The number of houses sold in July fell 32 percent from June’s units sold. Seasonality factors and the end of the First-time Homebuyers Tax Credit contributed to the huge drop in sales.
On the flipside the median sales price jumped nearly 6 percent in July – due to the decrease in the number of entry-level homes being sold now that the effects of the First-time Homebuyers Tax Credit have passed .
Interestingly, July 2010’s median sold price of $180,000 is unchanged from July 2009’s number.
Active listings are up 9.8 percent this month. Pendings are down 2.8 percent.
July’s sales break out as follows:
- Bank-owned properties – 26.3% – up from June’s 23.3%
- Short sales – 34.7% – down from June’s 43.4%
- Equity sales – 37.7% – up from June’s 31.7%
For those readers who prefer the median sold price for houses and condos combined, July’s 475 sold houses and condos exhibited a combined median sold price of $162,900 – up from June’s combined median of $160,000.
| Month Year | # Sold | Sold Price | Sold Price per SqFt | Average DOM | # of Listings | # of Pendings |
| Jul 2010 | 403 | $180,000 | $101.84 | 129 | 2,158 | 1,580 |
| Jun 2010 | 597 | $170,000 | $100.57 | 146 | 1,966 | 1,625 |
| May 2010 | 449 | $175,615 | $102.57 | 138 | 1,789 | 1,804 |
| Apr 2010 | 509 | $179,990 | $103.13 | 129 | ||
| Mar 2010 | 476 | $175,500 | $99.29 | 141 | ||
| Feb 2010 | 338 | $170,000 | $101.68 | 138 | ||
| Jan 2010 | 346 | $167,000 | $98.32 | 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 | 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 – August 2010. Note: This information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.
HighlyTrainedRealEstateAnalyst
Mike Z,
Flawed argument? Tax rates of 70% and higher were a reality in this country for many years. We’re not dealing with a chemical reaction here, we are dealing with different philosophies regarding how much of a person’s wealth the government is morally justified in confiscating. I believe that confiscating the fruits of somebody’s labor against their will is immoral, stealing, and no way to run a government (Our government ran just fine with no income tax for MANY years). It appears that you believe that it is not only alright, but the government is not yet stealing enough of your money in the form of income tax. If you truly feel this way then why not just send additional money to the government each year when you file your taxes? I believe there is a box for just this purpose on the 1040.
Your debt example, however, is flawed:
“If I have $100K in debt and only $50K in cash, am I hopelessly indebted forever? I don’t think so.”
You have not provided enough information in your example as I’m sure it assumes that there is more than 100k in money and that all you have to to is go and earn more in order to pay off your debt. If, however, the total amount of money in circulation in the example above is say, 80k, and if you don’t have the power to create the money, then you ARE hopelessly indebted forever. Read the link provided in my post above.
Sully
MikeZ; I agree with Grateful. The numbers appear to show a flat or stabilizing market. However, when you look at quality the story is different. Home prices in the over 350K market are coming down. All you can really glean from the price numbers is what this area can afford to pay. When the high end market stops falling, then you can say we have a stable market.
CommercialLender
Several of you are missing a key point: it is entirely possible for the values of the low end of the housing market to fall while the values of the upper end remain stable, and visa versa. Think of the ‘yield curve’ of US Treasuries where the short end of the curve and long end of the curve are not always directly correlated, so a falling of the short end treasury yield with simultaneous stability of the high end results in a ‘steeper’ yield curve, and so on.
In Reno’s situation, the lower valued homes fell first and fastest while middle and upper end fell more slowly, and there are myriad reasons for this. Thus, you can and may well have a modest recovery in the lower valued end of the market all the while having a continued decline in other value levels of the market. Or vise versa.
It is helpful to know and understand which valuation range one is studying before making blanket market statements.
In my personal case, I still would love to buy in my Silicon Valley ‘hood, except that homes in the area have fallen only a bit relative to homes in other lower valued areas and in my estimation are still too high for my risk tolerance. Thus, my submarket has a lower ‘beta’ for your stock market investors, meaning more relative stability in times of instability. I know without a doubt the higher end market in my area is continuing to slide, but I also recognize simultaneously that the newspapers and Realtors still print garbage like “median values rose fastest in 4 million years” and “hurry up and buy, sucker” and other such drivel. It is entirely possible and quite probable the lower end will increase in value prior to the high end.
(nothing herein is meant to take a side with the values up or down argument, only to point out the issue is more complex than some posts above suggest.)
MikeZ
Flawed argument? Tax rates of 70% and higher were a reality in this country for many years.
