FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FRIDAY, JULY 17, 2015 AT 8:30 A.M. EDT
CB15-121
Raemeka Mayo or Stephen Cooper
Economic Indicators Division
(301) 763-5160
NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IN JUNE 2015
The U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development jointly announced the following new residential construction statistics for June 2015:
BUILDING PERMITS
Privately-owned housing units authorized by building permits in June were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,343,000. This is 7.4 percent (±1.2%) above the revised May rate of 1,250,000 and is 30.0 percent (±2.3%) above the June 2014 estimate of 1,033,000.
Single-family authorizations in June were at a rate of 687,000; this is 0.9 percent (±1.1%)* above the revised May figure of 681,000. Authorizations of units in buildings with five units or more were at a rate of 621,000 in June.
HOUSING STARTS
Privately-owned housing starts in June were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,174,000. This is 9.8 percent (±19.9%)* above the revised May estimate of 1,069,000 and is 26.6 percent (±19.6%) above the June 2014 rate of 927,000.
Single-family housing starts in June were at a rate of 685,000; this is 0.9 percent (±11.5%)* below the revised May figure of 691,000. The June rate for units in buildings with five units or more was 476,000.
HOUSING COMPLETIONS
Privately-owned housing completions in June were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 972,000. This is 6.7 percent (±11.8%)* below the revised May estimate of 1,042,000, but is 22.0 percent (±14.8%) above the June 2014 rate of 797,000.
Single-family housing completions in June were at a rate of 647,000; this is 0.3 percent (±9.3%)* below the revised May rate of 649,000. The June rate for units in buildings with five units or more was 317,000.
New Residential Construction data for July 2015 will be released on Tuesday, August 18, 2015, at 8:30 A.M. EDT.
Our Internet site is: http://www.census.gov/starts
To learn more about this release and the other indicators the U.S. Census Bureau publishes, join us for the Investigating Economic Indicators Webinar Series. For more information, visit www.census.gov/econ/webinar.
To receive the latest updates on the Nation's key economic indicators, download the America's Economy app for Apple and Android smartphones and tablets.
EXPLANATORY NOTES
In interpreting changes in the statistics in this release, note that month-to-month changes in seasonally adjusted statistics often show movements which may be irregular. It may take 3 months to establish an underlying trend for building permit authorizations, 6 months for total starts, and 5 months for total completions. The statistics in this release are estimated from sample surveys and are subject to sampling variability as well as nonsampling error including bias and variance from response, nonreporting, and undercoverage. Estimated relative standard errors of the most recent data are shown in the tables. Whenever a statement such as “2.5 percent (±3.2%) above” appears in the text, this indicates the range (-0.7 to +5.7 percent) in which the actual percent change is likely to have occurred. All ranges given for percent changes are 90-percent confidence intervals and account only for sampling variability. If a range does not contain zero, the change is statistically significant. If it does contain zero, the change is not statistically significant; that is, it is uncertain whether there was an increase or decrease. The same policies apply to the confidence intervals for percent changes shown in the tables. On average, the preliminary seasonally adjusted estimates of total building permits, housing starts and housing completions are revised three percent or less. Explanations of confidence intervals and sampling variability can be found on our web site listed above.
* 90% confidence interval includes zero. The Census Bureau does not have sufficient statistical evidence to conclude that the actual change is different from zero.
U.S. Census Bureau NewsJoint ReleaseU.S. Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmentU.S. Department of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20233
A blog updated twice a week, detailing deep and various statistics on real estate sales at Pelican Bay, Naples, Florida. Sales, inventory broken down on individual communities within Pelican Bay.
Friday, July 17, 2015
Friday, July 10, 2015
Global ECONOMICS, HOUSING BUBBLE?
Global saving glut, monetary policy, and housing bubble: Further Evidence
It is generally agreed that housing bubble of the United States at the turn of this century led to the unprecedented global financial crisis and subsequent great recession. Among many theories which attempt to explain reasons for the real estate bubble and the following financial crisis, the hypothesis of global saving glut suggested by Ben S. Bernanke (2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011), a Distinguished Fellow at Brookings Institution and former Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, is a most influential yet controversial one.
Bernanke (2005) raised a concept of global saving glut and initially used it to account for the U.S. current account deficit. Then he (2007a, 2007b) claimed that the global saving glut “played an important role in the decline in long-term rates”. Although Bernanke (2009) did not directly attribute the financial crisis to the global saving glut, he considered that “to achieve more balanced and durable economic growth and to reduce the risks of financial instability, we must avoid ever-increasing and unsustainable imbalances in trade and capital flows”.
In January 2010, Bernanke delivered a keynote speech entitled “Monetary Policy and the Housing Bubble,” at the annual American Economic Association (AEA) meeting, in which he thoroughly discussed adequacy of the Fed’s monetary policy and examined relationship between monetary policy and the rise in housing prices in the first half of the decade. Based on the evidence offered, he (2010a) concluded that the “direct linkages (between monetary policy and housing bubble), at least, are weak.” Moreover, he said, “(monetary) policy during that period—though certainly accommodative (to reduce capital flows)—does not appear to have been inappropriate……What does explain the variability in house price appreciation across countries? In my previous remarks, I have pointed out that capital flows from emerging markets to industrial countries can help to explain asset (housing) price appreciation and low long-term real interest rates in the countries receiving the funds—the so-called global saving glut.”
