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

The recent flurry of home buying is still alive and well in Reno and Sparks, NV. Almost 500 houses were sold during the month of September; 494 houses to be precise. I can’t help but think much of this activity is driven by the impending expiration of the first-time homebuyer’s tax credit [currently set to expire December 1, 2009].

To put the recent number of home sales in perspective consider that in the 3rd quarter of 2008, 1,076 homes were sold. Compare that figure to the 1,485 sold in 3Q 2009 – a 38% increase.

The big news for September, however, is that the median sold price jumped 2.9% over August’s figure, to $185,250. With June, July and August’s medians holding steady at a low of $180,000, does September’s increase in median sold price indicate a bottom was reached? [Note: That last question may constitute comment baiting.]

Remember, we’re always told the only way to recognize a bottom is in hindsight. Perhaps May’s median sold price of $175,000 median was it.

The make-up of September’s sales is as follows:

Bank-owned properties – 43%
Short sales – 25%
Equity sales – 31%

For those readers who prefer the median sold price for houses and condos combined, September’s combined median sold price was $175,000; up from August’s combined median of $170,000.

Month Year	# Sold	Sold Price	Sold Price per SqFt	Average DOM
Sep 2009	494	$185,250	$103.31	129
Aug 2009	476	$179,950	$102.84	117
Jul 2009	515	$180,000	$103.45	126
Jun 2009	536	$180,317	$104.09	136
May 2009	424	$175,000	$102.29	139
Apr 2009	428	$189,950	$105.55	133
Mar 2009	367	$200,000	$105.94	133
Feb 2009	294	$204,000	$111.45	133
Jan 2009	232	$200,000	$113.15	119
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
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 only. Data excludes Condo/Townhouse, Manufactured/Modular and Shared Ownership properties. Data courtesy of the Northern Nevada Regional MLS – October 2009.

78 comments

October 7, 2009 at 6:50 PM
E. Edward

And perhaps it just a bunch misled buyers that have no idea how much stagnate inventory thats on its way…..

Perhaps there not paying attention to the ever unsurmountable job losses…..

Perhaps they will be kicking them-selfs just to find out that the over-hyped tax credits will most likely be extended and/or increased in-Lew of all of the above pressures….

Perhaps this is just little dead cat bounce and were no where near the bottom??….
October 7, 2009 at 6:53 PM
Martin

A couple of thoughts:

An “equity sale” may well be a misnomer. It does not necessarily mean that the seller had any equity in the property. All it means is that the sale was not a bank REO or a short sale. For example, I work with a man who just sold his house in what Guy calls an “equity sale”. Except he had no equity, in fact, he had to bring a check for $50K to the closing. He simply did not want to take 9 months trying to sell the house as a short sale. He also has a few bucks in the bank, and may not have even ‘qualified’ for a short sale. But he sold the house for less than he owed on it. He had zero equity.

Also, a rising median does not necessarily mean the housing market is recovering. It may well mean only that a higher calibre of REO and short sales are entering the mix. Not all REOs are dumps in Cold Springs. Just look at the MLS tonight for Somersett where more than half the listings are REOs or short sales. All these houses are selling at deep deep writedowns from original pricing, but for more than the median of $185K.
October 7, 2009 at 7:03 PM
SkrapGuy

Does anybody really think the tax credit will not be extended? Puh-lease.

The NAR with its millions of dollars to spend on lobbying has this wired. The whole point is to create a phony sense of urgency that the credit will expire so that all the six-percenters in the country, including Guy, can get fence sitters off the fence to buy.
If the current credit is set to expire on November 30, you can be assured it will be extended around November 25. The whole point is to create as much phony urgency as possible.
October 7, 2009 at 7:29 PM
Corina

Martin’s comment is right on. My neighbors just sold their house. They too had to bring money to the table to close the deal. I think people sometimes incorrectly assume that if a sale is not a short sale, that the seller had equity and made some money on the sale. That is an incorrect assumption.
Also, this house sold for well above the median sales price, but it was by every measure a total loss for the sellers, and represented about a 30% decline in price from when they bought it 4.5 years ago.
October 7, 2009 at 7:47 PM
Reno Ignoramus

