August 30, 2013
August 28, 2013
Housing Recovery Update
Article originally from - Realtor.com
July’s real estate market data shows the nation experienced a 5.24 percent decline in housing inventory, which is the second month in a row with year-over-year inventory declines in the single digits. National median list prices increased 5.27 percent year-over-year while median age of inventory is down 16.67 percent.
While California markets have dominated the list of markets with the largest housing inventory declines in the first part of 2013, they have been replaced by a new set of market leaders including: Detroit, Mich.; Boston; Denver; Honolulu and Naples, Fla. The large decreases in the for-sale inventory in these markets suggests the beginning of a housing market recovery process similar to what was observed in Florida in 2011, and in California in 2012 and 2013.
“The recovery is entering a new phase where inventory shortfalls are no longer the driving force behind changes in housing prices in many markets. Larger inventories, especially in the hotter markets that experienced rapid price increases in the spring, are expanding buyers’ choices and helping to moderate price increases,” said Steve Berkowitz, CEO of Move, Inc. “This month’s report also underscores the uneven nature of the housing recovery and its dependence on the strength of the local economy.”
National Highlights:
July’s real estate market data shows the nation experienced a 5.24 percent decline in housing inventory, which is the second month in a row with year-over-year inventory declines in the single digits. National median list prices increased 5.27 percent year-over-year while median age of inventory is down 16.67 percent.
While California markets have dominated the list of markets with the largest housing inventory declines in the first part of 2013, they have been replaced by a new set of market leaders including: Detroit, Mich.; Boston; Denver; Honolulu and Naples, Fla. The large decreases in the for-sale inventory in these markets suggests the beginning of a housing market recovery process similar to what was observed in Florida in 2011, and in California in 2012 and 2013.
“The recovery is entering a new phase where inventory shortfalls are no longer the driving force behind changes in housing prices in many markets. Larger inventories, especially in the hotter markets that experienced rapid price increases in the spring, are expanding buyers’ choices and helping to moderate price increases,” said Steve Berkowitz, CEO of Move, Inc. “This month’s report also underscores the uneven nature of the housing recovery and its dependence on the strength of the local economy.”
Realtor.com®’s Key National Market Indicators for July 2013
July 2013
|
Year-over-Year % Change
|
Month-over-Month % Change
| |
Number of Listings |
1,959,030
|
-5.24%
|
1.41%
|
Median Age of Inventory |
85 days
|
-16.67%
|
6.25%
|
Median List Price |
$199,900
|
5.27%
|
0.00%
|
National Highlights:
- Dramatic national year-over-year inventory declines have evaporated. Nationally inventories in July are only 5.24 percent below the level of a year ago compared to being down 16.47 percent year-over-year in January.
- Inventory declines decrease in local markets. In July 2013, the number of markets with decreases in year-over-year inventory declined from 125 markets in June to 118 markets in July. This suggests that this fall inventories in some markets may return to levels of a year ago and may continue to slow price increases in some markets.
- Markets are still moving fast. All but five markets are continuing to experience year-over-year declines in age of inventory and on a month-over-month basis. On a national level, housing inventory is approximately 17 percent below last year, but the national age of inventory increased 6.25 percent month-over-month.
- Price declines decrease in local markets. Median listing prices are now negative year-over-year in only 31 markets, which is down from 36 in June.
August 26, 2013
Millennials Are Increasingly Positive About Real Estate
Article originally found here.
IRVINE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Prudential Real Estate, an HSF Affiliates LLC company, today released results of its second quarter Consumer Outlook Survey indicating that millennials are increasingly optimistic about residential real estate. A full 80% of respondents ages 25-34 said their perception of the housing market is “favorable” or “somewhat favorable,” representing a 9 percentage point increase from the Q1 study.
“Young Americans, like the majority of survey participants, are feeling much better about homeownership,” said Earl Lee, chief executive officer of HSF Affiliates LLC and president of Prudential Real Estate. “People are looking optimistically at housing for all right reasons – a place to feel secure, build a future and raise a family.”
Among all respondents, 70% said that finding the right home and community is crucial to family happiness. Millennials were even more emphatic about the emotional side of homeownership: 93% favor a home for “more space for my family,” while only 75% view it as “financial security to borrow against.”
“Consumers are mindful of the challenges faced during the real estate downturn,” added Lee. “Though homeownership makes a solid, long-term investment, a home should never be considered a siding-clad ATM.”