Bernanke (2010b) reiterated that “because large flows of capital into the United States drove down the returns available on many traditional long-term investments, such as Treasury bonds, investors' appetite for alternative investments—such as loans to finance corporate mergers or commercial real estate projects—increased greatly in the years leading up to the crisis. These securities too were packaged and sold through the shadow banking system.” Bernanke (2010c) further explained that “a key driver of this ‘uphill’ flow of capital is official reserve accumulation in the emerging market economies that exceeds private capital in-flows to these economies. The total holdings of foreign exchange reserves by selected major emerging market economies… have risen sharply since the crisis and now surpass $5 trillion…China holds about half of the total reserves of these selected economies, slightly more than $2.6 trillion.”
Moreover, Bernanke (2011) pointed out that “the failures of the U.S. financial system in allocating strong flows of capital, both domestic and foreign, helped precipitate the recent financial crisis and global recession…A significant portion of these capital inflows reflected a broader phenomenon that, in the past, I have dubbed the global saving glut. Over the past 15 years or so, for reasons on which I have elaborated in earlier remarks, many emerging market economies have run large, sustained current account surpluses and thus have become exporters of capital to the advanced economies, especially the United States. These in-flows exacerbated the U.S. current account deficit and were also a factor pushing U.S. and global longer-term interest rates below levels suggested by expected short-term rates and other macroeconomic fundamentals.”
In sum, the global saving glut hypothesis contains a cluster of logically articulated arguments: 1) monetary policy of the U.S. Federal Reserve is appropriate prior to the financial crisis during the first decade of this century; 2) the linkage between monetary policy and housing price appreciation across industrial countries including the United States is statistically insignificant and economically weak during this period; 3) the monetary policy is accommodative to cope with capital flows from reserve-rich countries, especially developing and emerging-market nations; and 4) massive accumulation of foreign reserves and consequent capital inflows from these economies to the United States leads to low long-term real rates and housing price bubble, so as to bring about the financial crisis.
However, the literature has far from reached a consensus regarding this important assumption. On the one hand, many authors offered theoretical explanations and presented some empirical evidences in favor of the global saving glut hypothesis from various respects. For example, Caballero, Farhi and Gourinchas (2008) used a formal framework to account for central role of international financial development heterogeneity on the global imbalances and low interest rates. Warnocka and Warnockd (2009) estimated that if there were absent the substantial foreign inflows into U.S. government bonds, the long-term Treasury yield would be 80 basis points higher. Dokko et al. (2009) argued that monetary policy was not a primary factor in the housing bubble and also suspect that tighter monetary policy would not have been the best response to the bubble. Bean et al. (2010) showed that low policy rates only played a modest direct role to the growth in credit and the rise in house prices in the run‐up to the crisis. Poole (2010) pointed out that the federal policies were just supporting actors for the financial crisis but the responsibility rests primarily with the private sector. Kuttner (2012) reviewed empirical studies and concluded that impact of interest rates on house prices appears to be quite modest and the estimated effects are too small to explain the housing boom in the United States and elsewhere over the past decade. Hofmann and Bogdanova (2012) suggested that monetary policy has probably been systematically accommodative globally due to “an asymmetric reaction of monetary policy to the different stages of the financial cycle in core advanced economies, and global behavioral monetary policy spillovers through resistance to
undesired capital flows and exchange rate movements in other countries, especially in EMEs.”
On the other hand, Taylor (2007, 2009, 2010, 2012) argued that excessively low policy rates led to the housing bubble. Based on the statistical analysis, Taylor (2009) concluded that “government actions and interventions caused, prolonged, and worsened the financial crisis. They caused it by deviating from historical precedents and principles for setting interest rates, which had worked well for 20 years”. Seyfried (2010) found that loose monetary policy significantly affected housing price inflation in Ireland, Spain and the United States in the recent years. Rötheli (2010) stated that the easing monetary policy was responsible for the financial crisis and it is necessary to employ monetary policy to restrain financial boom–bust cycles in the future. Mishikin (2011) commended that “although it is far from clear that the Federal Reserve is to blame for the housing bubble, the explosion of microeconomic research, both theoretical and empirical, suggests that there is a case for monetary policy to play a role in creating credit bubbles.” Sá, Towbin and Wieladek (2011) used a panel data of the OECD countries to prove that monetary policy and capital inflows shocks had a significant and positive effect on real house prices, real credit to the private sector and real residential investment. Borio and Disyatat (2011) indicated that it was not global excess saving but credit creation, a defining feature of a monetary economy, which played a key role as main contributor to the financial crisis. Sánchez (2011) suggested that expansionary monetary policy beyond optimal rules during a long-lasting period and policies of artificially promoting credit expansion should be avoided, because they produced inadequate incentives for private sectors. McDonald and Stokes (2013) employed three alternative models and monthly data of the period 1987 to 2010 to reveal that the Federal funds rate in the U.S. had negative impacts on changes of housing prices. Based on panel data of 18 OECD countries from 1920 to 2011, Bordo, and Landon-Lane (2013) documented that loose monetary policy (either an interest rate below the target rate or a money growth rate above the target growth rate) positively affected general asset prices. This result was robust across multiple asset prices and different specifications, and it was present with other alternative explanations such as low inflation or "easy" credit controlled.
