 | 73 |
| Jul2005 | 608 | $353,000 | $218.99 | 71 |
| Jun2005 | 679 | $350,000 | $215.69 | 69 |
| May2005 | 644 | $333,250 | $209.95 | 68 |
| Apr2005 | 558 | $326,750 | $207.57 | 77 |
| Mar2005 | 584 | $325,000 | $200.17 | 81 |
| Feb 2005 | 342 | $318,500 | $197.54 | 88 |
| Jan 2005 | 341 | $310,000 | $195.19 | 85 |
| Dec2004 | 450 | $312,500 | $190.72 | 77 |
| Nov2004 | 448 | $309,950 | $191.62 | 63 |
| Oct2004 | 512 | $299,250 | $188.72 | 53 |
| Sep2004 | 496 | $292,750 | $185.78 | 61 |
| Aug2004 | 505 | $285,000 | $182.95 | 56 |
| Jul2004 | 544 | $304,300 | $179.28 | 61 |
| Jun2004 | 533 | $285,000 | $172.16 | 65 |
| May2004 | 476 | $278,750 | $169.64 | 65 |
| Apr2004 | 526 | $259,950 | $158.08 | 67 |
| Mar2004 | 508 | $245,000 | $142.56 | 71 |
| Feb 2004 | 365 | $237,000 | unavailable | 81 |
| Jan 2004 | 379 | $229,000 | unavailable | 78 |
| Dec2003 | 441 | $240,000 | unavailable | 82 |
| Nov2003 | 444 | $220,750 | unavailable | 78 |
| Oct2003 | 430 | $219,880 | unavailable | 76 |
| Sep2003 | 587 | $223,000 | unavailable | 71 |
| Aug2003 | 512 | $220,000 | unavailable | 75 |
| Jul2003 | 533 | $210,000 | unavailable | 77 |
| Jun2003 | 475 | $207,000 | unavailable | 77 |
| May2003 | 450 | $198,950 | unavailable | 85 |
| Apr2003 | 478 | $197,750 | unavailable | 82 |
| Mar 2003 | 428 | $192,000 | unavailable | 77 |
| Feb 2003 | 321 | $186,895 | unavailable | 79 |
| Jan 2003 | 316 | $186,000 | unavailable | 96 |
| Dec2002 | 379 | $193,500 | unavailable | 93 |
| Nov2002 | 423 | $190,000 | unavailable | 82 |
| Oct2002 | 483 | $189,900 | unavailable | 83 |
| Sep2002 | 410 | $174,000 | unavailable | 85 |
| Aug2002 | 459 | $180,000 | unavailable | 74 |
| Jul2002 | 469 | $176,000 | unavailable | 83 |
| Jun2002 | 445 | $185,000 | unavailable | 80 |
| May2002 | 470 | $178,450 | unavailable | 77 |
| Apr2002 | 360 | $169,500 | unavailable | 93 |
| Mar 2002 | 377 | $169,000 | unavailable | 84 |
| Feb 2002 | 323 | $170,900 | unavailable | 89 |
| Jan 2002 | 268 | $172,475 | unavailable | 99 |
| Dec2001 | 287 | $182,000 | unavailable | 86 |
| Nov2001 | 323 | $161,500 | unavailable | 85 |
| Oct2001 | 357 | $166,500 | unavailable | 79 |
| Sep2001 | 355 | $168,000 | unavailable | 81 |
| Aug2001 | 448 | $160,350 | unavailable | 84 |
| Jul2001 | 433 | $169,900 | unavailable | 90 |
| Jun2001 | 426 | $166,225 | unavailable | 96 |
| May2001 | 404 | $162,050 | unavailable | 97 |
| Apr2001 | 370 | $158,750 | unavailable | 94 |
| Mar 2001 | 385 | $159,900 | unavailable | 97 |
| Feb 2001 | 294 | $159,950 | unavailable | 103 |
| Jan 2001 | 264 | $165,000 | unavailable | 102 |
| Dec2000 | 272 | $156,500 | unavailable | 100 |
| Nov2000 | 355 | $154,500 | unavailable | 93 |
| Oct 2000 | 348 | $153,000 | unavailable | 98 |
| Sep2000 | 356 | $160,000 | unavailable | 104 |
| Aug2000 | 412 | $163,375 | unavailable | 94 |
| Jul2000 | 368 | $155,000 | unavailable | 110 |
| Jun2000 | 466 | $165,845 | unavailable | 104 |
| May2000 | 363 | $158,000 | unavailable | 105 |
| Apr2000 | 312 | $155,000 | unavailable | 113 |
| Mar 2000 | 339 | $162,700 | unavailable | 102 |
| Feb 2000 | 244 | $149,620 | unavailable | 110 |
| Jan 2000 | 217 | $156,000 | unavailable | 112 |
| Dec 1999 | 264 | $155,000 | unavailable | 118 |
| Nov 1999 | 293 | $149,900 | unavailable | 98 |
| Oct 1999 | 289 | $147,895 | unavailable | 108 |
| Sep 1999 | 311 | $157,000 | unavailable | 106 |
| Aug 1999 | 360 | $148,500 | unavailable | 112 |
| Jul 1999 | 375 | $147,800 | unavailable | 105 |
| Jun1999 | 372 | $150,000 | unavailable | 103 |
| May 1999 | 307 | $145,500 | unavailable | 106 |
| Apr1999 | 324 | $151,700 | unavailable | 111 |
| Mar 1999 | 308 | $151,000 | unavailable | 121 |
| Feb1999 | 249 | $148,900 | unavailable | 120 |
| Jan 1999 | 210 | $143,000 | unavailable | 115 |
| Dec 1998 | 265 | $140,000 | unavailable | 118 |
| Nov 1998 | 279 | $153,000 | unavailable | 126 |
| Oct1998 | 286 | $142,825 | unavailable | 115 |
| Sep 1998 | 279 | $144,500 | unavailable | 102 |
| Aug 1998 | 331 | $145,000 | unavailable | 113 |
| Jul 1998 | 335 | $150,000 | unavailable | 108 |
| Jun 1998 | 351 | $148,500 | unavailable | 103 |
| May 1998 | 302 | $145,500 | unavailable | 99 |
| Apr 1998 | 235 | $149,000 | unavailable | 111 |
| Mar 1998 | 267 | $142,500 | unavailable | 114 |
| Feb 1998 | 201 | $139,900 | unavailable | 126 |
| Jan 1998 | 165 | $149,490 | unavailable | 131 |
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]. Residential data includes Site/Stick Built properties only. Data excludes Condo/Townhouse, Manufactured/Modular and Shared Ownership properties. Data courtesy of the Northern Nevada Regional MLS - February 2010.
