The median sold price continues to fall hitting a new 11-year low. April’s 421 units sold exhibited a median sales price of $155,000 – down 3.1 percent from March’s median of $160,000; and down 13.9 percent year-over-year. And the downward trend does not seem to be subsiding. A colleague informed me that 300 listings had undergone price reductions this past week. There have not been that many price reductions in one week in over two years. What do these Sellers know?
Not surprisingly, the median sold price per square foot continues to fall. April’s $89.38 sold price per square foot represents a 2.4 percent drop from March’s number, and a 13.3 percent drop year-over-year.
Active listings appear to be holding steady while pendings continue to increase.
April sales by type break out as follows:
- Bank-owned properties: 38% – down from March’s 41%
- Short sales: 31% – up from March’s 30%
- Equity sales: 31% – up from March’s 28%
April sales by price band break out as follows:
| sales price ($000’s) | units sold |
| 0 – 99 | 78 |
| 100 – 199 | 220 |
| 200 – 299 | 74 |
| 300 – 399 | 22 |
| 400 – 499 | 10 |
| 500 – 599 | 5 |
| 600 – 699 | 5 |
| 700 – 799 | 1 |
| 800 – 899 | 0 |
| 900 – 999 | 2 |
| 1M+ | 4 |
| total | 421 |
For those readers who prefer the median sold price for houses and condos combined, April’s 506 sold houses, condos and town homes exhibited a combined median sold price of $138,800 – down from March’s’s combined median of $149,950.
Historical data follows.
| Month Year | # Sold | Sold Price | Sold Price per Sq Ft | Average DOM | # of Listings | # of Pendings |
| Apr 2011 | 421 | $155,000 | $89.38 | 137 | 1,914 | 1,593 |
| Mar 2011 | 511 | $160,000 | $91.59 | 132 | 1,906 | 1,497 |
| Feb 2011 | 385 | $161,000 | $93.35 | 142 | 1,882 | 1,416 |
| Jan 2011 | 361 | $159,900 | $92.19 | 153 | 1,970 | 1,329 |
| Dec 2010 | 480 | $165,500 | $94.43 | 144 | 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 | 141 | ||
| 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 | 297 | $159,950 | unavailable | 104 | ||
| 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 – May 2011. Note: This information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.
Raymond
Median price down 13.9% YoY. This must be further evidence of the “stabilizing median” that was talked about so much on this blog last year.
Cal
Nationwide, house values dropped last quarter at the fastest rate since 2008.
Nice to see the market above $500K is alive and kicking, with a whopping 4% of total sales.
Ralston
“What do these sellers know?”
That house prices are on the next leg down. It’s in the air. And all the federal and state “incentives” and “assistance” and prop-ups, bailouts, moratoriums, and add-ons cannot stop it.
Martin
I surf through the MLS about every two weeks just to keep myself up to date. I have never seen so many “price reduced” listings as I have in the last 2-3 weeks.
Free Falling
My hats off to the perma-bears. You guys clearly called this one right. Two years ago there wouldn’t have been many takers on a bet that the median price would be down to $155 k and still falling…
skeptical
This is one of those times when it ain’t so fun being right. That said, and it’s been said many, many times before:
“Falling prices aren’t the problem. They are the solution.”
If the market hits the point where this inventory can finally begin getting sold off, Home Depot, Lowe’s, and Western Nevada Supply will be hiring new folks. Contractors will get to work fixing fences, roofs, and furnaces. Reno is a great place to live. If the market is allowed to adjust, the economy will once again thrive. Just my two cents….
Norton
I would agree with the increasing numbers of “price reduced” listings. However, I see most of them for houses listed above the median. Some well above the median. Many have said here for a least a couple of years now that that if a buyer has a fixed amount of money to spend on a house, the longer he can wait the better the house he can buy with his money. Only a fool would deny at this point that a buyer in almost any price range, but particilarly the higher ranges, can buy a much nicer house today than he could have one year ago. There do not, however, appear to be very many buyers in the higher price ranges.