Although the above-mentioned researchers explored the issue from different perspectives, there were no decisive and convincing evidence regarding it. Therefore, more studies must be pursued to fully assess validity of the global saving glut assumption. This paper aims to provide additional evidence to verify the global saving glut hypothesis. Section I will broadly evaluate appropriation of the Fed’s monetary policy in line with the Taylor rule by using wide range of data sets. Section II will further document relationship between monetary policy and housing prices across countries. Section III will discuss linkage between the Fed’s monetary policy and foreign reserves of the East Asian export-oriented economies and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) member countries. Section VI will search documentary clues to identify if monetary policy is accommodative to internal or external factors. Finally, Section V will provide concluding remarks.
In January 2010, Bernanke delivered a keynote speech entitled “Monetary Policy and the Housing Bubble,” at the annual American Economic Association (AEA) meeting, in which he thoroughly discussed adequacy of the Fed’s monetary policy and examined relationship between monetary policy and the rise in housing prices in the first half of the decade. Based on the evidence offered, he (2010a) concluded that the “direct linkages (between monetary policy and housing bubble), at least, are weak.” Moreover, he said, “(monetary) policy during that period—though certainly accommodative (to reduce capital flows)—does not appear to have been inappropriate……What does explain the variability in house price appreciation across countries? In my previous remarks, I have pointed out that capital flows from emerging markets to industrial countries can help to explain asset (housing) price appreciation and low long-term real interest rates in the countries receiving the funds—the so-called global saving glut.”
Bernanke (2010b) reiterated that “because large flows of capital into the United States drove down the returns available on many traditional long-term investments, such as Treasury bonds, investors' appetite for alternative investments—such as loans to finance corporate mergers or commercial real estate projects—increased greatly in the years leading up to the crisis. These securities too were packaged and sold through the shadow banking system.” Bernanke (2010c) further explained that “a key driver of this ‘uphill’ flow of capital is official reserve accumulation in the emerging market economies that exceeds private capital in-flows to these economies. The total holdings of foreign exchange reserves by selected major emerging market economies… have risen sharply since the crisis and now surpass $5 trillion…China holds about half of the total reserves of these selected economies, slightly more than $2.6 trillion.”
Moreover, Bernanke (2011) pointed out that “the failures of the U.S. financial system in allocating strong flows of capital, both domestic and foreign, helped precipitate the recent financial crisis and global recession…A significant portion of these capital inflows reflected a broader phenomenon that, in the past, I have dubbed the global saving glut. Over the past 15 years or so, for reasons on which I have elaborated in earlier remarks, many emerging market economies have run large, sustained current account surpluses and thus have become exporters of capital to the advanced economies, especially the United States. These in-flows exacerbated the U.S. current account deficit and were also a factor pushing U.S. and global longer-term interest rates below levels suggested by expected short-term rates and other macroeconomic fundamentals.”
In sum, the global saving glut hypothesis contains a cluster of logically articulated arguments: 1) monetary policy of the U.S. Federal Reserve is appropriate prior to the financial crisis during the first decade of this century; 2) the linkage between monetary policy and housing price appreciation across industrial countries including the United States is statistically insignificant and economically weak during this period; 3) the monetary policy is accommodative to cope with capital flows from reserve-rich countries, especially developing and emerging-market nations; and 4) massive accumulation of foreign reserves and consequent capital inflows from these economies to the United States leads to low long-term real rates and housing price bubble, so as to bring about the financial crisis.
However, the literature has far from reached a consensus regarding this important assumption. On the one hand, many authors offered theoretical explanations and presented some empirical evidences in favor of the global saving glut hypothesis from various respects. For example, Caballero, Farhi and Gourinchas (2008) used a formal framework to account for central role of international financial development heterogeneity on the global imbalances and low interest rates. Warnocka and Warnockd (2009) estimated that if there were absent the substantial foreign inflows into U.S. government bonds, the long-term Treasury yield would be 80 basis points higher. Dokko et al. (2009) argued that monetary policy was not a primary factor in the housing bubble and also suspect that tighter monetary policy would not have been the best response to the bubble. Bean et al. (2010) showed that low policy rates only played a modest direct role to the growth in credit and the rise in house prices in the run‐up to the crisis. Poole (2010) pointed out that the federal policies were just supporting actors for the financial crisis but the responsibility rests primarily with the private sector. Kuttner (2012) reviewed empirical studies and concluded that impact of interest rates on house prices appears to be quite modest and the estimated effects are too small to explain the housing boom in the United States and elsewhere over the past decade. Hofmann and Bogdanova (2012) suggested that monetary policy has probably been systematically accommodative globally due to “an asymmetric reaction of monetary policy to the different stages of the financial cycle in core advanced economies, and global behavioral monetary policy spillovers through resistance to
undesired capital flows and exchange rate movements in other countries, especially in EMEs.”
