Rebound! February’s median sold price jumped 7.4 percent over January’s $135,000 to return to $145,000. This 7.4 percent increase follows the 12.9 percent fall we saw in January. Volatility is the word of the day. Year-over-year, February’s median sold price is down 9.9 percent.
February’s median sold price per square foot (ppsf) also increased – rising 1.6 percent to $82.12/sf. Sold PPSF is down 12 percent year-over-year.
The number of houses sold in February set another month-specific record. February’s 453 units sold eclipsed the number of houses sold in any other February on record. The increase sales activity, in conjunction with less properties entering the market, has wreaked havoc with inventory levels. At the moment there are only 980 houses listed as Active on the MLS. By itself this number may not mean much, but when looked at alongside the number of monthly sales, one can see that our market is operating with roughly only a two-month supply of inventory. 980 Active for-sale properties is also noteworthy in that this number is lower than the inventory levels the market experienced during the peak of the buying frenzy during the bubble years.
I first brought the dwindling inventory point to light in October – see Looming inventory problem in Reno-Sparks? At that time, the months supply of inventory was at 3.7 months. It is now at 2.2 months. Folks, we’re in a Seller’s market. Of course, the lack of inventory is not seen across all price points, but at and around the median sold price there is shortage of available Active listings. This thin supply is being manifested as multiple offers scenarios, offers over asking price, lower days on market, and higher incidence of cash offers (see Cash is King – more than ever).
Speaking Days on Market (DOM), I see that our MLS has added a new metric to the search results – median days on market. Regular readers know that the DOM number I report has always been an average, rather than a median. That’s because average DOM was the only metric available to me. Not so any longer. I have updated the table below with median DOM going back about a year. I will fill out the remainder of the historical data when I have more time. I have also left the average DOM in place as a comparison to the median DOM. Going forward, I think I will use only the median DOM. This will be consistent with my use of the medians for the other metrics on which I report. Let me know your thoughts on this?
So, looking at the median DOM for February we can see that the trend has certainly been toward shorter times on the market. This is because many of the properties hitting the market are going pending almost immediately – or at least as soon as the Seller chooses which offer to select. February’s median DOM of 99 days is more than two weeks shorter than February 2011’s median DOM of 115 days.
February sales by type break out as follows:
- REO sale: 42% – up from January’s 40%
- Short sales: 28% – down from January’s 37%
- Equity sales: 29% – UP from January’s 22%
Another effect from the low inventory level is that non-distressed home sellers are experiencing greater interest in their for-sale properties – as can be seen in the increase in “equity sales”.
February sales by price band break out as follows in the table below. Note that nearly a quarter of the houses sold in February sold for less than $100,000; 76% sold for less than $200,000; and 92% sold for less than $300,000.
| sales price ($000’s) | units sold |
| 0 – 99 | 100 |
| 100 – 199 | 241 |
| 200 – 299 | 74 |
| 300 – 399 | 17 |
| 400 – 499 | 7 |
| 500 – 599 | 7 |
| 600 – 699 | 2 |
| 700 – 799 | 1 |
| 800 – 899 | 2 |
| 900 – 999 | 1 |
| 1M+ | 1 |
| total | 453 |
For those readers who prefer the median sold price for houses and condos combined, February’s 518 sold houses, condos and town homes exhibited a combined median sold price of $132,750 – UP 6.2 percent from January’s combined median of $125,000 for 518 combined sales.
