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

Market Trends by Guy Johnson

As we observed with November’s unit sales, December’s 405 houses sold represented an unusually high number for a December.  Compare December’s 405 sales with the number sold during the previous five December’s:

  • 2009: 405 houses sold
  • 2008: 294 houses sold
  • 2007: 228 houses sold
  • 2006: 291 houses sold
  • 2005: 333 houses sold
  • 2004: 450 houses sold

As seen above we’d have to go back to bubble year of 2004 to see 400+ homes sold in a December.

Meanwhile, December’s median sales price, $178,000, increased 1.7 percent from November’s $175,000. Looking back at 2009’s monthly medians, it appears that resistance is set at $175,000. A monthly median of $175,000 was hit in May and November of last year, but has not fallen through.

While the median sales price climbed, December’s median sold price per square foot, on the other hand, fell a whopping 2.3 percent from November’s price per square foot. December’s median sold price per square foot fell to $101.18 from the previous month’s $103.59.  We’ll likely see this metric fall below the $100 mark in 2010.

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

  • Bank-owned properties – 43%  
  • Short sales – 30%  
  • Equity sales – 26%

The proportion of distressed properties comprising December’s sales was 73 percent. This proportion was considerably higher than November’s 68 percent proportion of distressed properties.

For those readers who prefer the median sold price for houses and condos combined, December’s combined median sold price was $164,000; down 1.9 percent from November’s combined median of $167,175.

Month Year #Sold Sold Price Sold Price per SqFt Average DOM
Dec 2009 405 $178,000 $101.18 127
Nov 2009 458 $175,000 $103.59 113
Oct 2009 557 $180,000 $103.37 123
Sep 2009 519 $186,000 $103.29 128
Aug 2009 480 $179,900 $102.84 116
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 – January 2010.

14 comments

  1. SmartMoney

    Hmm, doesn’t look like much of a recovery going on here….

  2. Derrick

    hmm doesn’t look like prices are tumbling anymore.

  3. Derrick

    175k< market has bottomed..

  4. smarten

    Remember that on December 21, based upon eleven years of history, I extrapolated that the number of unit sales in December would total 424 [at the time Guy was suggesting that the number of sales would be greater than November’s 448]; the number of unit sales in January of this year would total 352; the median sales price in December would be $176.35K; and the median sales price in January of this year, would be $172K.

    Since I wasn’t that far off for December, let’s see what happens next month.

  5. BanteringBear

    Long time readers of this blog will recall that the median price calculation used to include condos and townhouses, which are historically cheaper, as well as single family residences. For reasons unclear, the decision was made to disallow these cheaper residences in the calculation, and the obvious effect was to skew the median higher.

    Guy has been kind enough to include a footnote in his monthly data which shows the combined median. At $164k, this is, if my memory serves, the lowest the combined median has ever been since the market peak. Certain people have been calling a bottom on this blog for more than a year, yet prices continue to creep lower. Credibility certainly isn’t their strong point…

  6. Raymond

    Yea Bear, if you don’t like the outcome of the data, just change the data set. Then rationalize why the change was necessary.

    A time honored tradition among bought and paid for “researchers” at all levels of business and industry.

  7. smarten

    Literally you are correct BB [at least about the combined median sales price]. But with that said,

    1. I find Guy’s decision to be positive. Sales trends for condos versus SFRs can be very different and if you’re personally tracking one or the other as a possible purchase [and median sales prices are important to you], different medians are more relevant [thus answering the question “why the change was necessary”].

    2. Additionally, in most downturns condos will drop greater in sales price [at least percentage wise] than SFRs. Conversely in an upturn, condos are generally the first to rebound.

    3. Many on this blog have been questioning the “importance” of the median sales price in markets where unit sales are historically low. As many know I have been questioning its importance in our current market where unit sales have been robust.

    Bottom line the median sales price is just a piece of data to consider along with all other data, similar to DOM, PSF, unit sales, average sales price, etc.

  8. CommercialLender

    In this a.m.’s San Jose Merky News is an article on record BK filings. You may or may not care on that subject despite that BK filings often are intended to stop impending foreclosures, but this line from a BK attorney regarding the relationship between BKs and foreclosures was quite striking:

    “There’s a huge reservoir of property there that’s going to be foreclosed, and fact that the foreclosure sale hasn’t taken place is for the lender’s convenience, not because there’s any real hope on the horizon,” she said.

    Article here:
    http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_14147552?source=rss

  9. Sully

    Another, perhaps more important line was:

    “What’s changed for me is the number of people here because of job loss,” Moran said. “I’ve seen more well-established businesses going under. Businesses that have been around for 15 to 25 years are folding. And I’ve seen a bunch of people who either now or in the recent past made $150,000 to $300,000 a year, and now they are either unemployed or got jobs at half the previous salary.”

    Now this is in an area that is (or was) part of the 5th largest economy in the world.

  10. CommercialLender

    Sully, good point. Try, 8th largest economy in the world now, and falling (per CNBC just this a.m.). Also, Arnie came out today telling the citizens of this ‘rich’ state we are ANOTHER $20+ BBBBillion in the hole.

    I have been saying all 2009 that I know of only 1 person in my sphere of influence who is making (made) equal or within 90% of their 2008 income. The vast majority are 80% or less, and for 2010 I think it will be the same. Therefore, at least in high-cost SJ/SF, there just cannot be anything but flat or falling home values for some time to come. As for Reno, builders there in my opinion were building ‘to the demand’ for many reasons but heavy among them was dual income couples earning $100K + $100K = $200K that were salaries propped up in much the unsustainable way as home prices were. Now, try $70K + $0 (layoff) = $70K and that’s the metric to use in the builder model. (Except that in Reno, the median is substantially less, so this is just an example.)

  12. billddrummer

    Guy,

    Thanks again for tracking all these statistics.

    Here’s another one to chew on.

    In December 2009, the median sale price of a home was $178,000.

    In December 2009, the average listing price of a home was $363,000.

    What is the real estate community’s rationale for listing homes at more than twice the median sale price? Stated another way, median sale prices are less than half the average listing price.

    And how long will those higher priced homes sit around waiting for someone to purchase them?

  13. Irv

    BillD,
    To me, those numbers show that only the lower- end properties are selling. But that wouldn’t mean one should automatically cut his asking price for a mid-range property, rather it means that such property isn’t likely to sell in this market. So my question would be, not why are agents listing at twice the median selling price, but instead, why are owners bothering to even list such mid-range and higer-end properties at all right now?

  14. CommercialLender

    Chicken = why are sellers bothering to list homes that clearly won’t sell?

    Egg = why are agents bothering to take listings on homes that clearly won’t sell?

    ****

    If ever you needed an example of the major problem with real estate – lack of liquidity – just take a long, ponderous look around you.

Leave a Reply

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