Home Values Rise for 48th Straight Month – Portland, OR Tops List at 14.7%

 Portland, OR reported the highest year-over-year home value appreciation

By Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd Blog

rising housing prices 1(August 18, 2016) –  National home values appreciated for the 48th straight month this July to a Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) of $187,300, according to the Zillow® Real Estate Market Reports.

Home values are up 5 percent over the past year and have been consistently climbing since August 2012, but remain 4.7 percent below peak, which was hit in April 2007 when the median home value was $196,600.

Portland, Dallas, and Denver reported the highest year-over-year home value appreciation among the 35 largest metros across the country. In Portland, home values rose almost 15 percent to a median value of $334,900. Home values in Dallas and Denver appreciated 11.9 and 11.3 percent, respectively.

In notoriously expensive San Francisco, home values have been slowing since the beginning of the year. In January, home values were up almost 12 percent year-over-year and are now appreciating at about half that pace, up 6.6 percent over the past year.

“The consistent rise in home values that we’ve been seeing for the past four years masks a number of region-specific trends that have taken place over the past few months,” said Zillow Chief Economist Dr. Svenja Gudell. “In most areas, the market is being driven mainly by a strong labor market and tight supply, especially among entry-level homes that first-time buyers are after. But some markets – especially the red-hot Pacific Northwest – are adding more jobs and attracting more residents, putting the pressure on home values and rents. The Bay Area and Southern California are still growing at a faster pace than the nation as a whole, but growth rates have come back to earth a bit after several years of rapid growth. And markets in other regions, like the Northeast, keep steadily chugging along. All housing is local, and as the local economies in individual metros ebb and flow, housing will follow suit. More than at any time since the boom and bust, we’re seeing a housing market that is driven by local fundamentals, and not by national trends.”

Rents across the country rose 2 percent over the past year, to a Zillow Rent Index(ZRI) of $1,408 — this is the 47th straight month rents have appreciated.

Of the 35 largest U.S. metros, Seattle, Portland and San Francisco reported the highest year-over-year rent appreciation. In Seattle, rents rose almost 10 percent, to a median rent price of $2,052 per month, while rents in Portland rose just over 8 percent.

In San Francisco, the median rent price rose to $3,407 per month, the second highest of all U.S. metros, right after San Jose, CA. Rents in San Francisco appreciated 6 percent over the past year.

Metropolitan Area Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) Year-Over-Year ZHVI Change  Peak ZHVI Change from Peak Zillow Rent Index (ZRI) Year-Over-Year ZRI Change
United States $           187,300 5.1% $      196,600 -4.7% $         1,408 2.2%
New York/Northern New Jersey $           387,800 3.4% $      445,200 -12.9% $         2,411 3.2%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA $           572,400 5.3% $      604,000 -5.2% $         2,585 4.7%
Chicago, IL $           199,800 4.0% $      247,000 -19.1% $         1,645 0.3%
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX $           191,500 11.9% $      191,500 0.0% $         1,543 4.0%
Philadelphia, PA $           209,200 3.0% $      230,600 -9.3% $         1,582 2.0%
Houston, TX $           173,500 7.6% $      173,500 0.0% $         1,581 1.5%
Washington, DC $           368,600 1.7% $      427,600 -13.8% $         2,123 0.7%
Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL $           237,300 9.3% $      305,100 -22.2% $         1,887 4.8%
Atlanta, GA $           167,300 7.5% $      174,500 -4.1% $         1,311 3.9%
Boston, MA $           396,300 5.8% $      396,300 0.0% $         2,308 4.5%
San Francisco, CA $           807,800 6.6% $      807,800 0.0% $         3,407 6.2%
Detroit, MI $           128,300 6.2% $      157,100 -18.3% $         1,175 2.8%
Riverside, CA $           311,700 7.1% $      403,900 -22.8% $         1,738 4.0%
Phoenix, AZ $           221,900 8.0% $      273,600 -18.9% $         1,298 4.8%
Seattle, WA $           394,600 11.3% $      394,600 0.0% $         2,052 9.9%
Minneapolis-St Paul, MN $           228,400 6.2% $      240,500 -5.0% $         1,541 3.0%
San Diego, CA $           513,600 5.4% $      543,700 -5.5% $         2,424 5.0%
St. Louis, MO $           143,100 5.0% $      158,900 -9.9% $         1,135 1.5%
Tampa, FL $           168,800 9.4% $      214,200 -21.2% $         1,332 3.7%
Baltimore, MD $           253,000 2.8% $      289,100 -12.5% $         1,735 1.0%
Denver, CO $           339,600 11.3% $      339,600 0.0% $         2,013 5.1%
Pittsburgh, PA $           131,000 4.7% $      131,000 0.0% $         1,113 1.8%

