The median sales price of September’s 441 houses sold was $169,950. This number represents a 5.6 percent fall from August’s median sold price of $180,000. The number of houses sold in September, 446, was nearly the same as the 447 units sold in August. As was the median sold price per square foot. For the second month in a row the median sold price per square foot was below the $100-level, coming in at $97.83/square-foot. Active listings fell 1.6 percent this month. Pendings dropped 2.6 percent from August. September sales by type break out as follows:
- Bank-owned properties: 34% – up from August’s 30%
- Short sales: 32% – down from August’s 37%
- Equity sales: 33% – down from August’s 34%
September sales by price band break out as follows:
| sales price ($000’s) | units sold |
| 0 – 99 | 45 |
| 100 – 199 | 239 |
| 200 – 299 | 102 |
| 300 – 399 | 26 |
| 400 – 499 | 17 |
| 500 – 599 | 7 |
| 600 – 699 | 2 |
| 700 – 799 | 4 |
| 800 – 899 | 0 |
| 900 – 999 | 0 |
| 1M+ | 4 |
| total | 446 |
For those readers who prefer the median sold price for houses and condos combined, September’s 521 sold houses and condos exhibited a combined median sold price of $160,000 – down 3.2 percent from August’s combined median of $155,000.
| Month Year | # Sold | Sold Price | Sold Price per Sq Ft | Average DOM | # of Listings | # of Pendings |
| Sep 2010 | 446 | $169,950 | $97.83 | 133 | 2,186 | 1,473 |
| Aug 2010 | 447 | $180,000 | $97.53 | 127 | 2,222 | 1,513 |
| Jul 2010 | 412 | $180,000 | $101.74 | 129 | 2,158 | 1,580 |
| Jun 2010 | 599 | $170,000 | $100.52 | 145 | 1,966 | 1,625 |
| May 2010 | 449 | $175,615 | $102.37 | 138 | 1,789 | 1,804 |
| Apr 2010 | 509 | $179,990 | $103.13 | 129 | ||
| Mar 2010 | 477 | $175,000 | $99.14 | 142 | ||
| Feb 2010 | 338 | $170,000 | $101.68 | 138 | ||
| Jan 2010 | 346 | $167,000 | $97.06 | 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 – October 2010. Note: This information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.
skeptical
Is a comment from a realist actually necessary?
Would love to hear an explanation from Smarten (in his self-imposed exile).
Why would someone want to try to catch a falling knife? …unless they are making a purely emotional decision to buy property in Reno.
Steve Watts
The median home price in California rose 9% in August to $318,660, the 10th consecutive year-over-year monthly increase. (NAR)
Sully
The state’s median peaked at $484,000 in early 2007 and bottomed out at $221,000 in April 2009. How the hell did it increase for 10 consecutive years?
geopower
Sully,
I think Steve meant it was the 10th month in a row that showed a y-o-y increase.
Sully
geo, thanks for clearing that up.
Reno Ignoramus
So the median is down 9% from where it was one year ago, but back to where it was in February and June. I suppose we can now all await 97 comments arguing about what this means.
One third of all sales continue to be by a bank, and another one third by a seller who has no equity and takes no cash out of the sale. No doubt some percentage of those so-called “equity sales” are by sellers getting out by the skin of their teeth with little equity. When less than 1 out of 3 sellers becomes a “move-up” buyer in a market where one half of all houses sell for less than $170K, I suggest that this market is far from healthy.
Kyle
“When less than 1 out of 3 sellers becomes a “move-up” buyer in a market where one half of all houses sell for less than $170K, I suggest that this market is far from healthy”.
Only about 145 houses sold last month that were not an REO or a short sale. It would be interesting to know what the median sales price was for those 145 sales. I suspect it was probably higher than the over all median, because I suspect that the REO sales and short sales as a group sold for lower than the “equity sales”.
I sure as hell would not like trying to sell a house for $500K in Reno-Sparks today.
billddrummer
I notice that the median price/s.f. stayed below $100, to $97.89.
If there are any builders out there, I’d be interested in knowing whether your cost to construct is higher or lower than $97.89, considering land, development costs, infrastructure, vertical construction, time value of construction financing, and hold time til sale.
And how you plan to stay in business if it’s higher.
William
My wife is an escrow officer at a local title company. She has not had a concurrent escrow where a person person sells one house and then buys another house at the same time in longer than she can remember.
Move-up buyers are few and far between these days.
Carney
billd,
Here is what the builders will tell you. They will tell you that they are not trying to compete with the resale market, which is comprised 66% of REOs and short sales. You know, REOs that are trashed with holes in the sheetrock and short sales with smelly carpets and broken window seals and that take 8 months to close escrow. They will tell you they are selling brand new houses with beautiful new appliances and fixtures and lawns that are not dead. So yes, they are a bit more expensive, but clearly the best value.
This is the new marketing spin fron the homebuilders now.
JR
Carney,
Perhaps you could clarify how this is exactly a spin? Looks to me like you are stating it how it is. And what kind of confidence will buyer’s of distressed properties have now that there is an enormous amount of foreclosure errors going on around the country and Title Insurer’s now questions whether or not they will insure title on a foreclosed home?
smarten
I’m here Skeptical –
I told you last month you should imagine what my response would be. Apparently you can’t. Unit sales continue at a healthy pace, and the median sales price continues to girate within the range of $170K-$180K. Nobody’s saying the market is “healthy.” But as a whole [rather than picking and choosing any particular price strata], it continues to scrape along where it has been scraping along for well over a year [far from “a falling knife”]. As unit sales fall [and they will (due to seasonal factors)], there’s actually a fair chance the median sales price may rise a bit from where it sits now.
