White House Weighs a $6 Billion Cut to HUD

The Trump administration reportedly is considering cuts at the Department of Housing and Urban Development of more than $6 billion, which could particularly hit public housing support programs hard, according to The Washington Post. 

Read more: Ben Carson Confirmed as HUD Secretary

The potential cut is expected to reduce public housing support and end most federally funded community development grants, such as those that help to repair abandoned properties in low-income neighborhoods.

HUD’s preliminary budget would shrink by about 14 percent to $40.5 billion in fiscal 2018, if approved, The Washington Post reports. Up to $1.3 billion could be cut from the public housing capital fund, while $600 million from a public housing operating fund could be affected. That means programs on the chopping block could include the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, which provides block grants for local communities to build affordable housing, and Choice Neighborhoods, a program that invests in redeveloping low-income communities. Also, programs like the Community Development Block Grant Program could have its $3 billion in funds cut entirely.

The budget document “is still a work in progress,” says HUD spokesman Jereon Brown.

The preliminary budget does generally continue the level of funding for rental assistance programs, The Washington Post reports. HUD reportedly will recommend that many of the programs targeted for budget reductions surrounding building maintenance and community development projects be funded by other agencies. 

Some housing agencies are already expressing concerns about the preliminary budget.

“These sorts of cuts could … increase the number of families and people who are homeless because housing is less affordable,” Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, told The Washington Post.

President Donald Trump has a goal to cut domestic spending by $54 billion in order to provide greater support to the defense budget. Trump will release the complete budget plan next week. 

John Czwartacki, Office of Management and Budget spokesman, called the HUD budget document an “internal discussion” at this point and too preliminary to comment on yet. 

“The president and his Cabinet are working collaboratively as we seek to create a budget that keeps the president’s promises to secure the country and prioritize taxpayer funds,” Czwartacki said.

Source: “Trump Administration Considers $6 Billion Cut to HUD Budget,” The Washington Post (March 8, 2017)

Americans More Confident in Housing Than Ever Before

Americans are more confident about their housing prospects than ever before, with more believing now is “a good time” to buy or sell a home, according to the just-released Fannie Mae Home Purchase Sentiment Index® (HPSI), which hit high point after high point in February.

“The latest post-election surge in optimism puts the HPSI at its highest level since its starting point in 2011,” says Doug Duncan, chief economist and senior vice president at Fannie Mae. “Millennials showed especially strong increases in job confidence and income gains—a necessary precursor for increased housing demand from first-time homebuyers.”

The Index registered an all-time high, 88.3, in February. Forty percent of Americans surveyed in the Index believe now is a good time to buy a home, up 11 points from January, while 22 percent believe now is a good time to sell, up 7 points to an Index high. Seventy-eight percent—another Index high—believe they are secure in their jobs, and 19 percent—still, another Index high—report “significantly higher” incomes in the past year.

Forty-five percent, at the same time, believe home prices will rise.

“Preliminary research results from our team find that millennials are accelerating the rate at which they move out of their parents’ homes and form new households; however, continued slow supply growth implies continued strong price appreciation and affordability constraints facing millennials and first-time buyers in many markets,” Duncan says.

Source: Fannie Mae

Gen X Homeowners Make Comeback after Coming Up in the Crash

Homeowners in Generation X are making a comeback after coming up in the housing crash, according to the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) recently released Home Buyer and Seller Generational Trends study for 2017. More Gen X homeowners—who were most dogged by the downturn—are set to sell this year, having regained enough equity lost in the recession.

“Gen X sellers’ median tenure in their previous home was 10 years, which puts many of them selling a property they bought right around the time home values were on the precipice of declining,” says Lawrence Yun, chief economist at NAR. “Fortunately, the much stronger job market and 41 percent cumulative rise in home prices since 2011 have helped a growing number build enough equity to finally sell and trade up to a larger home. More Gen X sellers are expected this year, and are definitely needed to ease the inventory shortages in much of the country.”

Gen X has taken a backseat to millennials in recent years, who have been the primary source of opportunity in housing, Yun says. More activity on the part of Gen X homebuyers and sellers this year opens up new prospects in the market.