The above comments by Martin and Corina inferentially raise a question I have about short sales.
Back in the days before the bubble, when a short sale was a rare thing, I know the banks were very demanding that the seller really be broke before they would approve a short sale. The seller had to basically ‘qualify in reverse’ for a short sale by proving to the bank he had no other assets he could use to pay off the mortgage.
Now I see million dollar houses listed as short sales, and I wonder if the banks are still as rigorous in ‘qualifying’ people as short sellers. Now I am just an ignoramus, and perhpas I am wrong, but I would think that somebody who managed to buy a house for a million dollars would have maybe a few extra bucks somewhere that he could use to pay off the mortgage, or at least part of it. Can people these days qualify to be short sellers even if they have other assets?
Does anybody have any info about this?
October 7, 2009 at 7:56 PM
skeptical

Bottom line: owners of higher end homes and higher end REOs are looking to unload. They are finally beginning to put down their glass of kool aid (and Smirnoff). These higher priced places transacting have resulted in a higher median sales price. It’s called price compression at the high end.

That doesn’t mean we are near a bottom. Homes above $400k will continue to lose value for the next few years. There’s no base of salaried professionals to provide demand for the supply of properties on the market and coming on the market for the next few years. See previous posts regarding shadow-shadow inventories.

So, when that home that sold for $800k during the bubble gets unloaded for $400k next week, it will cause the data to show a higher median sales price, and will not in any way be evidence of a bottom or of health being restored to the greater Reno real estate market.

Is there a real estate agent on the planet that won’t spin every scrap of data that comes out in some sort of positive light? Wait till winter is well and truly upon us. All the green shooters will get a dose of roundup. ’nuff said.
October 7, 2009 at 7:58 PM
Peter

I also have the same question. I work with a man who, thanks to a cash out re-fi in 2006, owes $1.1 million on his house. He has it listed as a short sale at $845K. The house might be worth $800K, if he can ever find a buyer.
Now this man has about $700K in his profit sharing plan, but he has no intention of invading that plan money. He just intends for the bank to allow him to sell the house short and walk away. Can this happen? Are the banks actually allowing this sort of thing?
October 7, 2009 at 11:24 PM
johnny

Peter-

What a nice “friend” you are to disclose your friends personal finances on an openly public forum for all to see!

Glad I Don’t have “friends” like that.

On a side note… I am about to close on a short sale that has taken 2 months! I wont divulge everything, but will mention the house in question is as follows:

3bed/2.5bath 1,800 sqft built in 2006

(real wood siding, concrete tile roof)

new kitchen with granite, maple cabinets, real stone tiled floors
bathrooms have much of the same

my price….. $78/sqft you can say what you want, but that’s a screaming deal in my book. Especially considering the 2 closesst comparable are listed at 200k, and 190k , with the 190k pending.
October 7, 2009 at 11:26 PM
johnny

$78/sqft in an almost finished development, near a golf course?

yea I’ll take it!
October 7, 2009 at 11:30 PM
johnny

Not only is the median price 5.5% higher than it was in MAY. The price/sqft is also higher.

with 4 months of stability in between? sounds good to me. For those worried about the shadow inventory, don’t expect that to flood the market anytime soon!

Welcome to the TROUGH
October 8, 2009 at 6:26 AM
Martin

Aw come on johnny derrick, Peter’s comment is a very good one and raises an interesting question. We don’t know who Peter is, and we don’t know who his friend is. He disclosed nothing that compromises anybody’s identity.
So, does anybody know the answer to his question?
October 8, 2009 at 6:27 AM
Tom

“…this man has about $700K in his profit sharing plan…”

Peter, when a bank is considering approval of a walk-off via a short sale, they need to be satisfied that their borrower has no assets that could be reached to satisfy a deficiency, i.e., he must prove that he is not worth suiing. In most jurisdictions, funds in qualified retirment plans are sheltered by a statutory exemption from execution. This along with some tools, one vehicle, etc, maybe a mule and some basic farm tools (an old law school joke), certain things a judgment creditor cannot reach. If the funds in the qualified plan are exempt, the bank wouldn’t count them.
October 8, 2009 at 7:25 AM
bbwolf

I’ve posted this sentiment before but it bears repeating. Peter’s buddy should be on the HOOK for his cash out refi. Everyone should be held accountable for their purchases (losses) just as they surely would have spend the money had they made a profit from their flip back in the day.

Some on this board have called me jealous for this view which is perplexing.