Historical data follows:
| Month Year | # Sold | Sold Price | Sold Price per Sq Ft | Avg/Med DOM | # of Actives | # of Pendings |
| Feb 2012 | 453 | $145,000 | $82.12 | 132 / 99 | 980 | 1,788 |
| Jan 2012 | 446 | $135,000 | $80.80 | 144 / 122 | 1,170 | 1,643 |
| Dec 2011 | 534 | $155,000 | $85.66 | 148 / 123 | 1,403 | 1,481 |
| Nov 2011 | 495 | $149,012 | $85.02 | 146 / 114 | 1,545 | 1,635 |
| Oct 2011 | 496 | $148,250 | $84.22 | 145 / 106 | 1,682 | 1,646 |
| Sep 2011 | 575 | $149,000 | $83.73 | 133 / 106 | 2,044 | 1,967 |
| Aug 2011 | 554 | $154,000 | $91.34 | 125 / 98 | 1,947 | 1,694 |
| July 2011 | 512 | $149,950 | $87.65 | 128 / 96 | 2,028 | 1,667 |
| June 2011 | 538 | $154,000 | $90.12 | 123 / 89 | 1,990 | 1,689 |
| May 2011 | 510 | $150,000 | $88.66 | 133 / 104 | 1,968 | 1,682 |
| Apr 2011 | 436 | $156,125 | $89.78 | 137 / 104 | 1,914 | 1,593 |
| Mar 2011 | 511 | $160,000 | $91.59 | 132 /113 | 1,906 | 1,497 |
| Feb 2011 | 387 | $161,000 | $93.35 | 142 / 115 | 1,882 | 1,416 |
| Jan 2011 | 365 | $157,000 | $92.35 | 152 / 129 | 1,970 | 1,329 |
| Dec 2010 | 485 | $165,000 | $94.31 | 143 | 2,021 | 1,148 |
| Nov 2010 | 398 | $170,000 | $96.43 | 139 | 2,060 | 1,376 |
| Oct 2010 | 418 | $174,950 | $98.57 | 135 | 2,146 | 1,371 |
| Sep 2010 | 467 | $168,000 | $97.52 | 132 | 2,186 | 1,473 |
| Aug 2010 | 450 | $180,000 | $97.54 | 127 | 2,222 | 1,513 |
| Jul 2010 | 415 | $180,000 | $101.84 | 128 | 2,158 | 1,580 |
| Jun 2010 | 602 | $170,000 | $100.52 | 145 | 1,966 | 1,625 |
| May 2010 | 450 | $175,807 | $102.37 | 138 | ||
| 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 | 248 | $148,000 | unavailable | 108 | ||
| 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 | 237 | $148,000 | unavailable | 110 | ||
| Mar 1998 | 271 | $141,990 | unavailable | 115 | ||
| Feb 1998 | 204 | $139,000 | unavailable | 125 | ||
| Jan 1998 | 167 | $147,000 | 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 – March 2012. Note: This information is deemed reliable, but not guaranteed.
Related post: January median sold price, units, DOM, $/sq.ft.
Matthew
Move to Reno,
13% Unemployment *DOES NOT* mean 87% Employment.
The participation rate is 64% and continuing its downward trend.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
Weslie
Buying a house is a great goal for the New Year. Make sure that resolution has some back up with a life insurance policy. You can get a quick and easy quote from IntelliQuote in just minutes. Find out how little it could cost to keep (and protect) that home for future generations. http://bit.ly/yNH2fw
Move to Reno
Matthew,
The labor force participation rate is the percentage of working-age persons in an economy who: •Are employed
•Are unemployed but looking for a job
Ok, they don’t count me in the labor force participation rate and yet last year I bought a $345K house for cash. So tell me again exactly how important the LFPR is when in down only 3 points from 2002 and a high percentage of buys are for cash.
Move to Reno
booch221,
Ok, let’s say 50% of the employed are viable. What percedntage of them do you think are renters? Also, do you have any guess as to the number of buyers who live out of state?
booch221
Why would you say 50%?
What basis is their for such a claim?
Is this based on fact, or is just something you made up?
Move to Reno
Just a number I tossed out there. You have a better one?
Matthew
Move to Reno,
The cash purchases are not being made by the “50%” of the employed.
The vast majority of people have *no* savings at all.
The only way to seek recovery on their demand is for Uncle Sam to continue to artificially expand the reach of “almost-no-down-payment” loans.
Yet that is how we got to this place… hair of the dog.
Move to Reno
Matthew,
don’t change the goal posts on me, we were discussing the LFPR and it’s significance on the housing market.
Now, you are correct, most of the employed can’t buy a house with cash. However, nobody is talking about liar loans or no-money down mortgages. We are talking about 3% down mortgages with a strict evaluation, n’est-pas? But why are there so many all-cash purchases these days?
We got to this place because folks were either buying houses that they couldn’t afford or were buying houses thinking that houses only go up in value. I don’t think either one of those things are happening today. I think that today’s buyers are looking for a roof over their heads and is cheaper than paying rent.
booch221
Well, anything is possible when you just make things up.
Matthew
There are more all-cash purchases today because prices are low and there are fewer credit-worthy buyers.
The cash buyers we have now below the median will fade as the prices climb and RoR’s shrink. That’s the nature of investing: smart money seeks good opportunity.
The opportunity in real estate now is due to the low prices. Take away the low prices and smart money looks elsewhere.
There’s nothing “right” or “wrong” about this. It’s just a numbers game.
E.Edward
Well….. Fortunately in all doom and gloom there is good News here……. when the dust finally settles and rates are forced up to normal levels, these propped-up prices will probably be half of what they are today!
Move to Reno
booch221
I’m not making anything up, I’m making an estimate. You are the one who didn’t like the 87% employment number as representing viable candidates for buying real estate.
And yet you refuse to make your own estimate.