No one is disputing that the top income tax brackets were once 70% (and even higher) but at the same time no one is suggesting a return to 70%. We’re talking about a 3% hike, not a 33% hike. That’s the flaw I see.
If, however, the total amount of money in circulation in the example above is say, 80k, and if you don’t have the power to create the money, then you ARE hopelessly indebted forever. Read the link provided in my post above.
Money circulates and the fact that debt exceeds present-day available cash does not guarantee irreversible indebtedness.
Consider: if I live on an island with $100K in total currency it is still possible for me to pay off more than $100K in debt, over time. Why? Because money circulates.
Plus, the government CAN print money.
MikeZ
it is entirely possible for the values of the low end of the housing market to fall while the values of the upper end remain stable, and visa versa.
I don’t see how this is possible to sustain in a market like real estate.
If $100K homes fall to $50K, then $150K fall into the slots vacated by the formerly $100K homes, and likewise, all the way up the price strata.
The chain reaction as homes at the lower-ends of price bands move into the lower price bands can take some months to shake out, but it has to happen.
HighlyTrainedRealEstateAnalyst
Mike Z,
I feel that you are not getting the point that I am trying to make. Although not entirely relevant to the topic at hand, it is not true that “the government CAN print money”. The government – the congress – must go to the treasury to request money, the treasury then goes to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve CAN print money, but it is based on debt and it is backed by nothing.
There are more details, but this is a real estate blog. Perhaps another article might help. Here’s one by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts. He was the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury under Reagan:
http://www.infowars.com/the-ecstasy-of-empire/
CommercialLender
MikeZ,
Yes, over time a correlation likely exists between low and high end as we are not a 3rd world county with shantytowns across the city from vast druglord mansions, but above some posters have been discussing the median price as a guage of ALL Reno SFR real estate. Some says ‘its been flat’ 14 months therefore the market must be stabilized. Others say ‘its still going down’ all the while remarking upon some strength in low end sales. I say that neither is necessarily a correct conclusion. As the high end and low end are not locked together in a direct corellation, it is possible for a time – here possibly 14 months, maybe longer – to have X rising and Y falling and to even have the median values remain flat (or rise or fall).
This last point is what gets some posters so ruffled with respect to Smarten: they think values en masse are falling thus his buy decision in his higher end is bogus. However, in his strata of the market, in his sub market, with his financial situation and with other backdrops he’s gone to length to reveal, he made a decision to buy and, let’s give him credit, has not lost a nickle. (I.e., he’s not sold and has the perceived staying power to not need to sell, and he might argue has not lost any ‘equity’ either.) Be that as it may, his blanket advice above listing reasons for “a home buyer [in today’s market]” to “buy more not less” draws from a faulty conclusion that since the low end strata has some current strength, buyers should buy up into a higher strata. This may be true for some and for some of the reasons he lists above, but this strategy is in no way a strategy for the masses in the lower end of the market to employ.
Just sayin’
smarten
Good points CL and I take no offense.
My recommendations were for the prospective Reno/Sparks homebuyer who: IS going to purchase [regardless]; can qualify for a purchase money mortgage; and, has a stable source[s] of income. You’re right; it’s not necessarily “a strategy for the masses.” It came about because skeptical recommended that such a person not make a purchase in excess of the median sales price.
HighlyTrainedRealEstateAnalyst
CommercialLender,
Your posts are well thought out and a pleasure to read. Your insight and analysis are appreciated.
Vinney
Perhaps here is a real life example.
I live in one of the production neighborhoods in lower Caughlin Ranch. Last November, a house sold two doors down from me. Now, the house across the street from the house that sold last November is in escrow. These two houses are as identical as you can get. Same model, built at the same time, same exact floor plan. I can attest they are in the same condition, which is quite good, as I have been in both houses. The house currently in escrow is selling for 8% less than the house that sold last November. There is nothing distressed about the current sale, the sellers just want to move to a single story house. They are savy and sophisticated, and understand the state of the market.
So while the median price has been pretty stable over these last 9 months, the price of essentially the same house in a lower Caughlin neighborhood has fallen 8% in that time frame.
For a point of reference, these houses are now in the low 300s. About 3 months ago, a smaller house in the neighborhood sold for $250K. At the height of the bubble, a model like the two I am describing sold for $525K. So we are around 40% off of the bubble high.
Just thought I would offer this info, for what it may be worth.
A good day to all.
smarten
And FWIW Vinney, this is precisely what CL was talking about.
I’m sure there are similar SFRs selling in Spanish Springs for 8% more than they did last November and yet the median sales price has remained stable.
