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

Market Trends by Guy Johnson

I’ve compiled the monthly median sold prices going all the way back to 1998. So for you data heads out there, you are now able to analyze, graph and play with more than ten years of data.

As with last month’s post, the data is for site/stick built homes only, and excludes condos. Two new additions to this month’s data include median sold price per square foot and average days on market.

In March the median sales price in Reno and Sparks Nevada dropped 1.5%; falling back to January’s $200,000 level. Looks like February’s bounce was just that. Will there be resistance at $200,000? We will see next month.

I believe a more telling number is the sold price per square foot. March’s $106/sq.ft. represents a 5% decrease from February’s $111/sq.ft., and almost a 30% decrease from one year ago.

To put the price per square foot metric into perspective, we see that the drop from its peak of $223/sq.ft. in October 2005 has been 52%. Compare this to the drop in median sold price. The median sold price peaked in January 2006 at $365,000. We are now 45% off of that peak.

Month Year	# Sold	Sold Price	Sold Price per SqFt	Average DOM
Mar 2009	355	$200,000	$105.85	186
Feb 2009	293	$203,000	$111.39	169
Jan 2009	232	$200,000	$113.15	160
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	155
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
Dec 2007	228	$283,950	$167.22	143
Nov 2007	204	$299,750	$172.24	126
Oct 2007	241	$296,000	$173.55	116
Sep 2007	230	$299,945	$179.46	114
Aug 2007	311	$305,000	$182.49	118
Jul 2007	300	$315,000	$189.78	113
Jun 2007	329	$320,000	$196.78	104
May 2007	364	$313,200	$190.81	107
Apr 2007	320	$309,500	$193.93	121
Mar 2007	324	$315,000	$189.61	121
Feb 2007	269	$315,000	$191.18	126
Jan 2007	245	$312,900	$199.79	133
Dec 2006	291	$309,000	$193.51	114
Nov 2006	281	$318,000	$197.32	111
Oct 2006	363	$312,400	$201.44	105
Sep 2006	344	$314,950	$198.08	98
Aug 2006	349	$325,000	$210.92	94
Jul 2006	373	$335,000	$210.62	93
Jun 2006	424	$339,000	$214.54	91
May 2006	374	$339,950	$219.05	99
Apr 2006	368	$334,600	$212.08	88
Mar 2006	387	$340,000	$215.54	99
Feb 2006	283	$335,000	$217.29	101
Jan 2006	274	$365,000	$216.38	98
Dec 2005	333	$355,000	$217.31	89
Nov 2005	385	$349,000	$220.00	81
Oct 2005	484	$359,450	$223.06	77
Sep 2005	531	$354,500	$219.26	77
Aug 2005	582	$360,500	$220.52	73
Jul 2005	608	$353,000	$218.99	71
Jun 2005	679	$350,000	$215.69	69
May 2005	644	$333,250	$209.95	68
Apr 2005	558	$326,750	$207.57	77
Mar 2005	584	$325,000	$200.17	81
Feb 2005	342	$318,500	$197.54	88
Jan 2005	341	$310,000	$195.19	85
Dec 2004	450	$312,500	$190.72	77
Nov 2004	448	$309,950	$191.62	63
Oct 2004	512	$299,250	$188.72	53
Sep 2004	496	$292,750	$185.78	61
Aug 2004	505	$285,000	$182.95	56
Jul 2004	544	$304,300	$179.28	61
Jun 2004	533	$285,000	$172.16	65
May 2004	476	$278,750	$169.64	65
Apr 2004	526	$259,950	$158.08	67
Mar 2004	508	$245,000	$142.56	71
Feb 2004	365	$237,000	unavailable	81
Jan 2004	379	$229,000	unavailable	78
Dec 2003	441	$240,000	unavailable	82
Nov 2003	444	$220,750	unavailable	78
Oct 2003	430	$219,880	unavailable	76
Sep 2003	587	$223,000	unavailable	71
Aug 2003	512	$220,000	unavailable	75
Jul 2003	533	$210,000	unavailable	77
Jun 2003	475	$207,000	unavailable	77
May 2003	450	$198,950	unavailable	85
Apr 2003	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	268	$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	294	$159,950	unavailable	103
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	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
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	279	$153,000	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	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. Data excludes Condo/Townhouse, Manufactured/Modular and Shared Ownership properties. Data courtesy of the Northern Nevada Regional MLS – April 2009.