On the other hand, Taylor (2007, 2009, 2010, 2012) argued that excessively low policy rates led to the housing bubble. Based on the statistical analysis, Taylor (2009) concluded that “government actions and interventions caused, prolonged, and worsened the financial crisis. They caused it by deviating from historical precedents and principles for setting interest rates, which had worked well for 20 years”. Seyfried (2010) found that loose monetary policy significantly affected housing price inflation in Ireland, Spain and the United States in the recent years. Rötheli (2010) stated that the easing monetary policy was responsible for the financial crisis and it is necessary to employ monetary policy to restrain financial boom–bust cycles in the future. Mishikin (2011) commended that “although it is far from clear that the Federal Reserve is to blame for the housing bubble, the explosion of microeconomic research, both theoretical and empirical, suggests that there is a case for monetary policy to play a role in creating credit bubbles.” Sá, Towbin and Wieladek (2011) used a panel data of the OECD countries to prove that monetary policy and capital inflows shocks had a significant and positive effect on real house prices, real credit to the private sector and real residential investment. Borio and Disyatat (2011) indicated that it was not global excess saving but credit creation, a defining feature of a monetary economy, which played a key role as main contributor to the financial crisis. Sánchez (2011) suggested that expansionary monetary policy beyond optimal rules during a long-lasting period and policies of artificially promoting credit expansion should be avoided, because they produced inadequate incentives for private sectors. McDonald and Stokes (2013) employed three alternative models and monthly data of the period 1987 to 2010 to reveal that the Federal funds rate in the U.S. had negative impacts on changes of housing prices. Based on panel data of 18 OECD countries from 1920 to 2011, Bordo, and Landon-Lane (2013) documented that loose monetary policy (either an interest rate below the target rate or a money growth rate above the target growth rate) positively affected general asset prices. This result was robust across multiple asset prices and different specifications, and it was present with other alternative explanations such as low inflation or "easy" credit controlled.
Although the above-mentioned researchers explored the issue from different perspectives, there were no decisive and convincing evidence regarding it. Therefore, more studies must be pursued to fully assess validity of the global saving glut assumption. This paper aims to provide additional evidence to verify the global saving glut hypothesis. Section I will broadly evaluate appropriation of the Fed’s monetary policy in line with the Taylor rule by using wide range of data sets. Section II will further document relationship between monetary policy and housing prices across countries. Section III will discuss linkage between the Fed’s monetary policy and foreign reserves of the East Asian export-oriented economies and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) member countries. Section VI will search documentary clues to identify if monetary policy is accommodative to internal or external factors. Finally, Section V will provide concluding remarks.
Downloads
Authors
- Qiao Yu
- Fan Hanwen
- Wu Xun
Saturday, June 20, 2015
May Results
|
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
US Housing Starts
NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IN MAY 2015
The U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development jointly announced the following new residential construction statistics for May 2015:
BUILDING PERMITS
Privately-owned housing units authorized by building permits in May were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,275,000. This is 11.8 percent (±1.8%) above the revised April rate of 1,140,000 and is 25.4 percent (±2.1%) above the May 2014 estimate of 1,017,000.
Single-family authorizations in May were at a rate of 683,000; this is 2.6 percent (±1.2%) above the revised April figure of 666,000. Authorizations of units in buildings with five units or more were at a rate of 557,000 in May.
HOUSING STARTS Privately-owned housing starts in May were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,036,000. This is 11.1 percent (±10.4%) below the revised April estimate of 1,165,000, but is 5.1 percent (±11.2%)* above the May 2014 rate of 986,000.
Single-family housing starts in May were at a rate of 680,000; this is 5.4 percent (±7.0%)* below the revised April figure of 719,000. The May rate for units in buildings with five units or more was 349,000.
HOUSING COMPLETIONS Privately-owned housing completions in May were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,034,000. This is 4.7 percent (±13.8%)* above the revised April estimate of 988,000 and is 14.5 percent (±14.4%) above the May 2014 rate of 903,000.
Single-family housing completions in May were at a rate of 635,000; this is 5.2 percent (±11.4%)* below the revised April rate of 670,000. The May rate for units in buildings with five units or more was 392,000.
New Residential Construction data for June 2015 will be released on Friday, July 17, 2015, at 8:30 A.M. EDT.
The U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development jointly announced the following new residential construction statistics for May 2015:
BUILDING PERMITS
Privately-owned housing units authorized by building permits in May were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,275,000. This is 11.8 percent (±1.8%) above the revised April rate of 1,140,000 and is 25.4 percent (±2.1%) above the May 2014 estimate of 1,017,000.
Single-family authorizations in May were at a rate of 683,000; this is 2.6 percent (±1.2%) above the revised April figure of 666,000. Authorizations of units in buildings with five units or more were at a rate of 557,000 in May.
HOUSING STARTS Privately-owned housing starts in May were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,036,000. This is 11.1 percent (±10.4%) below the revised April estimate of 1,165,000, but is 5.1 percent (±11.2%)* above the May 2014 rate of 986,000.
Single-family housing starts in May were at a rate of 680,000; this is 5.4 percent (±7.0%)* below the revised April figure of 719,000. The May rate for units in buildings with five units or more was 349,000.
HOUSING COMPLETIONS Privately-owned housing completions in May were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,034,000. This is 4.7 percent (±13.8%)* above the revised April estimate of 988,000 and is 14.5 percent (±14.4%) above the May 2014 rate of 903,000.