Your example [and mine] are why it is difficult to describe the market as a whole by resorting to the median sales price. So as I’ve asked before, if the median sales price isn’t an accurate data barometer, what is?
DonC
Sully says “Nevermind the fact that the largest tax hike in history is coming Jan/2011”
We’ve been through this tax issue before, and it’s just not an issue. AFAIK there isn’t anyone opposing the extension of the tax cuts for those making less than $250K a year. (I’ll leave for the moment the absurdity of calling the expiration of a temporary tax cut a “tax hike”). Plus even very few of those people will actually see their tax bill increase because the AMT tax rate is higher than the old tax rate. So yeah, Bill Gates might not be able to buy another house, but he’s not into houses anyway.
Sully says “The real economic boom occurred in the latter half of the decade, after the 1997 tax cut. Lowtaxes are still a key to a strong economy.”
You’re just making the point that within reason taxes have little effect on the economy. You have to go back fifty years to find an actual example of tax cuts increasing economic activity. One example in fifty years is not a firm foundation for economic policy.
That economic growth depends on the overall tax burden is also not based in reality. If it were, the German economy, with a much higher tax rate than the US, would always be in the toilet, whereas the Greek economy, with a tax rate much lower than the US, would always be booming. Not happening.
While low taxes have many advantages, economic growth isn’t one of them if the low rates require deficit spending. IOW over the long term “tax and spend” beats hell out of “spend and borrow”. (Cutting spending might work but I don’t see politicians, including those who say the deficit will eat our young, advocating for cutting Medicare, Social Security, or Defense by the 30% or so that would be required).
DonC
Vinney brings up an interesting point. The fact is that if you want to move up to a more expensive house now is a GREAT time to do that! Ha ha.
In all seriousness it is. The numbers make a compelling case. But it’s not happening that frequently. Some of that may be that people are fearful and some of it may be that people need the equity in the less expensive place as a down payment for the more expensive one. No equity no down payment.
As for this particular case, even assuming the houses were the same, it’s not beyond belief that a seller facing an optional move might get more money than one needing to sell quickly. The longer you wait the higher the price you should get. Also when you factor in the lower interest rates the payment on the 8% more expensive house might be the same or lower than the less expensive one.
Lots of factors.
Raymond
SFRs in Spanish Springs selling for 8% more than a year ago?
Show me one, and I will take you to lunch at the most favorite restaurant of your choice.
In fact, show me any two comparable houses, like those described by Vinney, ANYWHERE in Reno-Sparks Reno where there has been an 8% increase in price and I will take you to lunch.
Walter
Smarten, you have many times said that you are not very familiar with the Reno-Sparks market. Today you really proved that to be true.
The suggestion that SFRs in Spanish Springs are selling for 8% more than a year ago is nonsense. Absolute and complete nonsense. There is no neighborhood in Reno where prices are up 8% over a year ago. There is no neighborhood where they are up at all. Please cite us to some examples where houses are selling for 8% more than a year ago.
Carlo
Did you all hear? Not only has the market bottomed, but in Spanish Springs, prices are up a stunning 8% from a year ago. It’s only a matter of time before prices are up 8% everywhere in Reno/Sparks. Better buy now or get priced out forever.
SmartMoney
8% ? That is pretty hilarious.
smarten
Guys-
The point wasn’t that one or more similar homes in Spanish Springs has/have resold within the last 10 months for 8% more. It was a figurative example – that if a particular type of home had resold for 8% more, it likely wouldn’t have increased the median sales price – especially if the resale amount were quite a bit lower than the median sales price.
Smarten's Vanishing Equity
Smarten: “I’m sure there are similar SFRs selling in Spanish Springs for 8% more than they did last November and yet the median sales price has remained stable.”
then,
“The point wasn’t that one or more similar homes in Spanish Springs has/have resold within the last 10 months for 8% more.”
Riiiiiiiight. What’s that smell? Yep, smells like another load of BS to me!
MikeZ
Did you all hear? Not only has the market bottomed, but in Spanish Springs, prices are up a stunning 8% from a year ago.
Sigh. Read what was written.
That’s not at all what he wrote!
homedog
To SVE,
Once again, BB nails it. Come on back dawg. Need someone to water down the continuous spewl of BS put out by Smartypants and MikeZ (or….are they one in the same?….)
MikeZ
The house currently in escrow is selling for 8% less than the house that sold last November.
Would you be willing to provide the addresses of the two Caughlin Ranch properties?
smarten
What’s the matter “homedog” [or is it another version of Derrick?] –
Aren’t you capable of “water[ing] down the continuous spewl [sp] of BS put out by Smartypants and MikeZ?” If not, how do you know it’s BS spew?