Portland, OR

$           334,900

14.7%

$      334,900

0.0%

$         1,772

8.2%

Charlotte, NC $           163,400 6.8% $      163,400 0.0% $         1,240 2.3%
Sacramento, CA $           343,000 7.0% $      420,800 -18.5% $         1,675 5.6%
San Antonio, TX $           152,900 6.6% $      152,900 0.0% $         1,318 1.5%
Orlando, FL $           187,500 7.8% $      256,200 -26.8% $         1,370 3.2%
Cincinnati, OH $           144,700 4.9% $      144,700 0.0% $         1,241 0.4%
Cleveland, OH $           128,800 3.5% $      145,400 -11.4% $         1,148 1.6%
Kansas City, MO $           150,000 5.2% $      159,500 -6.0% $         1,240 2.7%
Las Vegas, NV $           204,700 7.2% $      304,700 -32.8% $         1,238 2.6%
Columbus, OH $           156,900 3.6% $      156,900 0.0%

(Article source: Zillow®)

###

Zillow® is a registered trademark of Zillow, Inc.

For more information about OnlineEd and their education for real estate brokers, princZillow® is a registered trZillow® is a registered trademark of Zillow, Inc.ademark of Zillow, Inc.ipal brokers, property managers, and mortgage brokers, visit www.OnlineEd.com.

All information contained in this posting is deemed correct as of the date of publication, but is not guaranteed by the author and may have been obtained from third-party sources. Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements and laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and should be verified if cited, shared or otherwise republished.

OnlineEd® is a registered Trademark

July 2016 Housing Starts Climb 5.6% Over July 2015

New residential construction report for July 2016

By Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd Blog

housing graph 3(August 18, 2016) – The U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development jointly announced the following new residential construction statistics for July 2016:

BUILDING PERMITS Privately-owned housing units authorized by building permits in July were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,152,000. This is 0.1 percent (±1.2%)* below the revised June rate of 1,153,000, but is 0.9 percent (±1.5%)* above the July 2015 estimate of 1,142,000. Single-family authorizations in July were at a rate of 711,000; this is 3.7 percent (±1.4%) below the revised June figure of 738,000. Authorizations of units in buildings with five units or more were at a rate of 411,000 in July.

HOUSING STARTS Privately-owned housing starts in July were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,211,000. This is 2.1 percent (±8.8%)* above the revised June estimate of 1,186,000 and is 5.6 percent (±14.7%)* above the July 2015 rate of 1,147,000. Single-family housing starts in July were at a rate of 770,000; this is 0.5 percent (±8.6%)* above the revised June figure of 766,000. The July rate for units in buildings with five units or more was 433,000.

HOUSING COMPLETIONS Privately-owned housing completions in July were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,026,000. This is 8.3 percent (±8.9%)* below the revised June estimate of 1,119,000, but is 3.2 percent (±11.2%)* above the July 2015 rate of 994,000. Single-family housing completions in July were at a rate of 743,000; this is 0.4 percent (±8.8%)* below the revised June rate of 746,000. The July rate for units in buildings with five units or more was 275,000

###

For more information about OnlineEd and their education for real estate brokers, principal brokers, property managers, and mortgage brokers, visit www.OnlineEd.com.

