The number of houses sold in August rose 6.1 percent from July’s units sold. The median sales price of August’s 436 houses sold was $179,950, and remained practically unchanged from July’s $180,000 median, as well as August 2009’s $179,900.
However, the median sold price per square foot fell more than 4.2 percent from July’s number. Using the median sold prices for the last two months, homebuyers in August were able to get an additional 78 square feet of house over July’s homebuyers.
Active listings are up 3.0 percent this month. Pendings are down 4.2 percent.
August sales break out as follows:
- Bank-owned properties – 28.9% – up from July’s 26.3%
- Short sales – 35.6% – up from July’s 34.7%
- Equity sales – 33.5% – down from July’s 37.7%
For those readers who prefer the median sold price for houses and condos combined, August’s 511 sold houses and condos exhibited a combined median sold price of $155,000 – down 4.8 percent from July’s combined median of $162,900.
| Month Year | # Sold | Sold Price | Sold Price per Sq Ft | Average DOM | # of Listings | # of Pendings |
| Aug 2010 | 436 | $179,950 | $97.54 | 129 | 2,222 | 1,513 |
| Jul 2010 | 411 | $180,000 | $101.84 | 128 | 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 – September 2010. Note: This information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.
skeptical
Lowest ppsf recorded since data was tracked in ’04. I’ll go out on a limb and say it hasn’t been this low this century…
Was it Sully who said you could buy more house with the same money with each passing month? Data seems to be on his side.
And, look out below with that combined Median Price (incl. condos). This is August — supposedly one of the best months of the year for the market.
sleezy
what’s the excuse this time mikez??
MikeZ
Was it Sully who said you could buy more house with the same money with each passing month? Data seems to be on his side.
Yes, it does.
bob_c
i expected the expired tax credit of 6,500 or 8,000 to be deducted from the median…instead
it has added to the sf you acquire from the steady median price
4% more sf of 180k house = $7,200
i also agree that price bands seems to be visibly
compressing….and still contend that a graph would reveal this (dont have the data to draw one)
CommercialLender
Doing some simple math, albeit flawed: I took the number of sales each month and multiplied by median price (of course, I don’t have average only median, so bear with this flaw). Then, I graphed it to find graphically we have in fact been bouncing along sideways since July 07. There’s been a bunch of up/down especially seasonally, but overall the graph shows a range over 3 yrs that’s not been broken out of. 1998 to 2003 shows a gradual uptrend followed by the obvious bubble for a few years, but again since 2007 there has been only flatlining en masse.
burgerking3g
PPSF =TIMMMBBBEEERRR!
hows that stabilization prediction looking now?
burgerking3g
CL
That math couldn’t possibly be more flawed.. lol..
flat since 2007? what a side splitter!
Sully
CL, not sure what that shows except maybe sales volume in dollars. However, tracking the median in nominal and inflation adjusted dollars shows a rough flattening (more like churning) since May 09. The inflation adjusted numbers show touching the 1998 median and dropping below it for the same period (also churning). So basically, the adjusted numbers show us no better (median wise) than 1998 and actually dropping lower about half the time.
bob_c
off the topic question–
how come zillow and trulia show y-o-y
-10% on the median in reno?
Sam
After moving to Sparks Fall 2009, I moved out this Summer thanks to NV’s well known job issues. When I first moved to Sparks, I was considering potential homes in the 250-400K range. I stopped looking earlier this year after the job took a turn for the worse. The other day, I glanced at the homes on the MLS and see now I can get so much better than when I was looking. There are many homes that were once significantly out of my range (up to 550K) but see they have come down into my range. I don’t really know what’s happening out of that range, but I know in the 250-550K range, prices are definitely still significantly dropping. I still read this blog on occasion because there are a lot of good opinions.
skeptical
CL,
Curiously awaiting your explanation of what (median sales price) X (number of sales) indicates.
burgerking3g
I don’t get it? where did all the cheer leaders go?
smarten
Derrick aka “burgerking3g” [Mr. TIMMMBBBEEERRR] –
No one’s been cheerleading. All some of us have said is that the overall SFR, as measured by median sales price, has been relatively stable for over a year now. August’s numbers are further evidence.
As you will recall, Sam’s observations appear to be pretty much what I was talking about two years ago here in Incline Village: notwithstanding a stable median sales price, “there are many homes that were once significantly out of [his] range (up to 550K) but…have come down into [his] range.” In other words, although the cost of the house Sam was interested in purchasing may be about the same as it was two years ago, the size and quality of house he can purchase now has improved markedly.