27 comments

April 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Sully

Guy, what happened to # of houses for sale and median asking price?
April 6, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Steve

Guy: Dude what is up with 12900 Silver Wolf, is this for real?

2F 020 03/18/2009 670,000 HSBC BANK USA,
3BF 020 09/03/2008 1,250,000
3BFM 020 05/18/2007 0
3BGG 020 12/06/2005 0
1G 012 06/30/2004 200,000
April 6, 2009 at 12:53 PM
BanteringBear

I still don’t like the fact that you changed the stock used to compile the median. Until last month, all of the discussion regarding median price was based upon the prior method which included condos. Now, you’ve even managed to manipulate the market peak through these numerical distortions. I don’t know of any major metro area which does NOT include condos in their median prices. Can you imagine New York, SF, Chicago or San Diego doing this?

This new calculation simply inflates the median since condos are, for the most part, cheaper. If you would go back to your old method, we would see the median falling below $190k. It’s nice to see the breakdown, but to eliminate the old information all together is suspect, IMO. Simply ignoring the problematic condo market is more than just a little convenient.

What it does illustrate, though, is that we’ve still got a LONG way to go. At this point, given the carnage on the employment front, a return to a median of less than $150k looks conservative.
April 6, 2009 at 7:44 PM
Reno Ignoramus

I believe that the RGJ is reporting last month’s median to be $188K. I believe that includes condos. I think it’s helpful to have BOTH the median with and without condos, but if only one is going to be made available, then I agree with BB that condos need to be put back in.
This really is changing the sample in the middle of the study, so to speak. Perhaps worthy of the way the NAR works, but hopefully not for the RRB.
April 6, 2009 at 7:55 PM
SkrapGuy

I agree about the condos. For the last three years we have been using a data set (that included condos) that said the median peaked in August of 2005. Now, for some reason, we have revised the data (to take condos out) and the median peaked in January of 2006.
If we were using the consistent data, the median would be down more than 45% from the peak, and closer to 50%.
What’s the point here? Are we trying to make the numbers look better than they really are by cooking the data?
April 6, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Waldo

Guy,

You could take out houses with less than 3 bedrooms in the 89436 zip code also. That ought to really help prop up the numbers.

It’s a pretty strange day when the RGJ is reporting more thorough data than the RRB.
April 6, 2009 at 9:34 PM
GratefulD_420

Steve – As unbelievable as it is seems, this is highly likely. If you can get in past the gates… the whole street [neighborhood]is a bubble disaster. The last time I drove it a month ago, every one in three was for sale.
There is actually a house that is trying to be sold when it is NOT Completed.

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/12930-Silver-Wolf-Rd-Reno-NV-89511/79722688_zpid/

p.s. – That means the house in mention sold for $119 per sq ft. That is high end + 1700 sqft garage + 2.9 acre of usable level land in a gated community on the Wolf Run Golf Course.

So what does that make other houses in that neghborhood and the next neighborhood (AC) worth? what does that make your home worth?
April 6, 2009 at 11:25 PM
Martin

Guy says there were 355 houses sold last month.

Mike says there were 513 NOS recorded last month.

Is this what an impending bottom looks like? When the number of houses becoming REO is greater than the number of houses selling? Is THAT what the bottom callers are looking for?
April 7, 2009 at 7:01 AM
smarten

I agree w/some of the other comments that it’s “unfair” to change the components of monthly unit sales/median pricing. But really, it’s no different than changing the makeup of other indicies [such as the stock market] and then comparing today’s numbers to yesterday’s.

I also think it’s unfair to lump numbers for SFRs w/condos in order to monitor “trends” when there are a glut of very low priced condos and not everyone is interested in this segment of the marketplace.

I’ve said before and I’ll repeat it for newer posters that I believe it’s error to rely upon any number in a vacuum that purportedly measures the residential sales market as a whole. A simple example is comparing what has been going on in the under $200K SFR market to the over $500K SFR market. Whereas the former is close to bottoming [if it hasn’t already], the latter continues to be in absolute denial [although that may finally be starting to change].

Also, it seems to me few on this blog are interested in the same segments of the residential housing market, and some aren’t even interested in segments but rather, want to lump the entire market into a single all inclusive number.