All information contained in this posting is deemed correct as of the date of publication, but is not guaranteed by the author and may have been obtained from third-party sources. Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements and laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and should be verified if cited, shared or otherwise republished.

OnlineEd® is a registered Trademark

States Urge Rule to Prevent Banks from Forcing Customers into Binding Arbitration

States Ask the CFPB to Protect Banking Consumers’ Access to Justice

By Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd Blog

canstockphoto7251937 arbitration clause(August 17, 2016) – –– Attorney General Karl A. Racine today joined his peers from 18 states in sending a letter to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) urging the agency to adopt rules that would limit the use of arbitration clauses in consumer financial products and services contracts and increase transparency in the arbitration process overall. Use of these clauses can effectively prevent consumers from suing their bank or other financial institution over wrongdoing.

Many contracts required to purchase common consumer financial products, like credit cards and bank accounts, include these mandatory arbitration clauses. The clauses prevent consumers from joining class action lawsuits – making it more difficult for consumers to sue corporations, particularly if the individual amounts of money in dispute are relatively small. In March 2015, the CFPB released a study that showed that very few consumers ever bring – or think to bring – individual actions against their financial service providers either in court or arbitration.

“Consumers must have reasonable access to courts when they have been wronged by their bank,” Attorney General Racine said. “The ever-increasing use of binding arbitration agreements has severely reduced the ability of consumers to protect themselves by going to court. We are urging the CFPB to adopt these rules to provide much-needed oversight and help retain consumers’ access to the justice system.”

The letter was co-authored by Attorney General Racine and his counterparts in California, Massachusetts, and New York. The letter, joined by 15 other states, urges the CFPB to adopt rules that would protect consumers by preventing financial companies from including mandatory arbitration clauses that prohibit class action lawsuits. The proposed rules would also require financial companies that use arbitration clauses to submit data to the CFPB concerning arbitration claim filings and awards, enabling the CFPB to better monitor and evaluate the impact of arbitration clauses on consumers.

###

For more information about OnlineEd and their education for real estate brokers, principal brokers, property managers, and mortgage brokers, visit www.OnlineEd.com.

All information contained in this posting is deemed correct as of the date of publication, but is not guaranteed by the author and may have been obtained from third-party sources. Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements and laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and should be verified if cited, shared or otherwise republished.

OnlineEd® is a registered Trademark

Zillow Says Rising Sea Levels Threaten to Put 2 Million Homes Underwater

Sea level expected to rise six feet by 2100 endangering 2% of housing stock 

By Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd Blog

canstockphoto14640424 house floating(August 3, 2016) – Nearly 2 million U.S. homes would be lost if the oceans rise by six feet as scientists expect by the year 2100, according to a new Zillow® analysis. The endangered homes represent just under two percent of the national housing stock, and are worth a cumulative $882 billion.

New research published in the scientific journal Nature found that sea levels could rise six feet by the year 2100, mostly due to melting Antarctic ice sheets. This new estimate nearly doubles previous expectations for rising oceans.

Using data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Zillow identified which homes would be affected by the predicted six-foot rise in ocean levels.

More than half of all homes that would be lost are in Florida, and they account for nearly half of the lost housing value as well. In all, one in eight Florida homes would be lost. More than 9 percent of homes in Hawaii would be underwater; 81 percent of those are in the capital city of Honolulu. Thirty-six coastal cities would be entirely underwater, and nearly 300 cities would lose at least half their homes.

The at-risk homes along the waterfront are 58 percent more valuable than the average U.S. home. The biggest difference in home values is in Maine, where homes at the water’s edge are worth $436,798, more than three times the statewide median home value of $138,900. By contrast, homes at risk of rising oceans are less valuable than the typical home in Hawaii, Maryland, Washington, and Oregon.