E.Edward
And its a fair chance that it may not snow this year?…. Now back to reality
The long awaited price correction has resumed,….Not even the artificially low interest rate can derail this foreseeable train-wreck
One should be grateful they waited and didn’t buy with the rest of the proud new home owners that now find themselves instantly in the negative?
Guy Johnson
Kyle, I like your question regarding the median sold price for the different types of sales. Here is the breakout for September sales…(I’ve also included average days on market [DOM] for each type):
* Bank-owned properties: $145,000 [90 DOM]
* Short sales: $168,000 [191 DOM]
* Equity sales: $228,150 [121 DOM]
These are interesting numbers; I think I may start including them in my monthly posts. Thanks for the suggestion.
Kyle
Thanks Guy for the info on the “equity sales”. As I suspected, the median for non-distressed sales is significantly higher than for distressed sales. This is not a surprise, and it shows the big impact the distressed sales are having on the overall median. And at $228K, even the non distressed sales are not exactly anything to brag about.
Again, I’m really glad I am not trying to sell a $500K house in this market.
Guy Johnson
R.I., I’ve also added a price banding table for you in the post. I know you like to see sales broke out by prices.
Kyle, you’re welcome.
Joe
So BoA temporarily halts forclosures in NV, too now. Lately I’ve been hearing of so many people I know that haven’t been paying their mortgage for over a year because they had to default in order to get a mediation meeting with their lender to modify their loan, which meeting is still months into the future. I’m tired of waiting this thing out. I used to think another big price crash was coming. Now I just see a long drawn out mess, with many would-be forclosures not happening. Especially if title insurers start refusing to insure forclosed home sales because of the banks’ sloppiness. I think more loans will be modified, including principal reductions, to keep people in their homes. Which I’ve decided may just be better than the alternative. I’m giving in and making an offer next week to buy. Waited long enough.
Sully
from Mortgage News Daily:
Foreclosure Moratorium Slows the Home Price Recovery Process
Bank of America just became the first bank to suspend foreclosure sales across all 50 states. This follows news that JP Morgan Chase and GMAC would self impose eviction moratoriums and REO sales in 23 states. The next step is a nationwide freeze on foreclosure sales and new evictions by all servicers.
These legal actions only serve to further delay the inevitable. Ultimately these foreclosed properties will hit the market some six to twelve months from now and further add to the inventory of unsold homes on the market. Our sluggish economy is in no shape to absorb a sudden flood of foreclosed properties. Delaying the disposition of REO inventory slows the home price recovery process.
This makes it painfully obvious that these proceedings represent the proverbial nail in the coffin to insure further housing price declines. We probably won’t see much in the way of a decline this quarter but I am willing to bet that in the next three quarters we will experience negative results.
Until these issues are resolved, the housing industry will continue to limp along at a snail’s pace, suffering from an overhang of shadow inventory and the looming threat of a downward spiral in home prices.
smarten
Can we have a little bit of positive real estate news instead of the constant flow of negatively from the usual suspects?
This morning the FNMA 30 year conforming fixed par rate [the rate at which FNMA will purchase originators’ pooled mortgages] assuming a 60-day lock dropped to its lowest rate EVER [ http://www.efanniemae.com/syndicated/documents/mbs/apeprices/archives/cur30.html ] – 3.66471%. Wells Fargo Bank [which isn’t the least expensive originator out there] is offering a 4.25% rate with a very small .125% origination fee. And if you’re willing/able to absorb the higher payment associated with a 15 year fixed rate, we’re talking 3.5%-3.625%! So Joe, as long as you can find what you’re looking for; at tomorrow’s [6 or more months from now] arguably lower price [assuming it declines as the permabears on this blog are predicting]; using today’s historically low purchase money financing rates [which very well may be lower than the rates offered 6 or more months from now]; what’s your real downside? Sure prices could fall off the cliff from here [but haven’t they already?], but if they do, I suspect they’ll drag everything else in this economy down with them [so what difference will it make?].
One man’s wife is another’s…well, you get the picture. So for those attempting to [re]finance with no plans on selling anytime soon, it’s like being a kid in a candy factory! Once interest rates start rising, and make no mistake they will [and by quite a bit no less], you’ll look back on today’s mortgage rates and only wish you should’ve, could’ve, would’ve.
Reno Ignoramus
Thank you Guy for the price band info. I personally do find this info of value. As has been the case for well over a year now, there is hardly any market at all over $300K in Reno-Sparks. Only 13% of all sales last month were for more than $300K.
And you are correct Kyle, only 3% of all sales last month were for $500K or more.
billddrummer
Guy,
Thanks for the price-banding chart. Truly illustrative.
Let’s see…96.16% of sales were under $500K
And 92.33% of sales were under $400K
How does the price banding on listings compare to actual sales?
If the average listing price is still over $300K, it seems to me that listing prices remain sticky.
Which will do nothing to normalize the market.
Again, great data.
Thanks.
Guy Johnson
Billddrummer,
In answer to your question, I took a look at the current Active listings and found some very interesting numbers after I broke them out. Check today’s post, https://renorealtyblog.wpengine.com/2010/10/listings-and-sales-compared-by-sales-type.html, to see what I found.