So I say it would be interesting to see the numbers separately broken out for SFRs, condos and PUDs [if numbers are readily available for this segment of the residential housing unit market] if it’s not too much additional work for Guy. It would also be interesting [at least to me] to see how segments of the market other than SFRs have performed over the similar time periods highlighted in Guy’s most recent posting. Are the trends the same, or is one or more segments of the market artificially dragging down [or propping up] others?
April 7, 2009 at 7:56 AM
billddrummer

Chronology on the Wolf Run house:

12/05 Bought with a $995,000 1st DOT (Wells Fargo)
03/06 Got a $250,000 2nd (Wells Fargo)
05/07 Refinanced with a $1,275,000 Option ARM, 1% start rate, 8.375% run rate, 115% cap (Countrywide)
06/08 NOD Filed
09/08 Trustees Deed for $1,250,000
03/09 Sold out of foreclosure for $670,000

Drop of 47%. And the sale price/s.f. is in line with the total market, however you slice it–$118.82.
April 7, 2009 at 7:57 AM
billddrummer

Another thing: I don’t think any payments were ever made on the Countrywide loan. The balance on the NOS was nearly $1,350,000.
April 7, 2009 at 8:08 AM
Steve

Thanks Bill, Wow cashed in and went to Mexico. This just sucks, I live in Fieldcreek, I have a full grasp of the reality of this market. Nothing has sold under $150 ft until this one and wolf creek for $140, here we go yee ha!

I think that Fieldcreek is one of the best developments in this entire valley, the majority of buyers were prudent. I have seen more houses here pulled off the market because profit would be less than desirable. The owner is just willing to hold. Also banks have waled the long road such as this one for a full year before action, they do not want to depreciate their holdings any more than necessary.

Oh well have a good day everybody!
April 7, 2009 at 8:56 AM
GratefulD_420

Steve – it’s going to be slaughter house for the fatty’s in FieldCreek and Arrowcreek.

Jlook at the listings on that one street…

http://www.dicksonrealty.com/listing/top_search?address=Silver%20Wolf&mls=&region=1

There are 3 lots, one 1/2 finished monstrosity, & 8 homes from $650k to $2.7 M. Sorry,but “prudent” buyers do not exist on this side of FieldCreek.

Better close your eyes, cause this is going to get ugly. $118 sqft, in Field creek is just the begining…
April 7, 2009 at 9:40 AM
3niner

Guy,

I find your new presentation very helpful. Keeping in mind that we are looking only at SFRs, you are showing 4 different predictors / indicators of a market peak.

“Average DOM” bottomed in October 2004, predicting the peak about a year later. The “# Sold” peak occurred in June 2005, predicting the price peak a few months later. There is a “Price per SqFt” peak in October 2005, and a “Sold Price” peak in January 2006.

Obviously, it’s easier to “predict” the past, than the future, but it seems clear that this data could have been used to anticipate the market peak. While I have only been reading this blog since late 2007, it seems likely that BB (and likely others) did anticipate the peak.

In predicting the bottom, I would expect the DOM to start falling well in advance of it, followed by a volume peak, then finally the price bottoms. Of course, this may be a “U” shaped bottom, rather than a “V” shaped one, which would allow ample time to react after the fact.

In any case, this data tells me that we are nowhere near a bottom yet.

I have a comment on the columns left out. I consider the “# for sale” and “median asking price” to be nearly meaningless. Almost all houses are for sale at the right price, and many listings are completely unrealistic. As for the asking price, why not include all of the offers made by prospective buyers? It would mean just as much.
April 7, 2009 at 10:02 AM
billddrummer

To 3niner,

I agree with you. And until more undistressed homes are sold than enter the market through foreclosures or short sales, don’t expect prices to stabilize.

With the number of new NODs and NOSs added each month, the median sale price will continue to drop as long as those sales dominate the market.

The percentage has been above 80% for some time now, and it shows no signs of dropping.

For those attempting to predict when the bottom comes into view, look at that ratio for an indicator. When it drops below 50%, you might find the bottom in sight. But from my view, it may take years to get there.
April 7, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Sully

3niner, I use the median asking vs selling to determine average discount. Number available was use to determine percentage of inventory selling vs listings.

Although I don’t need this info any longer, I am charting the trends.

It may not be useful to you, but when I first started looking 2 years ago – I had no idea where we were in relation to where we should have been.