“As we move through this century, homeowners will have to consider another factor when it comes to their homes – whether rising sea levels have any impact on them,” said Zillow Chief Economist Dr. Svenja Gudell. “It’s easy to think about how the ocean levels can affect the coasts in an abstract sense, but this analysis shows the real impact it will have on nearly two million homeowners – and most likely more by the time we reach 2100 – who could lose their homes.”

Among coastal states, Pennsylvania, Oregon and California have the lowest share of homes at risk of being underwater. Just 0.1 percent of homes in Pennsylvania would be lost if the ocean level rises six feet.

State  Number of Homes at Risk of Being Underwater Percent of Homes at Risk of Being Underwater  Total Value of Homes at Risk of Being Underwater  Median Value of Home at Risk of Being Underwater
United States 1,867,801 1.9%  $882 billion $296,296
California 42,353 0.4%  $49.2 billion $891,269
Texas 46,804 0.6%  $12 billion $195,029
New York 96,708 2.1%  $71 billion $495,712
Florida 934,411 12.6%  $412.6 billion $262,626
Pennsylvania 2,661 0.1%  $730 million $188,505
Georgia 24,379 0.7%  $10.2 billion $291,409
North Carolina 57,259 1.6%  $20.6 billion $266,693
New Jersey 190,429 7.3%  $93.1 billion $365,233
Virginia 46,287 1.8%  $14.4 billion $252,985
Washington 31,235 1.3%  $13.8 billion $291,965
Massachusetts 62,069 3.1%  $51.2 billion $551,866
Maryland 64,299 3.1%  $19.6 billion $233,937
Alabama 12,735 0.8%  $3.8 billion $234,987
South Carolina 83,833 4.4%  $45 billion $369,047
Louisiana 80,080 5.9%  $13.2 billion $139,042
Oregon 4,959 0.4%  $1 billion $179,424
Connecticut 18,173 1.6%  $13.2 billion $414,616
Mississippi 5,572 0.7%  $1 billion $148,161
Hawaii 37,556 9.1%  $25.3 billion $475,345
Maine 5,412 1.0%  $3.1 billion $436,798
New Hampshire 4,064 0.7%  $1.7 billion $337,320
Rhode Island 4,853 1.5%  $2.9 billion $454,559
Delaware 11,670 3.1%  $3.6 billion $261,802

Source: Zillow

 

###

For more information about Zillow® please visit their website. Zillow® is a registered Trademark.

For more information about OnlineEd and their education for real estate brokers, principal brokers, property managers, and mortgage brokers, visit www.OnlineEd.com.

All information contained in this posting is deemed correct as of the date of publication, but is not guaranteed by the author and may have been obtained from third-party sources. Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements and laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and should be verified if cited, shared or otherwise republished.

OnlineEd® is a registered Trademark

HUD Announces Decline in Veteran Homelessness by Nearly 50 Percent

Homelessness drops 17 percent from January 2015

By Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd Blog

canstockphoto4621755 vietnam vet(August 2, 2016) –  The Obama administration announced the number of veterans experiencing homelessness in the United States had been cut nearly in half since 2010. The data revealed a 17 percent decrease in veteran homelessness between January 2015 and January 2016—quadruple the previous year’s annual decline—and a 47 percent decrease since 2010.

Through HUD’s annual Point-in-Time (PIT) estimate of America’s homeless population, communities across the country reported that fewer than 40,000 veterans were experiencing homelessness on a given night in January 2016. The January 2016 estimate found just over 13,000 unsheltered homeless veterans living on their streets, a 56 percent decrease since 2010. View local estimates of veteran homelessness.

This significant progress is a result of the partnership among HUD, VA, USICH, and other federal, state and local partners. These critical partnerships were sparked by the 2010 launch of Opening Doors, the first-ever strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness. The initiative’s success among veterans can also be attributed to the effectiveness of the HUD-VA Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) Program, which combines HUD rental assistance with case management and clinical services provided by the VA. Since 2008, more than 85,000 vouchers have been awarded, and more than 114,000 homeless veterans have been served through the HUD-VASH program.