Only two months to go until Guy’s game of guess the SFR median sales price as of December!
Ralston
Did you all see where 1 out of 4 Nevadans is either unemployed, in bankruptcy, or in foreclosure. Nevada is in the worst financial condition of all the 50 states, including California.
And Michigan.
The housing market ought to hit bottom any hour now. Rising prices soon to set in.
Yea.
JE Mort
Sam’s comment, while totally correct, is unremarkable. Only a fool, or someone with an agenda not to see what is clearly there to be seen, would deny that a buyer with a fixed amount of money to spend on a house can buy more house today than he could have a year ago. Or 6 months ago. Which to say, housing values are still falling.
Kalifornian
I was hoping Mike will post recommendation on how to better invest $350K in Reno… Maybe I should look in other places, but anything decent in the bay area is still out of my reach.
billddrummer
Guy,
Great data, thanks.
GratefulD_420
To Bob C:
“how come zillow and trulia show y-o-y
-10% on the median in reno?”
Answer:
Guy’s median is median of actual sales occuring in that month. Zillow’s “median”… is Zillow’s Home Value Index… or their current valuation of pricing for all existing housing in Reno.
Zillow’s data and therefore pricing is way outdated (90days+) and also has some serious flaws such as not counting distressed (foreclosure/short-sales sales). So in both cases it is biased higher than actual!!! Interesting though if we’ve been a flat median sales price… the VALUES keep dropping. This has been my point on my last few post to Smarten that he refuses to discuss any other data source or data sets (see previous posts) which almost every single one show this thing continuing to trend down. I’m not saying that one is better or worse than the other…. however when 4 out of 5 measuring sticks says its going down… and we understand clearly how the median can be greatly unassociated with value…why would we continue to defend the median as THE measuring stick ??????
p.s. – Guy I truly do appreciate your data set(s) as another valid piece of data to put into the pile for analysis.
smarten
GratefulD –
What are the 5 measuring sticks?
Unit sales? Here are the beginning/ends of the bell curve [which IMO is where we are]:
8/00 – 412
8/01 – 448
8/02 – 459
8/09 – 482
8/10 – 436
Average – 447
Increased unit sales portend a rising MSP.
MSP? Here are the beginning/ends of the bell curve:
8/00 – $163,375
8/01 – $160,350
8/02 – $180,000
8/09 – $179,900
8/10 – $179,500
Average – $172,625
DOM? Skewed so unreliable.
PPSF? Tends to lag MSP; is too subjective; and, we’re at a 6 year low in any event.
So what am I ignoring?
MikeZ
By the way, it’s good to see that we’re all ACCEPTING the data now … and not making excuses.
That’s a positive change, in and of itself.
GratefulD_420
– Here’s a few…. there is certainly more.
Even though the median or psf… doesn’t include
land
location
quality
even forget that if you look at different set of median price data within Washoe that the median IS falling…(Q2?09=$260k, Q2?10=$212k)
http://www.rgj.com/article/20100814/BIZ/100814028/1071
Forget that the listed sales prices keeps falling..
forget about increasing inventory (supply & demand theories are worthless!)
http://www.housingtracker.net/asking-prices/reno-nevada/
Forget that unemployment in Reno is catastophic…
that completely has nothing to do with improving housing market…
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/nevada/reno/
billddrummer
I’m still waiting for my income to rise and housing prices to fall to the point where I can buy a house for cash.
I’ll stay a renter until that happens.
GratefulD_420
also Forget the facts…..
Foreclosures listed on MLS are rising again to highest level in a year. 229 units listed.
Forget the fact that in April’10 there were 18 active foreclosures on MLS in $200 to 500k range. Today there is 39.
Forget there is 3,811 total foreclosure (all types) listed in Washoe County. Where 1,016 of those are SFR’s in Washoe.
Goodnews… shortsales listed on MLS have been relatively constant for 1 year @ 1,017 sept’09 and 1,144 sept’10. Unfortunately the active shortsales (not pending, call or other) has risen from 32% availible in April’10 to 48% availible (active) today.
For those that like price bands on the SFR Foreclosures…here are the quantities of each
SF Res (100k)
2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 >6
3/15/2010 268 75 19 19 28
4/4/2010 224 78 22 17 39
7/2/2010 270 113 32 18 44
9/7/2010 292 132 37 17 44
Since the above listed foreclosure price is very subjective we can use quality….