According to the survey, the share of Gen X homebuyers grew to 28 percent—the largest percentage since 2014—but is behind the share of millennial homebuyers, 34 percent, and the share of baby boomer homebuyers, 30 percent. The trend toward multigenerational living is going strong, driven by baby boomers housing adult children who either have not moved out or moved back in after moving out.

“The job market is very healthy for young adults with a college education, but repaying student debt and dealing with ever-increasing rents on an entry-level salary are forcing many to either shack up with several roommates or move back home,” says Yun. “This growing trend of delayed household formation is one of the main contributors to the nation’s low homeownership rate.”

Student loan debt is also an issue for Gen Xers and younger boomers, though Gen Xers have the biggest burden, with a student debt load of $30,000—more than millennials’ $25,000 and boomers’ $10,000, according to the survey. Student debt plays a major role in the ability to save for a down payment on a home; in fact, 55 percent of millennial homebuyers, 29 percent of Gen X homebuyers and 9 percent of boomer homebuyers report student debt has stifled their savings.

“Repaying student debt also appears to be slowing some current homeowners who went to graduate school and now can no longer afford to sell and trade up because of their loans,” Yun says. “Nearly a third of homeowners in a NAR survey released last year said student debt is preventing them from selling a home to buy a new one.”

Gen Xers aside, there are shifts occurring in the millennial generation. One significant movement, according to survey, is the presence of children: 49 percent of millennial homebuyers have at least one child, prompting more home-buying activity in the suburbs.

“Millennial buyers, at 85 percent, were the most likely generation to view their home purchase as a good financial investment,” says Yun. “These strong feelings bode well for even greater demand in the future as more millennials settle down and begin raising families. A significant boost in new and existing inventory will go a long way to ensuring the opportunity is there for more of them to reach the market.”

What hasn’t changed, according to the survey, is the need for a real estate professional. Ninety percent of those surveyed worked with a real estate professional to buy or sell a home—92 percent of millennial homebuyers and 90 percent of millennial sellers, and 88 percent of Gen X homebuyers and 89 percent of Gen X sellers.

For more information, please visit www.nar.realtor.

For the latest real estate news and trends, bookmark RISMedia.com.

More Homeowners Turn to Their Equity Again

As home values rise fast, homeowners are starting to realize they have a lot of wealth tucked into their homes, and it’s become enticing to tap into it.

Read more: Equity-Rich Properties Rise By 1.3M in 1 Year

Since the housing crash, homeowners have been shy about accessing any of their home equity, even those who still had money in their homes. But as millions of borrowers emerge from their underwater home loans and see their home values jump again, they’re turning to home equity lines of credit, or HELOCs, once again.

HELOC volume has increased 21 percent over the past two years. It’s now at the highest level since 2008, according to Moody’s data. Still, it is far from the levels of the housing boom.

"The more second liens that people take out, it adds a risk that comes from the rising home prices,” says Peter McNally, a senior analyst at Moody’s. “The fact that people are leveraging their homes more than before makes things more risky.”

Mixed with that, borrowers also are putting down smaller down payments. Prior to the last housing boom, the median down payment was just over 7 percent. Down payments dropped to 3 percent during the housing boom, but were back up to about 6 percent in 2016, according to ATTOM Data Solutions. Down payments are projected to move lower as more lenders offer greater low down payment options again.

Source: “More Homeowners Cashing in on Their New Housing Wealth,” CNBC (March 3, 2017)

The Hottest Housing Markets Right Now

California cities continue to dominate the list of the hottest housing markets in the country. In Vallejo-Fairfield, Calif., days on the market for listings have dropped by half over the past year, which helped propel it to the top of realtor.com®’s hottest housing market list for February.

Read more: 20 Markets With Strongest Kickoff to 2017

Across the country, homes for sale are more limited than ever before, and strong buyer demand mixed with that limited inventory is fueling higher home prices, according to realtor.com®’s latest analysis.

The hottest housing markets for February, according to realtor.com®, are:

Source: “These Are the Hottest Real Estate Markets in February 2017,” realtor.com® (2017)

Priced Out: Gender Pay Gap Spills Over to Housing

Single homebuyers have a tougher time than most affording a house—and a new report shows single women have it harder than single men.