“We have an absolute duty to ensure those who’ve worn our nation’s uniform have a place to call home,” said HUD Secretary Julián Castro. “While we’ve made remarkable progress toward ending veteran homelessness, we still have work to do to make certain we answer the call of our veterans just as they answered the call of our nation.”

###

For more information about OnlineEd and their education for real estate brokers, principal brokers, property managers, and mortgage brokers, visit www.OnlineEd.com.

All information contained in this posting is deemed correct as of the date of publication, but is not guaranteed by the author and may have been obtained from third-party sources. Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements and laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and should be verified if cited, shared or otherwise republished.

OnlineEd® is a registered Trademark

CFPB Proposes Updates to “Know Before You Owe” Mortgage Disclosure Rule

Changes would provide clarity, preserve protections for consumers

By Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd Blog

canstockphoto17974449 change sign(July 29, 2016) – The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today proposed updates to its Know Before You Owe mortgage disclosure rule. The proposed amendments are intended to formalize guidance in the rule, and provide greater clarity and certainty. The changes proposed today would augment the implementation of the Know Before You Owe rule, which took effect last year, and help facilitate compliance within the mortgage industry.

“Getting a mortgage is one of the most important financial choices a consumer will ever make. The Bureau’s rules are designed to make sure consumers have the information they need, in a form they can easily understand and use, before making the decision,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Our proposed updates will clarify parts of our mortgage disclosure rule to make for a smoother implementation process.”

The Know Before You Owe mortgage disclosure rule took effect Oct. 3, 2015. The CFPB’s rule created new, streamlined forms that consumers receive when applying for and closing on a mortgage. The rule put in place requirements about when the new forms are given to the consumer and limits to changes in the original loan estimate. In addition to clarifications and technical corrections, the proposed amendments address a handful of other issues within the rule. Proposed changes include:

  • Tolerances for the total of payments: Before the Know Before You Owe mortgage disclosure rule, the total of payments disclosure was determined using the finance charge as part of the calculation. The Know Before You Owe mortgage disclosure rule changed the total of payments calculation so that it did not make specific use of the finance charge. The Bureau is now proposing to include tolerance provisions for the total of payments that parallel existing tolerances for the finance charge and disclosures affected by the finance charge. This change would make the treatment of the total of payments disclosure consistent with what it was before the Know Before You Owe mortgage disclosure rule.
  • Housing assistance lending: The rule gave a partial exemption from disclosure requirements to certain housing assistance loans originated primarily by housing finance agencies. The Bureau’s proposed update would promote housing assistance lending by clarifying that recording fees and transfer taxes may be charged in connection with those transactions without losing eligibility for the partial exemption. The rule would also exclude recording fees and transfer taxes from the exemption’s limits on costs. Through the proposed update, more housing assistance loans would qualify for the partial exemption, which should encourage lenders to partner with housing finance agencies to make these loans.
  • Cooperatives: The Bureau is proposing to extend the rule’s coverage to include all cooperative units. With a cooperative, a buyer becomes a shareholder in a corporation that owns the property. The buyer is then entitled to exclusive use of a housing unit in the property. Currently, the rule only covers transactions secured by real property, as defined under state law. Cooperatives are sometimes treated as personal property under state law and sometimes as real property. By including all cooperatives in the rule, the Bureau would simplify compliance.
  • Privacy and sharing of information: The rule requires creditors to provide certain mortgage disclosures to the consumer. The Bureau has received many questions about sharing the disclosures provided to consumers with third parties to the transaction, including the seller and real estate brokers. The Bureau understands that it is usual, accepted, and appropriate for creditors and settlement agents to provide a closing disclosure to consumers, sellers, and their real estate brokers or other agents. The Bureau is proposing additional commentary to clarify how a creditor may provide separate disclosure forms to the consumer and the seller.

The CFPB seeks input from a wide range of stakeholders and invites the public to submit written comments on the proposal. Comments are due Oct. 18, 2016, and will be weighed carefully before final regulations are issued.

