As many readers are aware this post contains December’s median sold price, which will determine the winner of the contest that began one year ago. Because you’ve all been so patient, I will reveal the median and announce the winner right off the bat.
December’s median sold price came in at $165,000. And the winner is…Zen. Congratulations Zen! With your prediction of $166,250, you predicted the closest to December’s median sold price. [see Readers predictions for December 2010’s median for all the guesses.]
And how did Zen come up with his winning prediction? Here is Zen’s entry from December 22, 2009: “$166,250 is my number. Why, you ask. Why not? My big fat guess is as good as anyone’s attempt to predict the future by putting together a bunch of hypothetical outcomes or staring into a cup of tea leaves all afternoon, only I didn’t have to spend nearly as much time doing it. Ok, I actually just took 5% off of Novembers $175,000, but it still didn’t take that long to do and it is as good as anyone else’s number right now. Good luck to all, except BB because your number looks like a disastrous year.”
And what does Zen win? Well, besides bragging rights on the blog, I will make a $50 donation in Zen’s name to the charity of Zen’s choice. [Zen, please contact me off blog at gjohnson@chaseinternational.com so that we can set this up.]
Now back to December’s numbers.
December’s median sold price of $165,000 is not only the lowest monthly median for the year, but also a median that we haven’t seen since 2001. $165,000 represents a 2.9 percent drop from November’s median of $170,000, and a 7.3 percent drop from December 2009’s median sold price of $178,000.
December’s median sold price per square foot also set a new low – coming in at $94.31, nearly a 2 percent drop from November’s number. Having now seen five consecutive months below the $100/sq.ft. price point, I wonder when we’ll ever see it again.
470 houses were sold in December – a robust number for the month of December. 470 units is a whopping 17.8 percent increase over November’s 399 units sold, and a 15.6 percent increase over December 2009’s 424 units sold.
December sales by type break out as follows:
- Bank-owned properties: 39% – up from November’s 32%
- Short sales: 30% – down from November’s 31%
- Equity sales: 30% – down from November’s 36%
Bank-owned sales were up, while equity sales slid.
December sales by price band break out as follows:
| sales price ($000’s) | units sold |
| 0 – 99 | 63 |
| 100 – 199 | 235 |
| 200 – 299 | 100 |
| 300 – 399 | 37 |
| 400 – 499 | 13 |
| 500 – 599 | 6 |
| 600 – 699 | 5 |
| 700 – 799 | 3 |
| 800 – 899 | 3 |
| 900 – 999 | 2 |
| 1M+ | 3 |
| total | 470 |
For those readers who prefer the median sold price for houses and condos combined, December’s 546 sold houses, condos and town homes exhibited a combined median sold price of $153,900 – down from November’s combined median of $155,000.
See all the historical data below.
| Month Year | # Sold | Sold Price | Sold Price per Sq Ft | Average DOM | # of Listings | # of Pendings |
| Dec 2010 | 470 | $165,000 | $94.31 | 143 | 2,021 | 1,148 |
| Nov 2010 | 399 | $170,000 | $96.14 | 139 | 2,060 | 1,376 |
| Oct 2010 | 418 | $174,950 | $98.57 | 135 | 2,146 | 1,371 |
| Sep 2010 | 466 | $168,000 | $97.52 | 133 | 2,186 | 1,473 |
| Aug 2010 | 449 | $180,000 | $97.53 | 127 | 2,222 | 1,513 |
| Jul 2010 | 414 | $180,000 | $101.74 | 129 | 2,158 | 1,580 |
| Jun 2010 | 602 | $170,000 | $100.52 | 145 | 1,966 | 1,625 |
| May 2010 | 450 | $175,807 | $102.37 | 138 | 1,789 | 1,804 |
| Apr 2010 | 510 | $179,995 | $103.13 | 128 | ||
| 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 | 380 | $228,500 | 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 | ||
| 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 | 269 | $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 | 223 | $156,000 | unavailable | 113 | ||
| 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 | 280 | $152,800 | 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 | 167 | $149,490 | unavailable | 129 |
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 2011. Note: This information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.
Sully
First off – congrats to Zen. I figured he or FutureRenoHomebuyer had it. Secondly, Guy which post do you want the guess for Dec/2011 posted under? There is one dated Dec. 21 that I only just now noticed or are you going to set up another one?
Guy Johnson
Yes, I intend to post a separate request for entries. Coming soon.
smarten
Congratulations Zen; good job! I like your methodology.
bob_c
There is a coorelation between the average monthly median and the yearly median—
defining the extent of that coorelation would be the mathematical challenge.
The splatter pattern of each months sales prices would be the deviation, but I’m
maintaining that the probability of the splatter patterns being similar is high…thus
the high coorelation and the reason for my concern that December was going to be a BAD month for Reno RE.
I’m relieved it wasn’t worse. But then again……if it crashes I’m considering investment property. But it still sucks that the crisis may not be over. The crappy
December data does society no good. People desire stability.
Congrats to the winner…..but I wish the 172,500 (or higher) would have won.
bob_c
Based on watching the new listings each day….the stream of lower priced homes
seems to have intesifed. I am seeing NO positive signals and do understand this is
the ‘off season’ for RE. The only positive spin I can put is that most of the Somersett
and Arrowcreek homes (which raise the median) have already changed hands, because
the losses were so large the owners bailed faster.
Martin
This month sets a new record. We are now down 55% in median price since the bubble top in 1/06.
So we had a nice “stable” 7.3% drop in prices YoY.