Corina
What constitutes the “higher price range” today? Over $300K?
Only 12% of all houses that sold last month sold over $300k.
Phil
Hell, $300K is almost twice the median now.
The median is now down 58% from the bubble high. At the bubble high, a house costing twice the median was $730K. Now it is $310K. This is an epic housing collapse. Never before seen. Anywhere. And right here in Reno.
I recall back in 2004-2007 when it was standard realtor pablum to say how special the Reno housing market was. How unique. They had no idea how right they were.
BanteringBear
“For those readers who prefer the median sold price for houses and condos combined, April’s 506 sold houses, condos and town homes exhibited a combined median sold price of $138,800 – down from March’s’s combined median of $149,950.”
It’s been a while, friends. Looks like things are playing out nicely.
trader joe
bantering bear………….welcome home
Reno Ignoramus
It has indeed been an epic housing market collapse. And, yes, right here in Reno. If it were not for the fact that Las Vegas has had an even larger housing market collapse, Reno would be the attention of the national media, just as LV is now.
Hey Bear, remember when they called us “hostile pessimists” on this blog?
Pending
The increase “pending sales” on the MLS are a reflection of the number of short sales being moved to the pending category…where they hang out for 8-1o weeks (on a good day) before the buyer knows if the bank accepts their offer…and then another couple of months if everyone agrees and they can proceed to close.
Walter
Median 58% down.
And if we include condos in the figures, as we used to do in the beginning, before Guy changed the metric, it is 63% down.
Absolutely staggering.
Carney
Epic is a good word. And how much more epic is it going to get?
Remember those 12,000 or so missing in action NODs.
Steve Herschbach
In Anchorage in the late 80s we had our own recession due to the collapse in oil prices and subsequent departure of many high paying oil jobs. There had been a building boom in condominiums and strip mall. By the end of the decade condos dropped to one third the prices seen at the peak. And the new strip malls sat empty. People who bought condos back then for $15,000 – $20,000 made a killing when the market recovered.
Now the rest of the country is in the toilet but we are pretty much sitting this one out as high oil prices have the state sitting with budget surpluses unlike most states in the country. I sure am glad I am here right now but it is sad to see so many people suffering down south. I guess the only good note is some young families are now going to be able to buy in a market they were once priced out of. If you factor in inflation house prices are even lower than they appear since $150,000 in 1990 dollars was a lot more money than $150,000 is now.
Rebelrunner
Staggering? You want to see staggering?
Values at the Bubble Invented Lake Las Vegas are down around 70% from their bubble highs in 2006. Condos selling for around $800,000 in 2006-07 are now selling for around $225,000-$250,000.
Sully
Rebelrunner; I agree Reno has a ways to go. 75th percentile in Las Vegas (listing prices) is 179K versus 350K in Reno. Median is a little closer to historical levels at 120K versus 180K.
A bunch of drunken developers built enough $1 million + houses here to last a couple of decades, forgetting to add all the millionaires required to live in them. At some point, all these overbuilt homes will sell and probably at the levels you are seeing in Vegas.
Downbutnotout
Now if we could get Smarten out of retirement it would be just like old home week.
Mark D
All mortgages bought during the 2004-08 bubble should be scrapped–allow the home owner to refinance their primary home at today’s rates as long as they qualify with income, provided at least 20% down at original closing, and never missed a payment. Cap the principal amount owed in the refinance to 125% of the appraised value (which is the loan to value limit currently in place for refinancing) and discard everything above that. Limit the term of the refinance to 20 years or less to allow for faster principal reduction. Banks and credit unions can’t continue to trap the owner didn’t do anything wrong (other than bad luck and unfortunate timing of market conditions) in severely underwater loan and provide temptation to strategic default which only drives the values of surrounding homes even lower.