Single-family housing completions in May were at a rate of 635,000; this is 5.2 percent (±11.4%)* below the revised April rate of 670,000. The May rate for units in buildings with five units or more was 392,000.
New Residential Construction data for June 2015 will be released on Friday, July 17, 2015, at 8:30 A.M. EDT.
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
April Results
|
Friday, May 1, 2015
US and regional existing sales stats
Single-family and Condo/Co-op Sales
Single-family home sales rose 5.5 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.59 million in March from 4.35 million in February, and are now 10.9 percent above the 4.14 million pace a year ago. The median existing single-family home price was $213,500 in March, up 8.7 percent from March 2014.
Existing condominium and co-op sales increased 11.1 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 600,000 units in March from 540,000 units in February, and are now 7.1 percent higher than March 2014 (560,000 units). The median existing condo price was $201,400 in March, which is 1.6 percent higher than a year ago.
Regional Breakdown
March existing-home sales in the Northeast increased 6.9 percent to an annual rate of 620,000, and are 1.6 percent above a year ago. The median price in the Northeast was $240,500, which is 1.6 percent below a year ago.
In the Midwest, existing-home sales jumped 10.1 percent to an annual rate of 1.20 million in March, and are now 12.1 percent above March 2014. The median price in the Midwest was $163,600, up 9.7 percent from a year ago.
Existing-home sales in the South climbed 3.8 percent to an annual rate of 2.19 million in March, and are now 11.7 percent above March 2014. The median price in the South was $187,900, up 9.3 percent from a year ago.
Existing-home sales in the West rose 6.3 percent to an annual rate of 1.18 million in March, and are now 11.3 percent above a year ago. The median price in the West was $305,000, which is 8.3 percent above March 2014.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
US statistics
Sales of new single family houses in March 2015 were 481,000 at a seasonally adjusted annual rate (SAAR), down 11.4 percent from February’s revised rate but up 19.4 percent from March 2014.
Friday, April 17, 2015
Naples Area Statistics
Buyers Shift Focus to Condominium Market
Contacts: Pat Pitocchi, NABOR® Media Relations Committee Chairman, (239) 398-8650,
Marcia Albert, NABOR® Director of Marketing, (239) 597-1666
Naples, Fla. (April 17, 2015) - Overall activity in the Naples area real estate market across all price categories remains steady, according to the First Quarter 2015 Market Report released by the Naples Area Board of REALTORS® (NABOR®), which tracks home listings and sales within Collier County (excluding Marco Island). Most notable in the report was the $300,000 - $500,000 price category for condominiums in which the overall closed and pending sales increased by double digits in the first quarter of 2015. Statistics show a recent shift in buyer focus from single-family homes to condominiums.
Broker analysts reviewing the First Quarter 2015 Market Report agree that a new trend may be emerging, as the report showed condominiums outperforming single-family home sales. As such, these analysts predict condominiums will see continued rise in activity moving into summer.
"Pending and closed sales in the mid-level price range [$300K - $500K] for both March and first quarter outperformed all other areas of the market," said Phil Wood, President & CEO of John R. Wood Properties. "Perhaps this is reflective of vacation home buyers who want a place to escape the winter weather. Condos are the easiest way for them to do so, since exterior maintenance issues are handled by the associations."
"The difference in performance between the single-family home market and condo market in the $300,000 -$500,000 price category for the first quarter is quite impressive," said Steve Barker, Advising Broker for Equity Realty. "Pending sales for condominiums in the $300,000 - $500,000 price category increased 53 percent. Yet, while the single family home market is very good, pending sales for single-family homes in this same price category increased only half that, at 26 percent."
Supporting analysis presented by Cindy Carroll SRA, with the real estate appraisal and consultancy firm Carroll & Carroll, Inc., at NABOR®'s Economic Summit earlier this month, several brokers including Kathy Zorn, Bill Coffey and Mike Hughes pointed out that the First Quarter 2015 Market Report indicated location as a big factor in home sales activity.
Hughes remarked that, "the overall median closed price in all geo-specific areas of the county increased double digits compared to the same quarter last year." Zorn added, "in both the Central Naples and South Naples areas, the median closed price rose 17 percent compared to the first quarter of 2014."
Overall inventory for the $300,000 - $500,000 price category in the first quarter of 2015 increased 14 percent from 934 homes in the first quarter of 2014 to 1,061 homes in the first quarter of 2015. Only the inventory in the over $2 million price category had a larger increase - 18 percent - expanding from 400 homes in the first quarter of 2014 to 471 homes in the first quarter of 2015.
"The number of people paying cash for their homes remains strong," said Barker, who added, "a stunning 73 percent of all home sales in the first quarter of 2015 were cash-only purchases. Strict lending standards combined with low inventory continue to give the advantage to cash buyers in this housing market."
"We also see that in March, traditional sales dominated the market at 91 percent," said Bill Poteet, owner and broker at Poteet Properties. "There were 921 traditional sales and only 19 non-traditional [short sale and/or foreclosed] sales." He went on to note that March's market performance is typically a leading indicator of the trend we can expect going in to the summer.