I lost two friends b/c I told them what I think of their gloat “we haven’t paid our mortgage in x months…”

I’m not talking about the few who truley need to use a short sale or other vehicle to help them out of their hole. I’m referring to adults, engaged in a contract, who have means but are looking for an easy way out of their bad decision.
October 8, 2009 at 8:53 AM
SmartMoney

House prices in my neighborhood here in Reno have averaged 3% appreciation over the past 20 years. So even if we are at a bottom (doubt it), there’s not going to be huge appreciation going forward. Reno real estate just doesn’t work that way, except during the recent bubble.
October 8, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Sully

johnny/derrick: 78/sq ft is certainly a bargain price, but is by no means anywhere near the average here. There are always exceptions to any rule (average).

It’s hard enough to find a decent house/neighborhood for 100/sq ft.

Still too many sellers that haven’t hit the hang over stage (still drunk)! Especially in the southwest areas.

As far as hitting any kind of bottom, I will reserve an opinion until I see the Dec/Jan sales data.
October 8, 2009 at 11:35 AM
johnny

sully-

I already have a renter lined up for the house at $1k/month not including utilities..

he is willing to sign a 1 year lease as well. I figure at $78/sqft and the added income of $12k/year gross is just too hard to pass up.

The rental income is more than enough to cover the property taxes on my 2 other properties while still having some change left over for dinner 😉

Now I just need to get the condo rented out!
October 8, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Reno Ignoramus

Thanks Tom for the reply, but if I was a bank and I had a borrower who wanted me to approve a short sale and this borrower had a $700K asset, I would say no way. Assets are assets whether or not they happen to be exempt from execution. I would tell this borrower to invade his assets and come up with some money to pay off the mortgage, or no short sale. Sorry.
As the bank I am not going to pretend this borrower cannot come up with the money just because the money is in a pension plan.
October 8, 2009 at 5:15 PM
SkrapGuy

No kidding, RI, and you can be sure as hell certain that when this borrower applied for the loan he listed his pension plan as an asset. Now when he wants the bank to agree to a short sale, the bank is supposed to pretend the pension plan does not exist as a source of funds? No way.
October 8, 2009 at 5:25 PM
tom

RI commented that:
“Assets are assets whether or not they happen to be exempt from execution.” In a moral sense, that may be true, and while the banker making the decision might like to tell the borrower to `Take a Hike, we won’t accept your proposal,’ the bank officer would have to think about it a while first. Because if the bank tries to force the borrower to withdraw sheltered funds, why would he? He would probably be better off financially to just let you foreclose if you decline his short proposal, rather than putting exempt money into the pot. He is also then likely to stop maintenance, irrigation, and who knows what else might happen inside the house. Then the bank would have to run a foreclosure, and end up losing more in a declining market, plus have an REO house to manage until they sell the house. That might make a statement in terms of morality/ethics, etc, but the banks just look at the dollars it will cost to get out of the bad loan. Losing X on a short sale is better than running a foreclosure then losing X plus Y and Z on the same property, even if they know they are letting a guy who could pay more if he wanted to, off the hook. If they tried to preserve the right to sue for the deficiency, the former borrower is going to be counseled to leave the funds in the exempt category, and withdraw only minimal amounts each year related to another exception for support and minimal household needs.
I agree with you though, in terms of right and wrong, as it seems highly distasteful to let someone walk who may have sheltered substantial funds in an exempt category. But if the bank determines that is the cheapest way out, that is what they will do.
October 8, 2009 at 7:15 PM
Reno Ignoramus

The proverbial other side of the story:

The bank says no to the short sale, being unwilling to write off $300K for a borrwer who has (at least)$700K in assets. Borrower stops paying the mortgage, and bank forecloses. Borrower’s credit rating is trashed.
Bank proceeds to get a deficiency judgment. The $700K may be exempt, but bank has a judgment that will follow borrower around for at least 20 years. If borrower has other nonexempt assets, bank can execute on those assets. If borrwer has a job, 25% of borrower’s wages are subject to wage garnishment.If borrower ever acquires other real property, the bank can record its judgment and it becomes a lien against the new property.