Fred
It’s interesting to note that Incline Village is also beginning to take part in this real estate “carnage”. I monitor the area closely and am astounded at how the number of foreclosures has suddenly skyrocketed.
I remember BB saying a long time ago that IV would also eventually crumble, but at a later date. Seems he is right(again).
rory
The term hostile pessimists still fits. You can still be right in your predictions and be a hostile pessimist.
Transplant
Just like you can be a starry-eyed optimist and still be blind as a bat.
MikeZ
Banks and credit unions can’t continue to trap the owner didn’t do anything wrong (other than bad luck and unfortunate timing of market conditions) in severely underwater loan and provide temptation to strategic default which only drives the values of surrounding homes even lower.
Trapped?! Can you explain what you mean by “owners are trapped?”
How is anyone trapped when they can simply walk away and hand the house to the lender in return for cancellation of the debt? And especially now, with The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act from Uncle Sam. That’s a red carpet invitation to walk away, until 2012.
MikeZ
BlabberingBear, now that you’ve admitted you’re back/never left, why not drop the (at least) 2 aliases that you’re still using and just post as yourself now?
Just sayin’…
BanteringBear
Say what, MikeZ? I can’t even remember the last time I read here.
BanteringBear
“All mortgages bought during the 2004-08 bubble should be scrapped–allow the home owner to refinance their primary home at today’s rates as long as they qualify with income, provided at least 20% down at original closing, and never missed a payment. Cap the principal amount owed in the refinance to 125% of the appraised value (which is the loan to value limit currently in place for refinancing) and discard everything above that.”
This is completely irresponsible, and sets a terrible precedent. People who are not paying their mortgage need to get packing, and the banks who hold those loans need to be forced to adhere to traditional accounting standards, and quit all this extend and pretend BS. Kick the deadbeats out, and shut down these zombie banks.
BanteringBear
Is MikeZ, derrick?
bob_c
deduct 20% for inflation (26,000) and 129,000 in 2001 dollars would be 155,000 today
thus a 129,000 purchase in 2001 of a median home would be break even
(2% non compounded for 10 years on 129k is close to 26K)
we are IN a depression……ZIRP…..QE2…..major loss of jobs nationally in last decade…..and the ballooning deficit to keep the ship afloat
these are epic times
Paul
Fred, actually a realtor in Incline was gloating the other day that all of the REOs in Incline were sold. I checked my email from the title company and there are at least 30 more in the pipeline. Incline is still VERY expensive relative to rents and is populated mostly by baby boomers in a very narrow age band that will need to sell and get off the hill in the next 10 years.
Paul
BB welcome back. I tend to agree with Mark, let people discharge the debt above current FMV through a chapter 11 bankruptcy, only on their principal residence and only purchase-money mortgages. I agree – liquidate the speculators, the serial refinancers, and the zombie banks, but cut some relief to those whos only mistake was timing, and in some ways are victims of the government’s failure to stop the housing bubble. Allowing borrowers to chop off the part of thier mortgage that’s underwater, going forward, will force lenders to collect a sizeable downpayment up front, and will prevent future housing bubbles caused by reckless lending practices.
BanteringBear
Why should anyone be rewarded for an extremely poor purchase decision at the expense of the prudent? The answer is they shouldn’t. This whole problem is one of leverage. The banks allowed people to lever themselves into homes with zero skin in the game, giving them teaser rates so they could squeak by and make the payments, hopefully unloading the sh!tbox down the road to another fool with a suicide loan for an even more ridiculous price. Now, people like those who posted above me want to reward the most-levered crowd? Some chowderhead who put zero down and owes $500k on a $200k home gets a $250k gift, but the guy who paid cash gets the middle finger?! F*** THAT. Leaving now before I really go off.
Rubiconer
“Inlcine is populated mostly by baby boomers in a very narrow age band that will need to sell and get off the hill in the next 10 years.”
That is an absolutely astute description of IV. There is getting to be more grey hair in IV than at the Social Security office.