The proposal is available at: http://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/rulemaking/rules-under-development/amendments-federal-mortgage-disclosure-requirements-under-truth-lending-act-regulation-z/

###

For more information about OnlineEd and their education for real estate brokers, principal brokers, property managers, and mortgage brokers, visit www.OnlineEd.com.

All information contained in this posting is deemed correct as of the date of publication, but is not guaranteed by the author and may have been obtained from third-party sources. Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements and laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and should be verified if cited, shared or otherwise republished.

OnlineEd® is a registered Trademark

FinCEN Expands Reach of Real Estate “Geographic Targeting Orders” for Title Insurance Companies

Geographic Target Orders are Helping Identify Unlawful Cash Purchases of Real Estate

By Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd Blog

canstockphoto28782162cash sale(July 28, 2016) – Geographic Targeting Orders (GTO) that will temporarily require U.S. title insurance companies to identify the natural persons behind shell companies used to pay “all cash” for high-end residential real estate in six major metropolitan areas. FinCEN remains concerned that all-cash purchases (i.e., those without bank financing) may be conducted by individuals attempting to hide their assets and identity by purchasing residential properties through limited liability companies or other opaque structures. To better understand this vulnerability, FinCEN issued similar GTOs earlier this year covering transactions in Manhattan and Miami-Dade County, Florida. The GTOs announced today will expand upon the valuable information received from the initial GTOs.

The initial GTOs are helping law enforcement identify possible illicit activity and informing future regulatory approaches. In particular, a significant portion of covered transactions has indicated possible criminal activity associated with the individuals reported to be the beneficial owners behind shell company purchasers. This corroborates FinCEN’s concerns that the transactions covered by the GTOs (i.e., all-cash luxury purchases of residential property by a legal entity) are highly vulnerable to abuse for money laundering. Federal and state law enforcement agencies have also informed FinCEN that information generated by the GTOs has provided greater insight into potential assets held by persons of investigative interest and, in some cases, has helped generate leads and identify previously unknown subjects.

“The information we have obtained from our initial GTOs suggests that we are on the right track,” said FinCEN Acting Director Jamal El-Hindi. “By expanding the GTOs to other major cities, we will learn even more about the money laundering risks in the national real estate markets, helping us determine our future regulatory course.” To build on the useful data generated thus far, the GTOs announced today include the following major U.S. geographic areas: (1) all boroughs of New York City; (2) Miami-Dade County and the two counties immediately north (Broward and Palm Beach); (3) Los Angeles County, California; (4) three counties comprising part of the San Francisco area (San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties); (5) San Diego County, California; and (6) the county that includes San Antonio, Texas (Bexar County). The monetary thresholds for each geographic area can be found in this table. A sample GTO, which becomes effective for 180 days beginning on August 28, 2016, is available here.

FinCEN is covering title insurance companies because title insurance is a common feature in the vast majority of real estate transactions. Title insurance companies thus play a central role that can provide FinCEN with valuable information about real estate transactions of concern. The GTOs do not imply any derogatory finding by FinCEN on the covered companies. To the contrary, FinCEN appreciates the continued assistance and cooperation of the title insurance companies and the American Land Title Association in protecting the real estate markets from abuse by illicit actors.

###

For more information about OnlineEd and their education for real estate brokers, principal brokers, property managers, and mortgage brokers, visit www.OnlineEd.com.

All information contained in this posting is deemed correct as of the date of publication, but is not guaranteed by the author and may have been obtained from third-party sources. Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements and laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and should be verified if cited, shared or otherwise republished.

OnlineEd® is a registered Trademark

Housing Status Quo Not Working and Voters Blame Banks

“It’s too difficult for people like me to buy a home”

By Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd Blog

canstockphoto23094189reportgraph1(July 27, 2016) – According to a recent report by Schoen Consulting, voters believe that the housing status quo is not working, especially for people of color, and they blame banks and the federal government for not helping with policies to help with homeownership, affordable housing, and more lending. Additionally, a majority 53% of American voters believe that “It’s too difficult for people like me to buy a home,” and 41% of likely voters agree that “Banks don’t want to provide mortgages to people like me.” View or download the report here.