10 comments
More overwhelming evidence that the Reno housing market is still in a freefall and that all of the bottom callers thus far have been dead wrong. Even more troubling is the fact that a lot of buyers right now are speculators who will bail when they realize that an increase in values is not in the cards for several years time, and weak prices and demand for their rentals are the norm.
The great housing price collapse continues apace. For all the shills at RSAR trumpeting the flat line in median sold for the last seven months, well, I wonder what they have to say now?
Looks to me that it is not unusual for a fall off of prices this time of year.
In the data given above (excluding January 1998 as the data does not include December 1997), January median sold prices were lower than the December median sold price for the prior year six times (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009 & 2010) and were higher six times (1999, 2000, 1001, 2006, 2007 & 2008). So yes, the statement “it is not unusual for a fall off of prices this time of year” is not inaccurate, but neither is it meaningful as one also could state accurately that it is not unusual for prices to rise this time of year.
Fibonacci retracement levels have an unexplainable yet powerful effect on stock movements. The three major retracement points occur at reductions of 38.2%, 50%, and 61.8%.
As the Reno market’s $/sq.ft. has blown through the 50% retracement like a hot knife through butter, prospective buyers should look at the 61.8% level for a possible buying point. That would equate to an avg. of $86.50 per square foot, or an additional 9% discount.
So, if you’re looking to buy in this environment, accept no less than a 9% discount from current prices. Sounds reasonable in current conditions, but could you imagine demanding that in 2006?
A couple of days ago, the RGJ ran a story about the real estate market quoting the current president of the RRB that January saw more sales than any month since the mid-2000s. In other words, the bottom must surely be at hand.
Not a word from the RGJ writer (or the realtor president) about the median dropping. I thought for a while the RGJ was getting more objective, but it seems to have fallen back to its old ways.
Realtors really don’t care what the Median Sale Price or Median Price/Sq.Ft is. All that matters for the RSAR, NAR, or any old realtor (with the possible exception of the honorable Guy Johnson, who keeps this blog alive) is numbers of sales.
Why? Because 3% of $350k is almost as good as 3% of $400k. Now, Joe Sixpack will not buy (and hence, there will be no transaction) if he believes the house he purchases will go down in value. No sale, no commission.
But, if the Agent makes Joe believe the bottom is near, Joe will be more likely to buy, the sale will happen, and the agent (buyer’s and seller’s agent, what a deal!) will get their commission.
So, the Real Estate lobby doesn’t give a rat’s butt where prices are headed, as long as volume stays high. The propaganda about the bottom is just to induce people to buy, thus ensuring volume remains high and commissions result.
Bottom line? Don’t believe what any real estate lobbying firm tells you. If you are lucky enough to find a straightshooting RE Agent, and one that you can trust, stick with them.
Here is an interesting website that tracks the 25th Percentile, Median and 75th Percentile home listing price. I don’t know anything about the data accuracy or how they accumulate it, but the graphed trend lines are interesting, especially the 75th percentile.
http://www.housingtracker.net/asking-prices/reno-nevada/
The difference between the historic asking price and the selling prices reported by Guy are significant. Guy, do you know why that is? Do your figures include short sales, court house sales, etc. that the data on this site does not, or are actual sales prices really that much lower than the asking price?
To Zen,
There’s an implied source imbedded within the link:
“The data provided here are asking prices derived from online listings.”
To me, it’s an indication that tracked listings include only MLS or other realtor-sponsored listings (no FSBOs), and that there’s still a wide gap between asking and sold prices (similar to ask/bid in the stock market).
Zen,
The figures I report come from our local MLS. These include short sales and REOs (bank owned) listed and sold through the MLS. The simple rule is that if the property is listed on the MLS, then its sale will get picked up in the data I post.
Examples of properties not included in the data I post would be: foreclosure sales that take place on the courthouse steps, FSBOs (for sale by owner), some new construction.
In answer to your other question about historical asking price and selling price, I used to include the median asking price with my monthly median report. See http://renorealtyblog.com/2009/01/december-medians-and-units-sold.html as an example. A few months ago I changed the format to include price per square foot and days on market. Due to space limitations I dropped the Asking Price data. Check out the link above to see historical asking prices relative to sold prices.