Mortgage and Rate Watch
On securing a mortgage loan, consumer sentiment continues reflecting the challenges people face through strict underwriting guidelines and credit-score requirements:
The knowledge gap calls for advice and guidance from real estate professionals to help people make the best choices. Of survey respondents, 63% indicated that a good agent can help them make the right choices about the type of home and community they want. And having a trusted source of information and guidance is important to 64%.
“Our survey shows that Americans who are looking to find and purchase a home remain positive about their prospects, and they’re looking to the guidance of quality real estate agents to navigate the entire process,” said Stephen Phillips, chief operating officer for HSF Affiliates LLC. “Home buyers are more informed than ever with their Internet searches and ongoing research; however, there’s a critical need to transform that information into analysis and advice that helps consumers make the best home-buying and selling decisions.”
“Our survey shows that Americans who are looking to find and purchase a home remain positive about their prospects, and they’re looking to the guidance of quality real estate agents to navigate the entire process”Among all respondents, the national survey also found that confidence in real estate and home values jumped sharply, reaching 83% vs. 77% in Q1 study and 73% at year-end. Confidence is highest in both South and West regions at 84%.
“Young Americans, like the majority of survey participants, are feeling much better about homeownership,” said Earl Lee, chief executive officer of HSF Affiliates LLC and president of Prudential Real Estate. “People are looking optimistically at housing for all right reasons – a place to feel secure, build a future and raise a family.”
Among all respondents, 70% said that finding the right home and community is crucial to family happiness. Millennials were even more emphatic about the emotional side of homeownership: 93% favor a home for “more space for my family,” while only 75% view it as “financial security to borrow against.”
“Consumers are mindful of the challenges faced during the real estate downturn,” added Lee. “Though homeownership makes a solid, long-term investment, a home should never be considered a siding-clad ATM.”
Mortgage and Rate Watch
On securing a mortgage loan, consumer sentiment continues reflecting the challenges people face through strict underwriting guidelines and credit-score requirements:
- 57% of respondents said securing a mortgage is more difficult than it ever was prior to the market crisis.
- Nearly 40% said lenders are “overly cautious” when it comes to mortgage financing.
- Anxiety and fear of losing a real estate opportunity are respondents’ main emotional challenges in seeking home financing.
- With rates rising recently, 71% said they are encouraged to buy a home now rather than later. It is worth noting that 78% of respondents indicated that homeownership is valuable regardless of shifting rates.
The knowledge gap calls for advice and guidance from real estate professionals to help people make the best choices. Of survey respondents, 63% indicated that a good agent can help them make the right choices about the type of home and community they want. And having a trusted source of information and guidance is important to 64%.
“Our survey shows that Americans who are looking to find and purchase a home remain positive about their prospects, and they’re looking to the guidance of quality real estate agents to navigate the entire process,” said Stephen Phillips, chief operating officer for HSF Affiliates LLC. “Home buyers are more informed than ever with their Internet searches and ongoing research; however, there’s a critical need to transform that information into analysis and advice that helps consumers make the best home-buying and selling decisions.”