Lots of things to think about for borrower also.
October 8, 2009 at 8:12 PM
johnny

get any loans while you can!!

if hyperinflation hits the beneficiaries will be debtors!!

mmm I feel like taking out a 300k loan just thinking about it!
October 8, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Worried Guy

Hyperinflation?…Ugh we already had that..What do you call a $800K home in Reno in 2005 now going for $400K and falling? I had a feeling that the deflationary collapse would be denied all the way to the bottom because market participants have never experienced this type of environment before.
October 8, 2009 at 9:13 PM
Reno Ignoramus

4280 Juniper Trail in Caughlin Ranch hit the MLS today as an REO. 5,200 sq. ft. Asking price $382,000. Or, $73 a sq. ft.

Is this a mistake or are we moving into hyperdeflation in house prices?
October 8, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Raymond

Either that is a mistake, or this is the redemption of Bantering Bear.
October 8, 2009 at 9:52 PM
johnny

worried guy we only had “hyperinflation” on the Micro level!

anyone looking for a place to rent? 🙂
October 8, 2009 at 9:56 PM
johnny

RR

I think we ALREADY had hyperdeflation!

now it’s just disinflation.
October 8, 2009 at 10:04 PM
Worried Guy

Well the home goes from $800K to $400K, but a gallon of gas goes from $1.5 to $3.0 or a hot dog from $2 to $3.50 including increased sales taxes..then, I guess I’ll take the microlevel hyperinflation anyday! The MacroLevel hyperdeflation just bought me 133,333 gallons of petrol or 114,285 Hot Dogs at the new micro hyperinflated prices including hyperinflated swag NV legislature sales tax.
October 8, 2009 at 10:13 PM
Lillypond

$73 a sq. ft. in Caughlin Ranch?

That’s a mistake, right?

Please tell me that’s a mistake.
October 8, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Reno Realty Blog: Reno Real Estate, Market & Trends, Nevada … | The Dirty Blog

[…] original here: Reno Realty Blog: Reno Real Estate, Market & Trends, Nevada … Share and […]
October 8, 2009 at 11:38 PM
johnny

WOW that juniper hills house is a smokin deal. especially for someone that has an extra 100k to throw in it .. looks pretty out-dated.. but hey.. not bad!
October 9, 2009 at 3:26 AM
skeptical

Note that when you cancel out the tax credits, property taxes approach $8500/yr on the Juniper Trails REO brought to light by RI. Another fine example of how completely FUBAR property taxes are in Washoe County.

https://etaxes.washoecounty.us/default.aspx?i=00970201

OBTW, sq. footage includes a 2600ft “finished basement.” I’m always leery of such inclusions.

All that said, someone may get a fine deal off this property…if they don’t mind the $700/month property tax….
October 9, 2009 at 6:00 AM
smarten

Getting back to the meat of Guy’s post, most are in denial that a “bottom” has been reached notwithstanding the fact: unit sales; median sales price; and “equity” sales [a misnomer, but some of us get the point] are all up; and, prices/square foot are down. If this data means nothing, then by what factors do we measure a bottom?

Assuming we haven’t reached a bottom in the macro sense, can it be that any recent purchaser [like Johnny (who BTW seems too intelligent to be Derrick)] has purchased a specific property at the “bottom?” And regardless of the answer, how is it we will know?

Let me share an example. You will recall that my wife and I made our home purchase 3 months ago. Although escrow closed on July 1, our offer was submitted back in March. When our purchase became a subject of this blog, I shared with the group that the house next store [which IMO was not as large nor as nice/high end as ours] was also for sale at a then asking price of some $400K more than our contract price. You may recall I was criticized by many and there were assertions by some that our equity would be down 20% by the end of the year.

Well next store closed escrow last week. And the sales price was some $80K more than ours. If you’re going to ignore: unit sales; median sales price; percentage of equity sales; price/square foot; and now actual comparable sales; puh-lease…

I submit that you’re the one in denial.

I’m not saying the market bottom was reached last March or if it was, the market has gone “up” or it is going to go anywhere but sidewise in the months ahead. But IMO you cannot simply ignore nor make excuses for the data Guy shares with us each month [the same data we all relied upon 3 or more years ago]. Yet that’s exactly what you’re doing.

Compared to last year, the market seems to be on the rebound. Fragile for sure, but rebound nonetheless.
October 9, 2009 at 6:21 AM
Worried Guy

Smarten,

How about the fact that once $400+K homes last March are starting to get blown out in the $300K’s today in Reno? So price per square foot is falling in the intermediate to upper end homes in this area and we have reached the bottom? Price per square foot is still getting shredded over time on this portion of the RE market. We’re talking Reno here, not IV. Let’s see a year or two from now what happens to the price of homes in and throughout the Reno-Carson-Tahoe area. I bet we are not near the bottom yet.
October 9, 2009 at 7:05 AM
Joe

