February median sold price, units, DOM, $/sq.ft.

Share this:

Rebound! February’s median sold price jumped 7.4 percent over January’s $135,000 to return to $145,000. This 7.4 percent increase follows the 12.9 percent fall we saw in January. Volatility is the word of the day. Year-over-year, February’s median sold price is down 9.9 percent.

February’s median sold price per square foot (ppsf) also increased – rising 1.6 percent to $82.12/sf. Sold PPSF is down 12 percent year-over-year.

The number of houses sold in February set another month-specific record. February’s 453 units sold eclipsed the number of houses sold in any other February on record. The increase sales activity, in conjunction with less properties entering the market, has wreaked havoc with inventory levels. At the moment there are only 980 houses listed as Active on the MLS. By itself this number may not mean much, but when looked at alongside the number of monthly sales, one can see that our market is operating with roughly only a two-month supply of inventory. 980 Active for-sale properties is also noteworthy in that this number is lower than the inventory levels the market experienced during the peak of the buying frenzy during the bubble years.

I first brought the dwindling inventory point to light in October – see Looming inventory problem in Reno-Sparks? At that time, the months supply of inventory was at 3.7 months. It is now at 2.2 months. Folks, we’re in a Seller’s market. Of course, the lack of inventory is not seen across all price points, but at and around the median sold price there is shortage of available Active listings. This thin supply is being manifested as multiple offers scenarios, offers over asking price, lower days on market, and higher incidence of cash offers (see Cash is King – more than ever).

Speaking Days on Market (DOM), I see that our MLS has added a new metric to the search results – median days on market. Regular readers know that the DOM number I report has always been an average, rather than a median. That’s because average DOM was the only metric available to me. Not so any longer. I have updated the table below with median DOM going back about a year. I will fill out the remainder of the historical data when I have more time. I have also left the average DOM in place as a comparison to the median DOM. Going forward, I think I will use only the median DOM. This will be consistent with my use of the medians for the other metrics on which I report. Let me know your thoughts on this?

So, looking at the median DOM for February we can see that the trend has certainly been toward shorter times on the market. This is because many of the properties hitting the market are going pending almost immediately – or at least as soon as the Seller chooses which offer to select. February’s median DOM of 99 days is more than two weeks shorter than February 2011′s median DOM of 115 days.

February sales by type break out as follows:

  • REO sale: 42% – up from January’s 40%
  • Short sales: 28% – down from January’s 37%
  • Equity sales: 29% – UP from January’s 22%

Another effect from the low inventory level is that non-distressed home sellers are experiencing greater interest in their for-sale properties – as can be seen in the increase in “equity sales”.

February sales by price band break out as follows in the table below. Note that nearly a quarter of the houses sold in February sold for less than $100,000; 76% sold for less than $200,000; and 92% sold for less than $300,000.

sales price ($000′s) units sold
0 – 99 100
100 – 199 241
200 – 299 74
300 – 399 17
400 – 499 7
500 – 599 7
600 – 699 2
700 – 799 1
800 – 899 2
900 – 999 1
1M+ 1
total 453

For those readers who prefer the median sold price for houses and condos combined, February’s 518 sold houses, condos and town homes exhibited a combined median sold price of $132,750 – UP 6.2 percent from January’s combined median of $125,000 for 518 combined sales.

Historical data follows:

Month Year # Sold Sold Price Sold Price per Sq Ft Avg/Med DOM # of Actives # of Pendings
Feb 2012 453 $145,000 $82.12 132 / 99 980 1,788
Jan 2012 446 $135,000 $80.80 144 / 122 1,170 1,643
Dec 2011 534 $155,000 $85.66 148 / 123 1,403 1,481
Nov 2011 495 $149,012 $85.02 146 / 114 1,545 1,635
Oct 2011 496 $148,250 $84.22 145 / 106 1,682 1,646
Sep 2011 575 $149,000 $83.73 133 / 106 2,044 1,967
Aug 2011 554 $154,000 $91.34 125 / 98 1,947 1,694
July 2011 512 $149,950 $87.65 128 / 96 2,028 1,667
June 2011 538 $154,000 $90.12 123 / 89 1,990 1,689
May 2011 510 $150,000 $88.66 133 / 104 1,968 1,682
Apr 2011 436 $156,125 $89.78 137 / 104 1,914 1,593
Mar 2011 511 $160,000 $91.59 132 /113 1,906 1,497
Feb 2011 387 $161,000 $93.35 142 / 115 1,882 1,416
Jan 2011 365 $157,000 $92.35 152 / 129 1,970 1,329
Dec 2010 485 $165,000 $94.31 143 2,021 1,148
Nov 2010 398 $170,000 $96.43 139 2,060 1,376
Oct 2010 418 $174,950 $98.57 135 2,146 1,371
Sep 2010 467 $168,000 $97.52 132 2,186 1,473
Aug 2010 450 $180,000 $97.54 127 2,222 1,513
Jul 2010 415 $180,000 $101.84 128 2,158 1,580
Jun 2010 602 $170,000 $100.52 145 1,966 1,625
May 2010 450 $175,807 $102.37 138
Apr 2010 510 $179,995 $103.13 128
Mar 2010 477 $175,000 $99.14 141
Feb 2010 338 $170,000 $101.68 138
Jan 2010 346 $167,000 $97.06 134
Dec 2009 424 $178,000 $101.28 126
Nov 2009 461 $175,000 $103.61 112
Oct 2009 561 $180,000 $103.52 123
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 426 $175,000 $102.29 139
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 380 $228,500 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
Dec 2002 379 $193,500 unavailable 93
Nov 2002 423 $190,000 unavailable 82
Oct 2002 483 $189,900 unavailable 83
Sep 2002 410 $174,000 unavailable 85
Aug 2002 459 $180,000 unavailable 74
Jul 2002 469 $176,000 unavailable 83
Jun 2002 445 $185,000 unavailable 80
May 2002 470 $178,450 unavailable 77
Apr 2002 360 $169,500 unavailable 93
Mar 2002 377 $169,000 unavailable 84
Feb 2002 323 $170,900 unavailable 89
Jan 2002 269 $172,475 unavailable 99
Dec 2001 287 $182,000 unavailable 86
Nov 2001 323 $161,500 unavailable 85
Oct 2001 357 $166,500 unavailable 79
Sep 2001 355 $168,000 unavailable 81
Aug 2001 448 $160,350 unavailable 84
Jul 2001 433 $169,900 unavailable 90
Jun 2001 426 $166,225 unavailable 96
May 2001 404 $162,050 unavailable 97
Apr 2001 370 $158,750 unavailable 94
Mar 2001 385 $159,900 unavailable 97
Feb 2001 297 $159,950 unavailable 104
Jan 2001 264 $165,000 unavailable 102
Dec 2000 272 $156,500 unavailable 100
Nov 2000 355 $154,500 unavailable 93
Oct 2000 348 $153,000 unavailable 98
Sep 2000 356 $160,000 unavailable 104
Aug 2000 412 $163,375 unavailable 94
Jul 2000 368 $155,000 unavailable 110
Jun 2000 466 $165,845 unavailable 104
May 2000 363 $158,000 unavailable 105
Apr 2000 312 $155,000 unavailable 113
Mar 2000 339 $162,700 unavailable 102
Feb 2000 248 $148,000 unavailable 108
Jan 2000 223 $156,000 unavailable 113
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
Jun 1999 372 $150,000 unavailable 103
May 1999 307 $145,500 unavailable 106
Apr 1999 324 $151,700 unavailable 111
Mar 1999 308 $151,000 unavailable 121
Feb 1999 249 $148,900 unavailable 120
Jan 1999 210 $143,000 unavailable 115
Dec 1998 265 $140,000 unavailable 118
Nov 1998 280 $152,800 unavailable 126
Oct 1998 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 237 $148,000 unavailable 110
Mar 1998 271 $141,990 unavailable 115
Feb 1998 204 $139,000 unavailable 125
Jan 1998 167 $147,000 unavailable 129

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 – March 2012. Note: This information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.