Move to Reno
Matthew,
exactly why with decreasing inventory the cash buyers will fade and the folks who want to buy a roof over their heads will increase, that is, become a larger percentage of the market. Even the folks who short-sold two years old can buy a house today and probably even some of the early foreclosure folks can now get back into the market, lesson learn.
booch221
Move to Reno:
You’re making an estimate based on what? Guesswork?
And you want me to do the same?
Sorry, I’m not going there.
I have no desire to dwell in your fantasy world.
Move to Reno
You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see that a certain percentage of the employed are viable candidates to buy a house. While 100% of the employed don’t fit the requirements, neither does 0%. A fantasy world is not required.
Move to Reno
@E. Edwards
Exactly, when rates are forced up in 2o years…….
booch221
It sound like you’re seeking validation for your decision to purchase a$345K house for cash.
I hope the market has hit bottom. Goodness knows, enough people are hurting from this real estate crash.
But guesswork on my part won’t change the outcome one iota.
Good luck…
Move to Reno
booch221,
Hardly. Most of the houses in my sub-divison are being sold for cash. One model like mine, not not nearly as good inside, recently sold for $20k more than what I paid .
If you think that quality real estate in Nevada is going much lower I think that you are mistaken. The junk houses and the multi-million dollar places, possibly, but good houses in the median range I doubt it. Cheaper to buy than to rent.
Steve Watts
my goodness move to reno, those are some serious acrobatic moves you are making to back your case. 87% employment is no where near reality. A big percentage of workers here have been downgraded to part-time status. They are not counted as unemployed, as are those whose benefits ran out (plenty of them too) and have no reason to report their status.
Are you in another market? You seem oblivious to what the true economic picture is in Reno. Do you understand that our primary industry is collapsing and that the only real job growth evident is low salary? Recovery will happen, but there are no signs it will happen withing the next 2 years.
But by all means, come and buy a house.
Martin
You can tell the shills are out when they pretend to be RI prognosticating that the market has hit bottom and that people should leverage themselves to the hilt.
EJ Man
Buying a house is a great goal for the New Year. Make sure that resolution has some back up with a life insurance policy. You can get a quick and easy quote from IntelliQuote in just minutes. Find out how little it could cost to keep (and protect) that home for future generations. http://bit.ly/xwyrug
Bob
I went to that web site EJ Man, but the link was down all day.
E. Edward II
E. Edward: …when the dust finally settles and rates are forced up to normal levels, these propped-up prices will probably be half of what they are today!
Half?! What are you some kind of crazed permabull?
When the dust finally settles you’ll be able to buy a house in Reno for 20% of today’s price. No, wait, 10%! Wait! WAIT! 5%! That’s right, FIVE PERCENT!
E.Edward
I think the correct term your looking for is “permabear”……. However, Bearish or Bullish it doesn’t matter, These things have a history of way-overshooting. Ultimately prices are going down and coincidentally so is your equity and/or sales!
E.Edward
Oh My!…………Its already started.
http://news.yahoo.com/treasury-yields-holding-5-month-highs-172535011.html
E. Edward II
2.27%. Oh MY! … it’s started!
At this rate, we’ll be at 3% by 2014.
booch221
@Reno Ignoramus:
Rah rah sis boom bah…
Pump those pom-poms!
E.Edward
Look…. Honeys,
Now we know the current inventory is being manipulated correct? This doesn’t mean the existing delinquent under-water home owners magically started making there payments, quite the opposite! Further this will most likely encourage MORE homeowners to stop making there payment……and that will compound even more foreclosures!
The first thing this tells anybody with any-kind of common since, is out there somewhere is going to be a massive wave of backed up inventory just waiting to flood the market.
As for the coming rate increase, that’s the final nail in the coffin!
Its a slam dunk! A ding-dong could forecast this market!………. Now you best all make your way back over to the shallow end of the pool!
joey
“The first thing this tells anybody with any-kind of common since, is out there somewhere is going to be a massive wave of backed up inventory just waiting to flood the market.”
Waiting to flood the market and it ACTUALLY happening are not the same thing!
The banks could have flooded the market for years but they didn’t! The person with the most inventory controls the market. DUH!
No, they will drip the properties back on to the market at a pace that is consistent with current demand. That way they can more easily manipulate the prices and profit margins on the THOUSANDS of homes they to sell.
It wouldn’t make any sense for them to just flood the market and drop prices another 50% when they the biggest seller in the market! lol
booch221
Of course there’s a carrying cost for those properties that the banks keep of the market. Property taxes, maintenance, insurance, utilities, security, etc. And if prices continue to fall, depreciation. The banks don’t want to be property managers–that’s not what they do.
March median sold price, units, DOM, $/sq.ft. | RRB Home
[…] post: February median sold price, units, DOM, $/sq.ft. Share this:FacebookStumbleUponEmailPrint This entry was posted in Agent Insights, Market Trends […]