Since then I have developed my own sense of value for the various areas and my approximate offering price.

So, where you consider this info meaningless, someone new to the area might not.
April 7, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Guy Johnson

You guys are a tough crowd. One of my points of separating the condo and house data is that the condo and stick built markets are two different markets. Take a look at the condo data in today’s post and compare it to the housing data above. The condo market peaked in April 2007. Houses peaked in January 2006; fifteen months earlier. While both markets are well off their peaks, condos have taken a much greater hit than houses. Condos have lost nearly two-thirds off their peak pricing; while houses have fallen 45%.
This kind of data is lost when all housing categories are combined.

Another reason I have separated the data is because my clientele are looking to purchase either a house or condo; rarely, if ever, both. The condo (or house) data will be much more valuable to those buyers looking to purchase in the condo (or house) market.

And to the implications that I am purposefully manipulating data in order to prop up prices…well, I won’t even go there.

However, for those of you who are curious, the combined March median is $190,000.
April 7, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Guy Johnson

Sully, I’ll work on adding the historical “for sale” and asking prices. I’ve run into a couple of obstacles in compiling those numbers.
April 7, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Reno Ignoramus

Guy, I believe that all you have to do is add a single sentence onto your monthly reports that describes the combined SFR and condo median sales price. Then us purists can be happy, and everybody benefits from the expanded data breakouts as well.
I believe there is some value in knowing that the median the way it used to be caluculated here is now down to $190K. Thanks.
April 7, 2009 at 3:39 PM
3niner

Guy,

I just want to say that I like what you are doing with the data. I understand that this takes a lot of work, and believe that you are providing good, and useful, information.
April 7, 2009 at 4:19 PM
CommercialLender

Help me understand where a townhome falls: condo or SFR? I’ve seen them over the years classified into either group with no real consistency.
April 7, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Guy Johnson

3niner, thank you for your empathy and appreciation of my effort. Your remarks are appreciated.
April 7, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Guy Johnson

CommercialLender, on our regional MLS (NNRMLS) four classifications of residential properties exist. These include: Site/Stickbuilt; Condominium/Townhouse; Manufactured/Modular; and Shared Ownership. So, in answer to your question “townhouse” falls under my condo data.
April 7, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Guy Johnson

RI, good idea. I’ll include the combined median in some manner.
April 8, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Free Falling

Guy,

I have been lurking on this blog for about three years now and applaud you on the effort to provide us all with data. The RRB is hands down the best source of compiled market data I have found in any market I have been involved in. Elsewhere, I have always had to do my own data manipulation to learn anything from the raw data.

I purchased in April 2005, knowing full well that we were at or near the peak of the market, but grossly underestimating the magnitude of the correction to follow. (Sometimes you need a home to live in and renting isn’t appealing.)

What astounds me is that Countrywide was still doing 100% LTV Option ARM refis in 2007 (based on absurd appraisals) when any drunk living under a bridge knew that the market was free falling.

Had I know that was going on I would have better estimated the correction to follow.

So how many of the “I told you so” bears on this blog had the guts to sell Countrywide short back in 2007? That was the real play on this market.

Keep up the good work Guy.
April 8, 2009 at 6:03 PM
Guy Johnson

Thank you, FreeFalling. …and I will.
April 15, 2009 at 2:07 AM
NVMojo

I have always appreciated this blog and the bloggers here. When we are ready to buy, we know who we are going to call.

Commenters are appreciated too as discussion and decent dispute gets me thinking!

Peace!

Guy Johnson on Welcome, Politico Readers!: “Here is an updated blog post with up-to-date state-to-state migration data: From Golden State to Silver State: California’s Outflows are…” Oct 31, 15:19
Guy Johnson on Welcome, Politico Readers!: “Here is the Politico piece that linked to the Reno Realty Blog: The Ex-Californians Who Hate Kamala Harris — And…” Oct 31, 11:22
Guy Johnson on Are High Mortgage Rates Leading to an Increase in All-Cash Purchases?: “Interesting insight, Howard. Not sure how that could be tracked, though.” Oct 29, 20:40
Howard I Hirsch on Are High Mortgage Rates Leading to an Increase in All-Cash Purchases?: “Well, and not only that, but this tracks the status of payment at time of purchase only. One clever real…” Oct 29, 16:54

27 comments

Leave a Reply