Related post: January median sold price, units, DOM, $/sq.ft.

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 and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

81 Responses to February median sold price, units, DOM, $/sq.ft.

  1. Matthew says:

    Move to Reno,

    13% Unemployment *DOES NOT* mean 87% Employment.
    The participation rate is 64% and continuing its downward trend.
    http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

  2. Weslie says:

    Buying a house is a great goal for the New Year. Make sure that resolution has some back up with a life insurance policy. You can get a quick and easy quote from IntelliQuote in just minutes. Find out how little it could cost to keep (and protect) that home for future generations. http://bit.ly/yNH2fw

  3. Move to Reno says:

    Matthew,

    The labor force participation rate is the percentage of working-age persons in an economy who: •Are employed
    •Are unemployed but looking for a job

    Ok, they don’t count me in the labor force participation rate and yet last year I bought a $345K house for cash. So tell me again exactly how important the LFPR is when in down only 3 points from 2002 and a high percentage of buys are for cash.

  4. Move to Reno says:

    booch221,

    Ok, let’s say 50% of the employed are viable. What percedntage of them do you think are renters? Also, do you have any guess as to the number of buyers who live out of state?

  5. booch221 says:

    Why would you say 50%?
    What basis is their for such a claim?
    Is this based on fact, or is just something you made up?

  6. Move to Reno says:

    Just a number I tossed out there. You have a better one?

  7. Matthew says:

    Move to Reno,

    The cash purchases are not being made by the “50%” of the employed.
    The vast majority of people have *no* savings at all.
    The only way to seek recovery on their demand is for Uncle Sam to continue to artificially expand the reach of “almost-no-down-payment” loans.

    Yet that is how we got to this place… hair of the dog.

  8. Move to Reno says:

    Matthew,

    don’t change the goal posts on me, we were discussing the LFPR and it’s significance on the housing market.

    Now, you are correct, most of the employed can’t buy a house with cash. However, nobody is talking about liar loans or no-money down mortgages. We are talking about 3% down mortgages with a strict evaluation, n’est-pas? But why are there so many all-cash purchases these days?

    We got to this place because folks were either buying houses that they couldn’t afford or were buying houses thinking that houses only go up in value. I don’t think either one of those things are happening today. I think that today’s buyers are looking for a roof over their heads and is cheaper than paying rent.

  9. booch221 says:

    Well, anything is possible when you just make things up.

  10. Matthew says:

    There are more all-cash purchases today because prices are low and there are fewer credit-worthy buyers.

    The cash buyers we have now below the median will fade as the prices climb and RoR’s shrink. That’s the nature of investing: smart money seeks good opportunity.

    The opportunity in real estate now is due to the low prices. Take away the low prices and smart money looks elsewhere.
    There’s nothing “right” or “wrong” about this. It’s just a numbers game.

  11. E.Edward says:

    Well….. Fortunately in all doom and gloom there is good News here……. when the dust finally settles and rates are forced up to normal levels, these propped-up prices will probably be half of what they are today!

  12. Move to Reno says:

    booch221

    I’m not making anything up, I’m making an estimate. You are the one who didn’t like the 87% employment number as representing viable candidates for buying real estate.

    And yet you refuse to make your own estimate.

  13. Move to Reno says:

    Matthew,

    exactly why with decreasing inventory the cash buyers will fade and the folks who want to buy a roof over their heads will increase, that is, become a larger percentage of the market. Even the folks who short-sold two years old can buy a house today and probably even some of the early foreclosure folks can now get back into the market, lesson learn.

  14. booch221 says:

    Move to Reno:
    You’re making an estimate based on what? Guesswork?

    And you want me to do the same?

    Sorry, I’m not going there.

    I have no desire to dwell in your fantasy world.

  15. Move to Reno says:

    You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see that a certain percentage of the employed are viable candidates to buy a house. While 100% of the employed don’t fit the requirements, neither does 0%. A fantasy world is not required.

  16. Move to Reno says:

    @E. Edwards

    Exactly, when rates are forced up in 2o years…….

  17. booch221 says:

    It sound like you’re seeking validation for your decision to purchase a$345K house for cash.