G G/VG VG VG/Exc Exc Exc/HV1 HV1+
3/15/2010 15 12 16 7 1 2 1
4/4/2010 16 14 17 7 2 3 1
7/2/2010 22 12 20 7 4 1 12
9/7/2010 29 11 18 8 3 1 14
Smarten's Vanishing Equity
“MikeZ said,
in September 8th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
By the way, it’s good to see that we’re all ACCEPTING the data now … and not making excuses.
That’s a positive change, in and of itself.”
It isn’t that people were not accepting the data, it’s that they didn’t draw the same naive conclusions from the data that you did. You call it a stable market, but others realize that another shot of heroin for the trembling junkie does not equal a return to sobriety even though his hands show a remarkable steadiness.
sleezy
so basically claiming the market has stabilized from a median price perspective doesn’t mean squat really…
PPSF is and has ALWAYS been the better indicator of future prices..
btw prices are STILL FALLING!!! August numbers are PROOF
sleezy
mikez
you claimed the market was stabilizing by pointing to the median AND ppsf over the last year..
now that ppsf has fallen BELOW levels of the last 2 years, do you STILL conclude prices have stabilized? LOL
Sam
While median price and PPSF are good data to look at, I think you just have to look at homes on the market to know if prices are rising or falling. Median and PPSF can both be skewed by various factors.
Consider the peak. My Sparks neighborhood had homes ranging in size from 1600-3900 SF. The smaller homes would sell for over 200/SF. A 1700 SF home could sell for 350K. The larger the home, the less/SF it would sell. Mine was over 2200 SF, sold for 193/SF. The 3900 SF home could only sell for about 550K or about 140/SF.
Back then, I knew prices were still rising since everything was selling like hotcakes. Recently, I was very interested in buying a home in Reno/Sparks for 300K range. Even though prices may be continuing to drop, I just wanted to settle down for stability as my child’s about to enter school. I found some reasonable homes earlier this year and probably would be under contract by now if I had been certain about my job. I’m sure I could have been happy with the home. But the job didn’t work out, so I moved, glanced at the MLS the other day and found much more nicer selections now for me than earlier in the year. Some of the homes earlier this year are reduced even further. If I had waited to buy now, I would be getting more home for the same money that I was willing to spend 6 mos ago.
Well I had to move away and have found a job I feel good about. So now I am under contract for a new construction >3000 SF house that will be about 100/SF, with many nice upgrades in another area that got hit hard by the bubble. Prices may still be falling here too, but I will be happy with the floorplan, the materials, location, and schools. Also at over 300K, it is what I can comfortably afford and feel I will happily stay in it until my child heads off to college.
If I bought in Reno now, my purchase would contribute to raising the median price and likely the PPSF, but I can surely tell you that in my price range of interest, prices in Reno/Sparks are still falling.
CommercialLender
Derrick/Burger/Sleezy and Skep,
My math as I freely admitted is inaccurate in that I don’t have average prices per month or even de/inflation rates over the sample period, but that is not the point I was doing my head-scratch on. (I freely assume median values and average values have held a fairly close relationship over the sample period.) My point is when I graphed it, it clearly patterned pre and during the bubble perfectly, but since just after the peak, the total transaction costs as measured by median values has been in a fairly narrow range and frankly flat.
I make of this a few things, maybe improperly, but hear me out. This points to some finite level of resilience in the market to buy, and points to the fact that there are still a number of buyers and large degree of cash en masse playing in this market. Now, we are seeing of course medians either flat or falling still, but we are also seeing a rise in transactions, thus the cash injected into the Reno system has remained in a demonstrable range – flat. I would otherwise had guessed it to be falling, but it is not. Suggests to me 1 thing I am beginning to see in the commercial space that at the right price point in a falling market, there was a pick up in demand but now that some inventory overhang (in commercial) is being absorbed, prices in some sectors have risen and rapidly so. Cash on the sidelines has in some sectors, apartments particularly, sprung into action causing cap rates to plummet (values to rise).
This is not to predict that as soon as some overhang in the SFR space is absorbed the same thing will happen, but I wonder.
My premise is based upon cash flows into and out of SFR assets in Reno. The money could dry up, tansactions fall off and therefore prices continue to decline. However, so much of the ‘value’ of a SFR has to do with emotions and sentiment that if buyers see others buying, albeit at low relative medians, they might take from this ‘confidence’ and be more poised to buy, thereby starting a cash flow from the sidelines into SFRs which will first dry up inventory and second cause prices to rise.