###

For more information about OnlineEd and their education for real estate brokers, principal brokers, property managers, and mortgage brokers, visit www.OnlineEd.com.

All information contained in this posting is deemed correct as of the date of publication, but is not guaranteed by the author and may have been obtained from third-party sources. Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements and laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and should be verified if cited, shared or otherwise republished.

OnlineEd® is a registered Trademark

Homes are Flying Off the Market Faster Than Any Time Since 2010

 Homes are selling fast in spite of low supply

By Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd Blog

canstockphoto1864187moneywoman(July 22, 2016) Zillow –  Homes are selling an average of a week faster than they did a year ago, according to the June Zillow® Real Estate Market Reports.

Tight inventory continues to be a major factor for home shoppers. The supply of homes for sale is nearly 5 percent lower than it was a year ago, and 38 percent lower than its peak level in 2011. With fewer available options, home shoppers are moving quickly to buy homes, with the average U.S. home closing after 78 days on the market. The 78-day average includes the time it takes to close, which is usually one or two months after the home goes under contract, which means that homes are pending within about a month of being listed.

The length of time homes remain on the market before selling has been steadily decreasing since 2010 when homes took an average of five months to sell.

The low inventory and quick-moving market combine to create a competitive home shopping market, especially for potential buyers looking for less expensive homes. The most expensive third of the market has experienced the smallest drop in available inventory compared to the rest of the market.

“Homes are selling faster than ever as the home shopping season hits its peak,” said Zillow Chief Economist Dr. Svenja Gudell. “If you’re looking for a home, be prepared to move quickly. Adding to this difficult buying environment is low inventory – there simply aren’t many homes to choose from. And while this looks like a good time to be a seller, potential move-up buyers may hesitate to list their homes and become buyers. Until the supply increases, it will remain a tough market to find a home.”

The limited supply of homes is driving home values higher. The average U.S. home is worth $187,000, a 5.4 percent increase from June 2015. Home values have been rising at 5 percent or faster on an annual basis for the past eight months.

Metropolitan Area Median Days on Market 1-Year Change in Days on Market 1-Year Inventory Change (%) June Zillow Home Value Indexiii
United States 78 -8 -4.7% $187,000
New York/Northern New Jersey 157 -6 -9.2% $386,800
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA 64 0 -7.6% $572,400
Chicago, IL 97 -6 -13.3% $198,200
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 56 6 -20.5% $189,500
Philadelphia, PA 98 -15 -10.2% $208,500
Houston, TX 70 1 4.4% $172,900
Washington, DC 68 -5 -12.1% $368,700
Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL 103 5 13.5% $235,500
Atlanta, GA 76 -6 -6.4% $166,700
Boston, MA 71 -2 -23.2% $394,400
San Francisco, CA 43 1 4.4% $812,300
Detroit, MI 84 -9 -16.5% $127,300
Riverside, CA 77 -3 -6.5% $309,400
Phoenix, AZ 70 0 8.9% $221,400
Seattle, WA 47 -3 -15.0% $392,000
Minneapolis-St Paul, MN 75 -5 -0.9% $227,400
San Diego, CA 61 -4 10.3% $512,900
St. Louis, MO 74 -4 -13.3% $142,500
Tampa, FL 78 -10 -8.9% $167,700
Baltimore, MD 99 -7 -11.6% $251,400
Denver, CO 52 0 4.4% $338,500
Pittsburgh, PA 97 -15 2.1% $130,400
Portland, OR 51 -4 -23.7% $330,800
Charlotte, NC 70 -15 -11.5% $162,300
Sacramento, CA 55 -4 -13.7% $341,900
San Antonio, TX 69 -4 20.4% $152,300
Orlando, FL 81 -7 -12.3% $186,400
Cincinnati, OH 83 -8 -20.4% $143,800
Cleveland, OH 93 -1 -20.2% $128,500
Kansas City, MO 70 -5 -26.1% $149,100
Las Vegas, NV 73 1 13.8% $203,800
Columbus, OH 74 -3 -14.4% $156,000
Indianapolis, IN 85 -11 -22.2% $130,200
San Jose, CA 43 4 15.2% $957,900
Austin, TX 57 -1 1.1% $252,900