    I hope the market has hit bottom. Goodness knows, enough people are hurting from this real estate crash.

    But guesswork on my part won’t change the outcome one iota.

    Good luck…

  18. Move to Reno says:

    booch221,

    Hardly. Most of the houses in my sub-divison are being sold for cash. One model like mine, not not nearly as good inside, recently sold for $20k more than what I paid .

    If you think that quality real estate in Nevada is going much lower I think that you are mistaken. The junk houses and the multi-million dollar places, possibly, but good houses in the median range I doubt it. Cheaper to buy than to rent.

  19. Steve Watts says:

    my goodness move to reno, those are some serious acrobatic moves you are making to back your case. 87% employment is no where near reality. A big percentage of workers here have been downgraded to part-time status. They are not counted as unemployed, as are those whose benefits ran out (plenty of them too) and have no reason to report their status.

    Are you in another market? You seem oblivious to what the true economic picture is in Reno. Do you understand that our primary industry is collapsing and that the only real job growth evident is low salary? Recovery will happen, but there are no signs it will happen withing the next 2 years.

    But by all means, come and buy a house.

  20. Martin says:

    You can tell the shills are out when they pretend to be RI prognosticating that the market has hit bottom and that people should leverage themselves to the hilt.

  21. EJ Man says:

    Buying a house is a great goal for the New Year. Make sure that resolution has some back up with a life insurance policy. You can get a quick and easy quote from IntelliQuote in just minutes. Find out how little it could cost to keep (and protect) that home for future generations. http://bit.ly/xwyrug

  22. Bob says:

    I went to that web site EJ Man, but the link was down all day.

  23. E. Edward II says:

    E. Edward: …when the dust finally settles and rates are forced up to normal levels, these propped-up prices will probably be half of what they are today!

    Half?! What are you some kind of crazed permabull?

    When the dust finally settles you’ll be able to buy a house in Reno for 20% of today’s price. No, wait, 10%! Wait! WAIT! 5%! That’s right, FIVE PERCENT!

  24. E.Edward says:

    I think the correct term your looking for is “permabear”……. However, Bearish or Bullish it doesn’t matter, These things have a history of way-overshooting. Ultimately prices are going down and coincidentally so is your equity and/or sales!

  25. E. Edward II says:

    2.27%. Oh MY! … it’s started!

    At this rate, we’ll be at 3% by 2014.

  26. booch221 says:

    @Reno Ignoramus:

    Rah rah sis boom bah…
    Pump those pom-poms!

  27. E.Edward says:

    Look…. Honeys,
    Now we know the current inventory is being manipulated correct? This doesn’t mean the existing delinquent under-water home owners magically started making there payments, quite the opposite! Further this will most likely encourage MORE homeowners to stop making there payment……and that will compound even more foreclosures!

    The first thing this tells anybody with any-kind of common since, is out there somewhere is going to be a massive wave of backed up inventory just waiting to flood the market.

    As for the coming rate increase, that’s the final nail in the coffin!

    Its a slam dunk! A ding-dong could forecast this market!………. Now you best all make your way back over to the shallow end of the pool!

  28. joey says:

    “The first thing this tells anybody with any-kind of common since, is out there somewhere is going to be a massive wave of backed up inventory just waiting to flood the market.”

    Waiting to flood the market and it ACTUALLY happening are not the same thing!
    The banks could have flooded the market for years but they didn’t! The person with the most inventory controls the market. DUH!

    No, they will drip the properties back on to the market at a pace that is consistent with current demand. That way they can more easily manipulate the prices and profit margins on the THOUSANDS of homes they to sell.

    It wouldn’t make any sense for them to just flood the market and drop prices another 50% when they the biggest seller in the market! lol

  29. booch221 says:

    Of course there’s a carrying cost for those properties that the banks keep of the market. Property taxes, maintenance, insurance, utilities, security, etc. And if prices continue to fall, depreciation. The banks don’t want to be property managers–that’s not what they do.

  30. Pingback: March median sold price, units, DOM, $/sq.ft. | RRB Home

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>