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

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.

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.

10 Responses to January median sold price, units, DOM, and $/sq.ft.

  1. Avatar BanteringBear says:

    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.

  2. Avatar skeptical says:

    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?

  3. Avatar willk says:

    Looks to me that it is not unusual for a fall off of prices this time of year.

  4. Avatar John Newell says:

    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.

  5. Avatar technician says:

    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?

  6. Avatar Martin says:

    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.

  7. Avatar skeptical says:

    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.

  8. Avatar Zen says:

    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?

  9. Avatar billddrummer says:

    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).

  10. Avatar Guy Johnson says:

    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.

Leave a Reply