The NABOR® 1Q 2015 Market Report provides comparisons of single-family home and condominium sales (via the Southwest Florida MLS), price ranges, and geographic segmentation and includes an overall market summary. The NABOR® 1Q 2015 sales statistics are presented in chart format, including these overall (single-family and condominium) findings:
- Overall pending sales increased 3 percent from 3,532 in 1Q 2014 to 3,628 in 1Q 2015.
- Pending sales in the single-family home market increased 5 percent from 1,563 single-family homes in 1Q 2014 to 1,634 single-family homes in 1Q 2015.
- Pending sales in the condominium market increase 1 percent from 1,969 condominiums in 1Q 2014 to 1,994 condominiums in 1Q 2015.
- Overall closed sales decreased 4 percent from 2,409 in 1Q 2014 to 2,312 in 1Q 2015.
- Closed sales for single-family homes decreased 13 percent in the $0 - $300,000 price category from 473 single-family homes in 1Q 2014 to 412 single-family homes in the 1Q 2015,
- Closed sales for single-family homes increased 14 percent in the $300,000 - $500,000 price category from 264 single-family homes in 1Q 2014 to 300 single-family homes in 1Q 2015.
- Overall median closed price increased 13 percent from $265,000 in 1Q 2014 to $300,000 in 1Q 2015.
- Overall median closed price for homes over $2 million increased 11 percent from $2,877,000 in 1Q 2014 to $3,200,000 in 1Q 2015.
- Median closed price for condominiums in the $2 million and above price category decreased 13 percent from $2,775,000 in 1Q 2014 to $2,405,000 in 1Q 2015.
- Overall inventory decreased 3 percent from 4,405 homes in 1Q 2014 to 4,253 homes in 1Q 2015.
- Inventory of single-family homes in the $0 - $300,000 price category decreased 28 percent from 537 single-family homes in 1Q 2014 to 385 single-family homes in 1Q 2015.
- Inventory of single-family homes in the $500,000 - $1 million price category increased 21 percent from 529 in 1Q 2014 to 640 in 1Q 2015.
- Inventory for condominiums in the $2 million and above price category increased 77 percent from 39 in 1Q 2014 to 69 in 1Q 2015.
- Average days on market decreased 11 percent from 95 in 1Q 2014 to 85 in 1Q 2015.
The NABOR® March 2015 Market Report was also released and reflected these overall (single-family and condominium) findings:
- Overall pending sales increased 9 percent from 1,399 homes in March 2014 to 1,520 homes in March 2015.
- Overall closed sales increased 3 percent from 981 homes in March 2014 to 1,014 homes in March 2015.
- Overall median closed price increased 12 percent from $248,000 in the 12-months ending March 2014 to $278,000 in the 12-months ending March 2015.
- Overall median closed price in the $0-$300,000 category increased 9 percent from $165,000 in the 12-months ending March 2014 to $189,000 in the 12-months ending March 2015.
- Overall inventory decreased 3 percent from 4,405 homes in March 2014 to 4,253 in March 2015.
- Average days on market decreased 16 percent from 94 days in March 2014 to 80 days in March 2015.
"The statistics show that the lower the price category, the faster the home will sell and the higher the price category, the longer it takes to sell," said Brenda Fioretti, Managing Broker at Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices Florida Realty. "For example, homes in the $0 - $300,000 price range sold in an average of 64 days in the first quarter of 2015, while homes in the over $2 million price category stayed on the market 152 days before they sold."
The First Quarter 2015 and March 2015 Market Reports reflect exactly what all three economic experts predicted at NABOR®'s 4th annual Economic Summit: that the real estate industry in Florida is very good and will continue to stay very good through 2015.
The Naples Area Board of REALTORS® (NABOR®) is an established organization (Chartered in 1949) whose members have a positive and progressive impact on the Naples Community. NABOR® is a local board of REALTORS® and real estate professionals with a legacy of nearly 60 years serving 5,000 plus members. NABOR® is a member of the Florida Realtors and the National Association of REALTORS®, which is the largest association in the United States with more than 1.3 million members and over 1,400 local board of REALTORS® nationwide. NABOR® is structured to provide programs and services to its membership through various committees and the NABOR® Board of Directors, all of whose members are non-paid volunteers.
The term REALTOR® is a registered collective membership mark which identifies a real estate professional who is a member of the National Association of REALTORS® and who subscribe to its strict Code of Ethics.
Thursday, April 16, 2015
1st Quarter 2015 results
Prices are continuing their upward trend. The first quarter results are in, average
days of the market was 74(DOM), average sales price was $1,232,280 and the
median sales price was $835,000. The
most significant fact was the DOM last August it was 127 days, indicating that
buyers are moving faster to gobble up listings that are fairly priced. We had 94 sales the first quarter with
inventory today of 99 listings indicating tight market of only 3 months
supply. Average sales price to listing
was 95.5%
Thursday, March 26, 2015
March Area Stats
NABOR® Report Indicates Healthy Market Trends Continue
Contacts: Pat Pitocchi, NABOR® Media Relations Committee Chairman, (239) 398-8650,
Marcia Albert, NABOR® Director of Marketing, (239) 597-1666
(March 20, 2015) - An increase in the number of home sales in the over $300,000 price categories, overall rising median closed prices, and an increase in inventory in most price segments were just some of the trends included in NABOR's February 2015 Market Report released by the Naples Area Board of REALTORS® (NABOR®), which tracks home listings and sales within Collier County (excluding Marco Island). But the best news? These trends are expected to continue.