August 23, 2013
June 2013 Unsold Inventory and Time on Market
June 2013 | Unsold Inventory Index | Median Time on Market | ||||||||
State/Region/County | June 2013 |
May 2013 | June 2012 | June 2013 | May 2013 | June 2012 | ||||
CA SFH (SAAR) | 2.9 | 2.6 | 3.5 | 27.7 | 27.1 | 43.5 | ||||
CA Condo/Townhomes | 2.7 | 2.4 | 3.5 | 27.5 | 27.2 | 49.1 | ||||
Los Angeles Metro Area | 2.9 | 2.7 | 3.5 | 34.3 | 33.5 | 49.7 | ||||
Inland Empire | 3.0 | 2.8 | 3.1 | 33.2 | 33.9 | 47.8 | ||||
S.F. Bay Area | 2.3 | 2.2 | 2.7 | 34.1 | 31.4 | 44.3 | ||||
S.F. Bay Area | ||||||||||
Alameda | 1.9 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 49.5 | 48.2 | 59.5 | ||||
Contra-Costa (Central Cty.) | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 50.0 | 47.3 | 62.2 | ||||
Marin | 2.9 | 2.8 | 4.3 | 33.3 | 29.6 | 44.4 | ||||
Napa | 5.3 | 4.0 | 5.4 | 47.9 | 47.9 | 74.3 | ||||
San Francisco | 2.4 | 2.9 | 3.1 | 24.8 | 24.2 | 35.3 | ||||
San Mateo | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 18.5 | 18.1 | 20.5 | ||||
Santa Clara | 2.0 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 17.8 | 17.7 | 20.7 | ||||
Solano | 2.7 | 1.8 | 3.7 | 37.6 | 32.5 | 52.4 | ||||
Sonoma | 3.1 | 2.8 | 3.9 | 44.6 | 43.1 | 58.9 | ||||
Southern California | ||||||||||
Los Angeles | 2.8 | 2.5 | 3.4 | 28.8 | 27.9 | 46.6 | ||||
Orange County | 3.0 | 2.7 | 4.2 | 42.5 | 42.1 | 56.0 | ||||
Riverside County | 2.9 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 34.0 | 34.9 | 51.6 | ||||
San Bernardino | 3.1 | 2.9 | 3.4 | 31.7 | 31.8 | 41.1 | ||||
San Diego | 3.2 | 2.8 | 4.2 | 24.1 | 24.7 | 42.6 | ||||
Ventura | 3.6 | 3.2 | 4.3 | 45.3 | 44.0 | 63.0 | ||||
Central Coast | ||||||||||
Monterey | 3.9 | 3.6 | 4.1 | 25.3 | 23.7 | 24.6 | ||||
San Luis Obispo | 3.9 | 3.5 | 4.0 | 24.7 | 23.8 | 42.0 | ||||
Santa Barbara | 4.5 | 3.4 | 4.0 | r | 29.7 | 28.4 | 65.4 | r | ||
Santa Cruz | 3.3 | 2.7 | 4.4 | 21.6 | 21.2 | 34.2 | ||||
Central Valley | ||||||||||
Fresno | 3.4 | 3.6 | 4.1 | 24.4 | 24.7 | 27.2 | ||||
Glenn | 4.3 | 5.4 | NA | 34.6 | 61.0 | 24.8 | ||||
Kern (Bakersfield) | 2.0 | 1.8 | r | 2.9 | r | 13.0 | 16.0 | 34.0 | r | |
Kings County | 3.1 | 2.5 | 2.9 | r | 44.3 | 26.9 | 39.4 | r | ||
Madera | 2.6 | 3.6 | 3.1 | 33.4 | 27.3 | 47.1 | ||||
Merced | 2.4 | 2.1 | 2.5 | 26.0 | 25.7 | 45.5 | ||||
Placer County | 2.4 | 2.3 | 3.7 | 20.0 | 20.3 | 28.4 | ||||
Sacramento | 2.4 | 2.0 | 3.4 | 18.8 | 18.6 | 27.5 | ||||
San Benito | 2.2 | 2.0 | 2.9 | 22.3 | 20.1 | 24.9 | ||||
San Joaquin | 2.6 | 2.2 | 3.6 | 19.4 | 19.4 | 28.0 | ||||
Stanislaus | 2.3 | 2.4 | 3.0 | 19.7 | 18.6 | 28.6 | ||||
Tulare | 3.2 | 2.7 | 2.9 | r | 24.5 | 24.2 | 26.4 | r | ||
Other Counties in California | ||||||||||
Amador | NA | NA | 5.1 | NA | NA | 51.1 | ||||
Butte County | 4.2 | 2.9 | 4.4 | 24.2 | 26.4 | 27.7 | ||||
Calaveras | 6.2 | 4.2 | NA | 37.0 | 31.0 | NA | ||||
Del Norte | 11.3 | 7.6 | NA | 133.0 | 178.0 | NA | ||||
El Dorado County | 4.0 | 3.3 | 4.5 | 68.3 | 69.0 | r | 98.3 | r | ||
Humboldt | 5.6 | 5.0 | 6.1 | 29.7 | 27.5 | 41.0 | ||||
Lake County | 5.8 | 5.0 | 5.2 | 56.4 | 69.7 | 68.6 | ||||
Tuolumne | 5.7 | 4.7 | 5.8 | 45.5 | 28.1 | 44.7 | ||||
Mendocino | 8.5 | 6.7 | 8.9 | 84.2 | 66.8 | 70.7 | ||||
Shasta | 3.4 | 2.7 | 4.1 | 25.1 | 26.8 | 25.5 | ||||
Siskiyou County | 11.8 | 9.1 | 13.5 | 57.6 | 64.6 | 51.3 | ||||
Tehama | 5.0 | 6.4 | 5.9 | 41.9 | 33.4 | 50.3 | ||||
Yolo | 2.1 | 2.3 | 3.2 | 18.6 | 19.4 | 29.8 |
Original source - CAR.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)