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

10 comments

1. 

   February 8, 2010 at 1:50 PM

   BanteringBear

   More overwhelming evidence that the Reno housing market is still in a freefall and that all of the bottom callers thus far have been dead wrong. Even more troubling is the fact that a lot of buyers right now are speculators who will bail when they realize that an increase in values is not in the cards for several years time, and weak prices and demand for their rentals are the norm.

2. 

   February 8, 2010 at 2:22 PM

   skeptical

   The great housing price collapse continues apace. For all the shills at RSAR trumpeting the flat line in median sold for the last seven months, well, I wonder what they have to say now?

3. 

   February 8, 2010 at 3:04 PM

   willk

   Looks to me that it is not unusual for a fall off of prices this time of year.

4. 

   February 8, 2010 at 4:27 PM

   John Newell

   In the data given above (excluding January 1998 as the data does not include December 1997), January median sold prices were lower than the December median sold price for the prior year six times (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009 & 2010) and were higher six times (1999, 2000, 1001, 2006, 2007 & 2008). So yes, the statement “it is not unusual for a fall off of prices this time of year” is not inaccurate, but neither is it meaningful as one also could state accurately that it is not unusual for prices to rise this time of year.

5. 

   February 8, 2010 at 4:45 PM

   technician

   Fibonacci retracement levels have an unexplainable yet powerful effect on stock movements. The three major retracement points occur at reductions of 38.2%, 50%, and 61.8%.

   As the Reno market’s $/sq.ft. has blown through the 50% retracement like a hot knife through butter, prospective buyers should look at the 61.8% level for a possible buying point. That would equate to an avg. of $86.50 per square foot, or an additional 9% discount.

   So, if you’re looking to buy in this environment, accept no less than a 9% discount from current prices. Sounds reasonable in current conditions, but could you imagine demanding that in 2006?

6. 

   February 8, 2010 at 8:22 PM

   Martin

   A couple of days ago, the RGJ ran a story about the real estate market quoting the current president of the RRB that January saw more sales than any month since the mid-2000s. In other words, the bottom must surely be at hand.
   Not a word from the RGJ writer (or the realtor president) about the median dropping. I thought for a while the RGJ was getting more objective, but it seems to have fallen back to its old ways.

7. 

   February 8, 2010 at 9:30 PM

   skeptical

   Realtors really don’t care what the Median Sale Price or Median Price/Sq.Ft is. All that matters for the RSAR, NAR, or any old realtor (with the possible exception of the honorable Guy Johnson, who keeps this blog alive) is numbers of sales.

   Why? Because 3% of $350k is almost as good as 3% of $400k. Now, Joe Sixpack will not buy (and hence, there will be no transaction) if he believes the house he purchases will go down in value. No sale, no commission.

   But, if the Agent makes Joe believe the bottom is near, Joe will be more likely to buy, the sale will happen, and the agent (buyer’s and seller’s agent, what a deal!) will get their commission.

   So, the Real Estate lobby doesn’t give a rat’s butt where prices are headed, as long as volume stays high. The propaganda about the bottom is just to induce people to buy, thus ensuring volume remains high and commissions result.

   Bottom line? Don’t believe what any real estate lobbying firm tells you. If you are lucky enough to find a straightshooting RE Agent, and one that you can trust, stick with them.

8. 

   February 8, 2010 at 10:41 PM

   Zen

   Here is an interesting website that tracks the 25th Percentile, Median and 75th Percentile home listing price. I don’t know anything about the data accuracy or how they accumulate it, but the graphed trend lines are interesting, especially the 75th percentile.

   http://www.housingtracker.net/asking-prices/reno-nevada/

   The difference between the historic asking price and the selling prices reported by Guy are significant. Guy, do you know why that is? Do your figures include short sales, court house sales, etc. that the data on this site does not, or are actual sales prices really that much lower than the asking price?

9. 

   February 9, 2010 at 10:17 AM

   billddrummer

   To Zen,

   There’s an implied source imbedded within the link:

   “The data provided here are asking prices derived from online listings.”

   To me, it’s an indication that tracked listings include only MLS or other realtor-sponsored listings (no FSBOs), and that there’s still a wide gap between asking and sold prices (similar to ask/bid in the stock market).

10. 

    February 10, 2010 at 8:37 AM

    Guy Johnson

    Zen,
    The figures I report come from our local MLS. These include short sales and REOs (bank owned) listed and sold through the MLS. The simple rule is that if the property is listed on the MLS, then its sale will get picked up in the data I post.
    Examples of properties not included in the data I post would be: foreclosure sales that take place on the courthouse steps, FSBOs (for sale by owner), some new construction.

    In answer to your other question about historical asking price and selling price, I used to include the median asking price with my monthly median report. See https://renorealtyblog.wpengine.com/2009/01/december-medians-and-units-sold.html as an example. A few months ago I changed the format to include price per square foot and days on market. Due to space limitations I dropped the Asking Price data. Check out the link above to see historical asking prices relative to sold prices.