We have now wiped out 10 years of any appeciation. And that’s in nominal dollars. Factor in inflation and the result is absolutely sobering.
skeptical
The silence from the two loudest permabears on this site (smarten and MikeZ) is absolutely deafening. They ridiculed those who voiced cautious attitudes about Reno RE. They lampooned the one contributor who has been most correct regarding the direction of prices.
They hollered “STABILITY” from the highest perches and shouted out any newcomers to the site who voiced doubt about the direction of prices.
Now, they are silent, except for a murmur of congrats to the winner by Smarten.
Time for some folks to fess up and eat some crow.
Personally, I welcome these prices, as it brings a return of rationality to the market and opens the possibility for the stability that MikeZ and Smarten wrongly proclaimed for the last 18 months.
skeptical
Oops….meant to call them permabulls, not permabears….
MikeZ
Disappointing data.
MikeZ
And congratulations, Zen, if you’re still here.
smarten
Skeptical, was not the SFR market, as measured by the median sales price, stable for more than 18 months? And didn’t you eventually accede to this fact after denying it for how many months? Did anyone say this stability would last forever? Didn’t I say it could go up or down from here? So exactly what is it you want me to “fess up” to Skeptical? What crow am I supposed to eat? That the year end median sales price was $165K instead of my guess of $172K? If so I think you need to eat the same meal inasmuch as your guess was even farther away than mine.
Although one month’s numbers do not make a trend, this is enough of a price drop to take the median sales price out of the $170K-$180K range in which it has been essentially trading for how long now? If it happens again in January [I have opined in the past that generally the lowest median sales price of the year occurs in January], I would say December’s numbers were not an anomaly.
However I will observe that I am very surprised by the number of unit sales. December’s numbers are the highest for any December since Guy’s charting began in 1998. Historically a spike in unit sales is generally a precursor to an increasing median sales price. But who knows?
Sully
Guy, I just downloaded the county sales to date data for 2010 and get 381 SFR sales for December. I realize the county is a bit behind but it has never been off almost 100 over Reno/Sparks data.
Any reason for this?
bob_c
mike z was 95% sure smarten would win….based on the year end numbers.
i voiced my statistical concern of the high probability december was a BAD month
based on year end and recieved no support….in faxct was mocked a little. The statistical evidence I had WAS sound for me predicting a horrible month. i’m NOT as dumb as some make think i am. in fact i am extremely deft w/ numbers.
Donna
I’m not here to pick a fight, but I would just like to add a voice that says nothing in this data is at all disappointing. For some of us, falling prices are not the problem. They are the solution.
Why is it that when the median price rose from $165K in January of 2001 to $365K in January of 2006, (more than double in 5 years) that was a good thing, but when it fell from $365K in January of 2006 to $165K in December of 2010, that is disappointing?
Would it have been just grand if the median price had doubled again from January of 2006 to January of 2011? So today the median would be $730K, and nobody could afford to buy a house?
Why is up good and down bad?
Sully
Without intervention, modest home price declines could be allowed to resume until inventories clear. An analysis found that home prices increased by about 5 percentage points as a result of the combined efforts to arrest price deterioration.[7] Absent incentive programs and as modifications reach a saturation point, these price increases will likely be reversed in the coming years. Prices, in fact, have begun to slide again in recent weeks. In short, pulling demand forward has not produced a sustainable stabilization in home prices, which cannot escape the pressure exerted by oversupply (Chart 3).
Complete article here:
http://dallasfed.org/research/eclett/2010/el1014.html
Zen
Thank you all for your nice comments. As always, the discussion on this blog does not disappoint. I love the differing perspectives. If I had one wish for this blog, it would be that the dialog would be a little more civil at times. We have lost some good contributors due to less than polite remarks. For the most part though it is kept pretty clean and definitely intelligent. Thanks to all of you for your input and especially to Guy for keeping it all going. I’m looking forward to the new contest.
Guy Johnson
Sully,
I’m not sure what would cause such a great disparity between the two data sources.
smarten
Guy –
What about Sue Lowe’s $172.5K pronouncement concerning December’s median sales price? Why the disparity [given he’s out of your office]? Thanks.
Sully
smarten, if I’m not mistaken the median you refer to was for the whole year, not December.
‘LAKE TAHOE, Nev. (Jan. 4, 2011) – The Reno-Sparks real estate market benefited immensely from the first-time homebuyers federal tax credit, but despite a strong first two quarters, the year ended with a three percent decline in sales volume and a one percent increase in units sold, according to a year-end report from Chase International.’
Reno Ignoramus
Hello Guy,
I’m sure you recall a 2-3 years ago, maybe even more, when you kindly reported what percentage of houses on the market were vacant. If I recall correctly, the percentage was quite large, well over half. At the time, the thinking on the blog was that there were so many vacant houses for sale for one of two reasons. Either the owners of the vacant listing had already bought another house and moved, leaving the vacant house behind. Or the vacant house was a flip gone bad. The consensus on the blog was that so many vacant houses for sale was not a good thing, and likely foreshadowed a decline in sales prices going forward.
I am wondering if you might be able to report on how many houses for sale today are vacant. We have not had any info about this in quite a while.
Thanks.
MikeZ
There was an interesting and potentially far-reaching ruling on Friday from the MA Supreme Court: the court’s unanimous (!) decision retroactively voided two prior approved foreclosure seizures for incomplete paperwork and left prior victims of wrongful foreclosures within the state with a legal remedy to take action against the banks.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7063M620110107
Guy Johnson
smarten,
Sully is correct. Sue Lowe’s $172.5K median was for all of 2010.
RI,
Good idea. I will report those numbers (vacancies) soon.