According to Kathy Zorn, broker/owner of Florida Home Realty, "February's activity revealed that sellers may not be sitting on the fence anymore. It's been 10 years of recovery and many homeowners who've weathered it may be at a place where they feel satisfied their property's value has recovered."
While overall closed sales activity for single-family homes remained even in February 2015 compared to a year ago, its inventory grew by 6 percent from 2,305 homes in February 2014 to 2,449 homes in February 2015. "I don't think the increase in inventory is necessarily all due to bracket creep," said Zorn. "Homeowners keep an eye on their property values. When they presume their home has rebuilt equity, many will contact a REALTOR® to confirm the increase in value. If the equity is confirmed, they're likely to put their home on the market."
"We saw year-over-year growth in our overall median closed prices throughout 2014; and with February getting off to a similar start, we expect that trend will continue," Vice President and General Manager of Downing-Frye Realty and NABOR®'s 2015 President Mike Hughes said. "Our inventory remains low yet we ended February with 1,280 sales pending. This indicates a healthy market."
According to Kathy Zorn, broker/owner of Florida Home Realty, "February's activity revealed that sellers may not be sitting on the fence anymore. It's been 10 years of recovery and many homeowners who've weathered it may be at a place where they feel satisfied their property's value has recovered."
Wes Kunkle, a commercial broker at Kunkle Realty, said the resale market's recovery will likely affect new home construction prices. "The report shows a trend of increased inventory in single-family homes that I believe will begin to put pressure on new home construction prices. We may see a pricing peak in the new home market sooner than later."
However, as indicated in the February report, the condominium market is not performing as well as the single-family home market. Closed sales for condominiums decreased 17 percent from 395 in February 2014 to 329 in February 2015. As expected, this decrease may be a result of a 16 percent decrease in condominium inventory, which fell from 2,328 units in February 2014 to 1,957 units in February 2015.
"Condos are not recovering as well as single-family homes because they are at the whim of certain financing obstacles," said Cindy Carroll, SRA, with the real estate appraisal and consultancy firm Carroll & Carroll, Inc. "Getting a bank to approve a loan on a condo is more difficult because they typically rely on extenuating factors such as the financial health of the homeowners' association, the age and structural state of the building, and a requirement to receive Fannie Mae approval."
Despite these obstacles, broker analysts think the condominium market's activity in the last year is an indication of its potential for an increase in value. For example, pending sales for condominiums in the $300,000 - $500,000 price category increased 87 percent from 79 units in February 2014 to 148 units in February 2015 and overall, the median closed price jumped 14 percent during that time period. "We've seen a recovery and stellar activity in the single-family home market. It wouldn't surprise me if condominiums became the new exchange," said Carroll. "And may experience the same type of recovery as the single family home market."
The NABOR® February 2015 Market Report provides comparisons of single-family home and condominium sales (via the Southwest Florida MLS), price ranges, and geographic segmentation and includes an overall market summary. The NABOR® February 2015 sales statistics are presented in chart format, including these overall (single-family and condominium) findings:
- Overall pending sales increased 3 percent from 1,244 in February 2014 to 1,280 in February 2015.
- Overall closed sales decreased 1 percent from 9,808 in the 12-months ending February 2014 to 9,720 in the 12-months ending February 2015.
- Closed sales for single-family homes decreased 1 percent from 4,682 homes in February 2014 to 4,612 homes in February 2015.
- Closed sales for condominiums decreased less than a percent from 5,126 condominiums in February 2014 to 5,108 in February 2015.
- Overall median closed price increased 12 percent from $245,000 in the 12-months ending February 2014 to $275,000 in the 12-months ending February 2015.
- Overall inventory decreased 5 percent from 4,633 homes in February 2014 to 4,406 homes in February 2015.
- Inventory for single-family homes increased 6 percent from 2,305 homes in February 2014 to 2,449 homes in February 2015.
- Inventory for condominiums decreased 16 percent from 2,328 in February 2014 to 1,957 in February 2015.
- Average days on market for February 2015 were 93.
There are 3,027 homes for sale in the Naples area that are priced above $300,000. This comprises about 66 percent of the market. If you are a homeowner that sat steady while the market recovered, find out whether your home has gained equity by contacting a REALTOR®. A REALTOR® has the experience and knowledge to do provide an accurate market comparison that will help you determine whether now is the right time to sell your home and ensure your next sale or purchase in the Naples area is a success. Contact a REALTOR® on NaplesArea.com®.
The Naples Area Board of REALTORS® (NABOR®) is an established organization (Chartered in 1949) whose members have a positive and progressive impact on the Naples Community. NABOR® is a local board of REALTORS® and real estate professionals with a legacy of nearly 60 years serving 5,000 plus members. NABOR® is a member of the Florida Realtors and the National Association of REALTORS®, which is the largest association in the United States with more than 1.3 million members and over 1,400 local board of REALTORS® nationwide. NABOR® is structured to provide programs and services to its membership through various committees and the NABOR® Board of Directors, all of whose members are non-paid volunteers.