IMO, just relying on recent trends (unit sales, median price, etc.) to predict the bottom in this market is useless. Someone relying on the same thing in 2005 would assume the trends would continue. Now sure some homes selling in the 100k’s are likely at the bottom. But does anyone really beleive that a home trying to sell for 500k now will be ‘worth’ that in 2 years. If no one is buying it now with near record low interest rates, tax credits, etc., who’s going to buy it when those end. And it’s rediculous to call a bottom when half of mortgage holders in the city owe more on their home than it’s worth, and many are still not having to pay the full monthly mortgage…yet.
October 9, 2009 at 7:25 AM
bob c

i go over each days new listings via the search
engine tools provided here and the juniper hills
property stood out like a sore thumb

whats the catch? i’m not into big prop taxes
and high maintenance, but those repo sales can
produce bargains—my plan when i buy is to get one fresh off the daily new listings (a distressed sale)
October 9, 2009 at 8:57 AM
Worried Guy

Well Bobc if you’re not into high property taxes, then I would probably rule out most of Washoe County…Maybe checkout Douglas.
October 9, 2009 at 9:27 AM
Jessy

johnny, big baby, whatever…..from this time forward anyone on the blog who is arrogant, spiteful, or ignorant will be known simply as “derrick”.
October 9, 2009 at 9:30 AM
reno newbie

house on juniper hills needs major updating and is tight on lot … when you see it let us know what you think
October 9, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Worried Guy

Reno Newbie,

Have you seen the property on Juniper Trail already in the last week?
October 9, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Martin

Maybe the Juniper Trails house needs updating, and maybe it is a tight fit on the lot. As for the inclusion of the daylight basement in the square footage, I am not offended by it in this case. If this was a small dingy basement with a leaky old oil furnace in some 1920s era house in the old SW, I think it would be inappropriate to include it, but not with this house.

The fact is that $73 a sq.ft. in Caughlin Ranch is news folks.

I fail to see how anybody can suggest this listing is evidence of a market bottom.
October 9, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Raymond

Re the Juniper Trails house….

Just from looking at the pictures on the MLS listing, the house does not look in bad shape to me. I think you could say any house that is 16 years old could use updating if you want to make it look brand new.

This listing seems to be an exceptional deal, and not good news at all for comps in the neighborhood, unless there is some defect we are unaware of.
I tried to find the sales history for this house on the assessor’s website, but I could not find it. Has anybody else found it?
October 9, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Shelley

Even if you put $100K in improvements into the house, you are still looking at only $92/sq.ft. That is unheard of for Caughlin Ranch.
Is there something we don’t know about this house?
October 9, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Worried Guy

It shows only 79,950 on 7/19/91…Looks like a one owner home from 93′.
October 9, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Raymond

Was that the price of the lot in 1991?
October 9, 2009 at 11:21 AM
johnny

After finishing up my short sale acceptance from the bank, I am seriously tempted to plop down some funds on another house/condo.

The reality is that the 100-200k price range HAS hit bottom, if it cash flows at that price then why not?
October 9, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Worried Guy

Raymond,

Yes, I think that is the price of the lot. I don’t see any other transactions thereafter. I am really not sure how you get what the original owners paid. Maybe a title search. Anyone?
October 9, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Sully

Shelley, over a year ago BB posted a comment that covered this price. He said 350K (or around that number) should buy a real nice house in Reno. I think this particular listing would cover what he meant.

Perhaps, he can comment on this, if he is still reading the blog.
October 9, 2009 at 2:03 PM
reno newbie

after you look at juniper trail go to muirwood circle and let us know which is the better buy. we saw both but are not buying now, as there is just too much downside risk. unemployment must be solved to turn market.
October 9, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Shelley

I understand Sully, and I agree that prices are nowhere done falling. Especially in the over $350K price range. But this price represents a quantum leap to the downside, not the slow gradual decline we have been witnessing. $73 a sq. ft. in Caughlin Ranch is more than 100% below the lowest sale there to date on a per sq. ft. basis. The market usually does not see these kinds of quantum leaps, unless there is some unknown issue with a house. Hence my question.
October 9, 2009 at 3:10 PM
GreenNV

futurerenohomebuyer, you toured this house, didn’t you? Do you have any insights to add? (or or you putting in an offer?)

The $79,950 sales price in 1991 was for the lot, and the house was constructed in 1993. There were a couple of relatively small loans in 2001, then a refi for $590,000 in March 2003, and a HELOC in March 2004. It went TD last week for $483,953 with $573,008 due.

Some pretty major drops over on Cheechako, too.

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

78 comments

Leave a Reply