Assuming you are capable, why don’t you tell us all how we should measure the state of the Reno/Sparks residential real estate sales market as a whole, based upon non-impartial data, if we cannot resort to the monthly median sales price, average ppsf, unit sales and the other data Guy regularly provides [I’m gathering what you would call “BS Spew”]?
longerwalk
Smarten asks: “So as I’ve asked before, if the median sales price isn’t an accurate data barometer, what is?”
Just like a weather forecast uses the barometer as one of many tools, likely real estate is the same. Same with Price-Earnings ratio or Beta for stock work. Can’t choose “just one”–it’s a multi-dimensional market.
Joe
Exactly. Go back to 2005-2006. Based on smarten’s “non-impartial data”, how could one not assume that the market was stable? I see a similar thing happening now. Just like many people ignored imortant factors on 2005 such as the types of junk mortgages being made and rampant speculation, today we have people ignoring things like unemployment rate, forclosures, distressed sales volume, etc. I for one could care less what the median price trend is until these other factors are resolved. Maybe we’ve already forgotten the lesson from the boom
smarten
Joe –
2005-2007 represented one of the largest run-ups in residential real estate pricing EVER. Yet according to you, “many people ignored important factors” that several years LATER resulted in the meltdown we’ve experienced [the “lesson to be learned”]. People like Mr. BB who were “spewing” warnings in 2004 [if not before], although ultimately proven correct, were very, very wrong in the short run [if you consider three years being “the short run”]. In fact if memory serves, Mr. BB himself even made a purchase during this period of time [one he still owns today] meaning even he didn’t listen to his own advice.
So applying the same “reasoning” today, let’s assume Joe is correct. Will we all be agreeing that he was correct tomorrow? Or will it be next January? Or will it be 3 years from now? The fact Joe may ultimately be correct [although he may ultimately be just as wrong], doesn’t change the fact that the residential real estate market, AS MEASURED BY THE MEDIAN SALES PRICE [which according to longerwalk should not be the measuring stick {so what, if anything, should be (rather than analysis of multiple pieces of data)?}], has been fairly stable for the last 14 or more months.
BTW, the “impartial data” Guy reports ISN’T my data – it’s his. Over time some of us have asked that Guy include additional data such PPSF, the number of active listings and pendings. According to Joe, I guess median sales price should be removed from Guy’s reports in favor of the number of distressed sales, foreclosures and unemployment. And what other pieces of data do you feel longerwalk should be added to Guy’s reports?
I guess bottom line what you permabears appear to be saying is Guy should STOP reporting the sales data he does because it’s IRRELEVANT [it doesn’t mean what it says] until the economy turns for the better [which is likely to be some number of years]. And I guess if you’re in the market to purchase real estate, you too should put off any purchase for a similar number of years. Do I have that right [and if not, please correct me where I’m wrong]?
GratefulD_420
Smarten… there you go flapping your mouth again.
I like Guy’s data and what it represents… however it’s a pitty you have such an opinion of ONE SINGLE DATA source when it fits your argument… and then you cast all detractors as “Permabears,” that will find any “excuse” not to accept the data.
Washoe County has dropped 22% Q210 vs Q209, according to median sales data, your favorite number.
http://www.rgj.com/article/20100814/BIZ/100814028/1071
WASHOE NEW HOME SALES
Q2 2010
Unit sales: 209
Median price: $212,179
Q1 2010
Unit sales: 45
Median price: $238,570
Q2 2009
Unit sales: 214
Median price: $259,845
Also how about this data point……
http://www.housingtracker.net/asking-prices/reno-nevada/
These are sooo STABLE!
GratefulD_420
do you want something more specific about VALUE continuing to drop like a rock….
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/16-Autumn-Ct-Reno-NV-89511/7304914_zpid/
Please pay special attention to the PRICE History.
Also note in 2000, 10 years ago this house was valued at $464k….. now its sitting at $415k. With an 18% drop in 2.5 months of asking price.
It sold in 2002 for $540k.
Imagine if this sold for even less at $400k it would go into the positive column for a median sales price increase. Great statistic for what is happening out there today.
jacky
it’s pretty obvious that if you are looking to buy that the deals CONTINUE to get better and better.. A rising Median does NOT mean we can just simply conclude the entire market has bottomed/stable.
You are spot on gratefulD_420, that was precisely my point in an earlier post.
MikeZ
16 Autumn Ct, Reno, NV 89511 … now it’s sitting at $415k.
Unless there’s something wrong that’s not evident from the pictures, that’s a very nice house, at a great price.
It will be interesting to follow it and see when and at what price it sells.