A joint report by PropertyShark and RENTCafé reveals housing in 23 of the nation's top 50 metropolitan areas is out of reach for single women, while housing in 14 areas is out of reach for single men. Austin, Texas; Boston, Mass.; Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Portland, San Diego, San Francisco, and San Jose, Calif.; Miami, Fla.; New Orleans, La.; New York, N.Y.; Philadelphia, Pa.; and Washington, D.C. are unaffordable to singles regardless of gender—but Chicago, Ill.; Denver, Colo.; Fort Worth and Houston, Texas; Memphis and Nashville, Tenn.; Milwaukee, Wis.; Sacramento, Calif.; and Seattle, Wash. are, in addition, unaffordable to single women. The starkest pay gap of the nine areas unaffordable to single women—but affordable to single men—is in Fort Worth, Houston and Seattle, spanning 70-73 cents on the dollar.

The areas where single women face the lowest housing affordability are New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston and Miami, according to the report. In New York, monthly housing costs take up 119 percent of the average single woman's income, while in Los Angeles, monthly housing costs take up 104 percent—a full-on shut-out.  Monthly housing costs for single men in these areas take up just shy of 100 percent.

There are areas where single women can afford to buy a home: Detroit, Mich.; Wichita, Kan.; Indianapolis, Ind.; and Tulsa and Oklahoma City, Okla., according to the report. The monthly housing cost in Detroit takes up just 4 percent of the average single woman's income, while monthly housing costs in Wichita and Indianapolis take up 10 percent.

View more from the report here.  http://blog.rismedia.com/2017/gender-pay-gap-housing/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=eNews

Consumers Turn to Non-Banks for Mortgages

More borrowers are choosing non-banks—financial institutions that only issue loans and do not offer savings or checking accounts—to get a mortgage, The Washington Post reports. It's a major shift in borrower behavior. In 2011, 50 percent of all new mortgage loans originated from the three largest banks: JPMorgan, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo. However, in September 2016, that share plunged to 21 percent.

During that time, non-banks emerged as six of the 10 largest lenders by volume, including Quicken Loans, loanDepot, and PHH Mortgage. In 2011, only two of the 10 largest lenders were non-banks.

"For consumers, it doesn't really matter whether you get your loan through a bank or a non-bank, although in some ways, non-banks are a little more nimble and can offer more loan products," says Paul Noring, managing director of Washington, D.C.–based financial risk management firm Navigant Consulting. "The impact is bigger on the housing market overall because without the non-banks, we would be even further behind where we should be in terms of the number of transactions."

Some traditional banks have backed away from the mortgage business after financial regulations were put in place following the last housing crisis, says Meg Burns, managing director of Collingwood Group. That has opened the market to non-banks. "The regulatory atmosphere changed from a risk management regime to a zero-tolerance and 100 percent compliance regime," Burns says. "Not only were new regulations implemented, but new regulators like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau were created. At the same time, the CFPB and other agencies became more assertive in their enforcement practices."

The greater regulations made banks more cautious about lending, says Jeffrey Taylor, managing partner of Digital Risk, a provider of mortgage processing services and risk analytics. "Now banks only approve 'perfect' loans, not 'good-enough' loans," Taylor says. "This created an opportunity for non-banks that focus entirely on mortgages and are less regulated than big banks."

Indeed, some consumers benefit from non-banks because they tend to offer "more opportunities to borrowers who are not perfect," says Ricky Sharga, chief marketing officer of Ten-X, an online real estate marketplace. Some lenders are offering "loans to borrowers with lower FICO scores, but [these non-bank lenders] are still not making risky loans," Sharga says.

Source: “The Mortgage Market Is Now Dominated by Non-Bank Lenders,” The Washington Post (Feb. 23, 2017)

Transit Hubs: Are They the New Mall?

Developers are pouring billions of dollars into giving facelifts to some transit hubs across the country. These improvements are not for expanding traveler capacity but to make these hubs more eye-catching and give commuters a reason to hang out and not just pass through. They're mixing in dining, retail, event offerings, and even the chance to live there.

Housing's Transit-Oriented Boom

No Parking, No Problem

Americans Will Pay More to Live Near Transit

Study: Homes Near Public Transit Worth More

Developers believe that traditional rail and light rail station segments can spur development in an area while also “converting the old-time train station into a destination itself,” ConstructionDive reports.

Redeveloping and changing the perception of transit hubs will draw people in to shop and socialize, even when they’re not taking a trip, says real estate attorney B.A. Spignardo of Shapiro Lifschitz & Schram in Washington, D.C.