The term REALTOR® is a registered collective membership mark which identifies a real estate professional who is a member of the National Association of REALTORS® and who subscribe to its strict Code of Ethics.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Naples January Statistics
REALTORS® Complete 1,100 Written Contracts
and 600 Closed Sales in January
Contacts: Pat Pitocchi, NABOR® Media Relations Committee Chairman, (239) 398-8650,
Marcia Albert, NABOR® Director of Marketing, (239) 597-1666
Naples, Fla. (February 20, 2015) - The Naples area housing market is off to a solid start according to broker analysts who evaluated the January 2015 Market Report released by the Naples Area Board of REALTORS® (NABOR®), which tracks home listings and sales within Collier County (excluding Marco Island). Inventory declined a moderate 5 percent from 4,776 homes in January 2014 to 4,515 homes in January 2015, and overall closed sales in every price category above $300,000 increased by double digits in the 12-months ending January 2015. Overall median closed price increased 13 percent to $273,000 in the 12-months ending January 2015 from $242,000 in the 12-months ending January 2014.
"We're not seeing as dramatic a decrease in inventory this January as in last January," said Mike Hughes, NABOR® president and Vice President/General Manager of Downing-Frye Realty. Inventory decreased only 5 percent from January 2014 over January 2015, compared to a decrease in inventory of 15 percent from January 2013 over January 2014. Hughes believes this slowing of inventory decline may be a good sign and remarked that "we should expect another tremendous season for home sales."
As typically seen during the first three months of the year, cash sales are also on the rise. In January, the 394 cash sales reported accounted for 70 percent of home sales transactions in the Naples area. The report also showed sales of foreclosed homes in January were at their lowest - 64 - since NABOR® began reporting home sales activity in July 2009 when foreclosures numbered 240.
"Activity in the luxury home market continues to be the most impressive," said Coco Waldenmayer, a managing broker at John R. Wood Properties. According to the report, pending sales, based on signed real estate contracts, for single family homes in the $1 to $2 million category increased 53 percent from 36 pending sales in January 2014 to 55 in January 2015, while in the same price category in the condominium market, pending sales decreased 22 percent from 36 in January 2014 to 28 pending sales in January 2015. Not surprisingly, the inventory for condominiums in this $1 million to $2 million category had the largest decline too at 26 percent.
As pointed out by several broker analysts during NABOR®'s 2014 annual media conference on January 16th, buyers looking for single family homes in 2015 will be pleased. In fact, according to Cindy Carroll, SRA, with the real estate appraisal and consultancy firm of Carroll & Carroll, Inc., affordable single-family homes are not appreciating out of control, as often speculated. "The median closed price for single-family homes in the $300,000 and below category increased 16 percent from January 2013 to January 2014. Yet the January report showed an increase of only 8 percent from $178,000 in January 2014 to $193,000 in January 2015."
"The key is to work with a REALTOR® that knows the Naples market," said Pat Pitocchi, NABOR® media relations chairperson and corporate trainer at Downing-Frye Realty. "Regardless of whether you are in the market to purchase a starter home or a seasonal residence, a REALTOR® can simplify the process and help you find exactly what you want."
The NABOR® January 2015 Market Report provides comparisons of single-family home and condominium sales (via the Southwest Florida MLS), price ranges, and geographic segmentation and includes an overall market summary. The NABOR® January 2015 sales statistics are presented in chart format, including these overall (single-family and condominium) findings:
- Overall pending sales decreased 1 percent from 1,117 in January 2014 to 1,103 in January 2015.
- Pending sales for single-family homes increased 5 percent from 510 in January 2014 to 536 in January 2015.
- Pending sales for condominiums in the $300,000 to $500,000 category increased 51 percent from 82 in January 2014 to 124 in January 2015.
- Overall closed sales decreased 1 percent from 9,835 in the 12-months ending January 2014 to 9,759 in the 12-months ending January 2015.
- Overall closed sales for single-family homes in the $2 million and above category increased 37 percent from 213 in the 12-months ending January 2014 to 292 in the 12-months ending January 2015.
- Overall median closed price increased 13 percent from $242,000 in the 12-months ending January 2014 to $273,000 in the 12-months ending January 2015.
- Overall inventory decreased 5 percent from 4,776 homes in January 2014 to 4,515 homes in January 2015.
- Average days on market for January 2015 were 85.
According to the report, the inventory of homes for sale in the $300,000 and below category in January 2015 encompassed about 33 percent of the market at 1,479 units. And while overall inventory fell 5 percent from 4,776 in January 2014 to 4,515 in January 2015, the $300,000 and below category experienced the largest drop in inventory (-24%) from 1,938 in January 2014 to 1,479 in January 2015. Despite a sinking of inventory in the $300,000 and below price category, there were increases in inventory in three other price categories: $330,000 to $500,000 increased 15 percent; $500,000 to $1 million increased 8 percent; and $2 million and above increased 12 percent from January 2014 to January 2015.
The greater Naples area housing market has had dramatic changes in inventory, price, availability and demand over the past year; more so in some neighborhoods than in others. It is because of those changes and the increasingly complex documentation involved in buying and selling homes that buyers and sellers are working closely with a REALTOR®. When you work with a REALTOR® who understands the diverse tapestry of the Naples area real estate market, you are partnering with a professional who has the experience you need to buy or sell with confidence in either the new home or resale markets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)