All this was in answer to Smarten’s quandry: many lambast his views on values as measured by median prices. Fine, but what is a better, more telling or more accurate measure of SFR values in Reno? My thought is that cash invested en masse into the market is a telling metric that should not be overlooked.
Fire away….
skeptical
CL,
Got it.
It is interesting to try to calculate total $$ inflows into the Reno market. Also, I think you’ve done a good job at qualifying your back-of-the-napkin thoughts.
All that said, the real answer to Smarten’s eternal question, as I’ve stated several times before, would be a Case-Schiller representation of the Reno market.
In other words, the best way to know the general condition of the market is to be able to compare recent sale prices on homes with the prices those same homes fetched previously.
Unfortunately, Dr. Schiller doesn’t do that for us, and it would be a laborious undertaking without his data.
So, I will continue to rely on the anecdotal evidence of contributors to this blog and family and friends, who are convinced that prices for real estate in the Reno Tahoe area continue to decline, and that each passing quarter offers better pricing opportunities for prospective buyers.
This trend will change someday. I do not think it has turned positive yet, and I believe that it’s possible that when values stop declining, they may remain flat for 5-10 years.
FWIW……..
sleezy
IS this some realtors idea of a joke? This guy should be fired for making such remarks!
MLS# 100013110
840 BOWMAN DR
Reno, NV 89503
*note the description of the property*
smarten
Skeptical, I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your suggestion that we defer to a Case-Schiller representation that doesn’t exist. But did we defer to that a year ago? Or three years ago? Or ten years ago? The data Guy provides only refers to the metrics he lists going back 3, 5, 10 or whatever number of years. So instead of comparing those same metrics, many on this blog [including you] suggest that all of a sudden we shouldn’t. However I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that if those metrics evidenced the state of the market you’ve been suggesting [“I will continue to rely on the anecdotal evidence of contributors to this blog and family and friends, who are convinced that prices for real estate in the Reno Tahoe area continue to decline”], you’d be the first to chastize me for refusing to accept the data.
No one is saying the economy has stabilized nor the Reno/Sparks residential real estate market as a whole has recovered. But the fact of the matter is that for many, many months you and others have discounted the numbers which were being reported by Guy as being skewed because of the first time homebuyers’ tax credit. Once the credit ended [which was supposed to have been June] you told us unit sales would tank as would the median sales price. But that has not happened and insofar as unit sales are concerned, it appears we’re pretty much in line with the long term trend for this time of year going back a decade.
The only metric which appears to continue to be dropping [and I might add at a much, much slower pace] is the PPSF. But all this really means is that as the median sales price rises; notwithstanding the drop in unit sales; the proportion of higher priced housing is increasing; which means higher priced housing is selling for less; and since higher priced housing oftentimes means more square footage, the PPSF is continuing to drop.
We have discussed before on this blog that if your particular housing price strata of interest is $700K strata, and vice versa. What we’re hearing now is that SFRs previously priced in the $500K strata [asking (rather than sales) price] have come down in price within the last year. Although in a vacuum this sounds as if the market as a whole is continuing to fall, we’re not hearing about that [hypothetical] $150K priced SFR that may have been selling for $130K or so a year or more ago.
As long as unit sales continue at their present pace, I think median sales price is a somewhat [and perhaps best] indicator for the state of the market as a whole. But when unit sales drop to the level they were in January of 2008, IMO it’s not a sufficient sampling to be as accurate an indicator. That’s why three years ago or so I suggested that PPSF might be a more accurate barometer than median sales price. But with 417 unit sales in August, PPSF although certainly of interest, takes on far less importance.
Again, just my opinion.
bob_c
My observation of the 275-500 market. The inventory that moved 12 months ago were those that
appeared priced well below market. They jumped out at the page at you. Today, if you want to sell; your going to list your home in a crowd of homes which once appeared ‘well below market’. My conclusion it that are more higher end homes listed at what the market might bear and this is causing the threat of more price drops because the denial has subsided and the competition intensified.
MikeZ
So, I will continue to rely on the anecdotal evidence of contributors to this blog and family and friends
You choose to rely on anecdotal evidence rather than the actual data?!
This is, literally, the definition of denial.
sleezy
mikez
are you ever going to answer my question? Or are YOU in denial as well?
MikeZ
re: Derrick aka sleezy
No and no. Hope this helps.
Sleezy
No and no = DENIAL!