Article source: Zillow

###

Zillow® is the leading real estate and rental marketplace dedicated to empowering consumers with data, inspiration and knowledge around the place they call home, and connecting them with the best local professionals who can help. Zillow is a registered trademark of Zillow, Inc. For more information about Zillow, please visit www.zillow.com

For more information about OnlineEd and their education for real estate brokers, principal brokers, property managers, and mortgage brokers, visit www.OnlineEd.com.

All information contained in this posting is deemed correct as of the date of publication, but is not guaranteed by the author and may have been obtained from third-party sources. Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements and laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and should be verified if cited, shared or otherwise republished.

OnlineEd is a registered trademark

The Cost of Renting vs. Owning a Home in Every State

canstockphoto22765888 rent or buy

It’s cheaper to own a home than it is to rent one in 42 states

By Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd Blog

(July 19, 2016) – To help Americans better understand if renting or owning a home is a more affordable option, personal finance website GOBankingRates.com has released a guide detailing how monthly rent compares to monthly mortgage payments across the U.S.

gobanking image

The investigation found that it’s cheaper to own a home than it is to rent one in 42 states. Renting is more affordable in only eight states and the District of Columbia.

“The good news is mortgage rates are near historic lows,” said Kristen Bonner, lead researcher on the study. “Unfortunately, Americans are still running into road blocks with being able to save enough money to afford a down payment, and are therefore forced to rent.”

The study compared median rent prices for single-family homes against the median list price of homes in each state. GOBankingRates assumed a 20 percent down payment for the median list price and applied a 30-year fixed-rate loan term. It also included the cost of property taxes and insurance.

Where Renting Is Cheaper than Owning

Prices illustrate the monthly amount saved by renting.

  • Hawaii: $515
  • Montana: $248
  • Utah: $242
    Idaho: $204
  • District of Columbia: $144
  • Colorado: $137
  • Wyoming: $99
  • Delaware: $75
  • Oregon: $12

Top 10 Places Where Owning Is Cheaper Than Renting

Prices illustrate the monthly amount saved by owning.

  • New York: $1,635
  • Massachusetts: $559
  • Illinois: $522
  • New Jersey: $472
  • Pennsylvania: $461
  • Florida: $398
  • Maine: $396
  • Ohio: $375
  • Alaska: $334
  • Rhode Island: $334

Stand-out Findings:

The monthly rent of a single family home in New York is $3,295 a month — almost double the monthly cost of owning.
It’s only $27 more a month to rent a home than it is to own a home in Arizona, and $67 more a month in South Dakota.
If you are interested in owning property in Hawaii, expect to pay $515 more a month than your renting neighbor.
Methodology: GOBankingRates.com surveyed all 50 states and the District of Columbia to identify where it’s more expensive per month to own or rent a home. The median monthly rent was sourced from May 2016 Zillow data on single-family homes. GOBankingRates sourced median home list prices in each state using May 2016 Zillow data. Current mortgage rates in each state were sourced on June 24, 2016, from Zillow. GOBankingRates then used the Zillow mortgage calculator to determine the monthly mortgage payment, assuming a 20 percent down payment on a 30-year fixed-loan. The mortgage calculator also took insurance and taxes into consideration to determine the monthly mortgage payment.

###

For more information about OnlineEd and their education for real estate brokers, principal brokers, property managers, and mortgage brokers, visit www.OnlineEd.com.

All information contained in this posting is deemed correct as of the date of publication, but is not guaranteed by the author and may have been obtained from third-party sources. Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements and laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and should be verified if cited, shared or otherwise republished.

OnlineEd® is a registered Trademark