Major transit hubs like Union Station in Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania Station in New York, and 30th Street Station in Philadelphia are devoting billions of dollars to make over their transit hubs into bigger destinations. In D.C.’s Union Station, Amtrak announced last year that it plans to build a $50 million concourse, which will also include a 3-million-square-foot mixed-use complex called Burnham Place that will provide residential, retail, and commercial space above the station.

Last year, Amtrak also proposed a $6.5 billion upgrade to Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station, which would include the creation of a “dense urban neighborhood.” Also, a $1.6 billion, 255-square-foot renovation is slated of the James Farley Post Office to turn it into a transit hall for Pennsylvania Station in New York. Developers are looking to preserve the historical look of the existing structure while also adding in modern features for commuters. The Moynihan Hall is to be completed by 2020 and will feature 112,000 square feet of retail and 588,000 square feet of office space.

Source: “Full Steam Ahead: Why Transit Hub Development Is Seeing a Resurgence,” ConstructionDive (Feb. 23, 2017)

Owners Are Spending More on Remodeling

Baby boomers may be sparking a remodeling boom. Homeowner spending on remodeling projects is expected to see steady growth through 2025, according to Demographic Change and the Remodeling Outlook, released by Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. Older owners are expected to make up the majority of those spending gains over the coming years too as they adapt their homes to be able to age in place.

Read more: Remodeling Impact

Expenditures by homeowners over age 55 are expected to increase by nearly 33 percent by 2025, which will account for more than three-quarters of total gains over the next 10 years, according to the JCHS report.

“A disproportionate share of growth over the coming decade will be among older owners, minority owners, and households without young children, groups that traditionally spend less on home improvements,” the report notes.

The residential remodeling market, which includes spending on improvements and repairs by homeowners and rental property owners, zoomed to an all-time high of $340 billion in 2015. That surpassed the prior peak set in 2007.

Remodeling improvements are expected to increase 2 percent per year, on average, through 2025, after adjusting for inflation, according to the JCHS report.

“With national house prices rising sufficiently to help owners rebuild home equity lost during the downturn, and with both household incomes and existing home sales on the rise, we expect to see continued growth in the home improvement market,” says Kermit Baker, director of the Remodeling Futures Program at the Joint Center for Housing Studies.  



Rising home prices are encouraging homeowners to reinvest in their homes. But the increase in prices and mortgage rates are making it more difficult for younger households to make improvements and repairs, the report notes. Still, millennials are expected to take on more remodeling projects over the next decade, particularly as they buy up older, more affordable homes that are in need of renovations.

“Despite these challenges, the remodeling industry should see numerous growth opportunities over the next decade,” says Chris Herbert, managing director of the Joint Center for Housing Studies. “Strong demand for rental housing has opened up that segment to a new wave of capital investment, and the shortage of affordable housing in much of the country makes the stock of older homes an attractive option for buyers willing to invest in upgrades.”



The increase in remodeling will likely spur growth within specialty niches, such as those focused on energy efficiency, environmental sustainability, home automation, and healthy homes.

Source: “Improving America’s Housing 2017: Demographic Changes and the Remodeling Outlook,” Harvard University’s Joint Center for housing Studies (2017)

Luxury Sellers Aren’t Going to Like This

More high-end home sellers across the country are being forced to offer discounts as the luxury real estate market shows signs of softening, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Read more: Luxury Owners Rethink How They Use Space

"Buyers are very price sensitive," says Donna Olshan, a real estate professional based in Manhattan. "If it's not priced right it's going to sit until the cows come home."

Real estate pros and sellers in the luxury market are having to adjust their expectations. In the third quarter of 2016, the median asking price for homes in the top 5 percent of listings reached $1.2 million, an 18 percent increase from a year ago, according to realtor.com® market data. The actual sales prices in that luxury segment, however, only rose by 3 percent during that period.

Luxury listings are lingering on the market longer than the overall market too. Luxury listings are taking a median of 131 days to sell, about 4 percent slower than a year ago, realtor.com®’s data shows.

"The smart sellers today are pricing for now, not 2014," says Jeff Adler, of New York's Douglas Elliman. "An $88 million apartment went into contract three years ago and just sold. Would they get $88 million today? Probably not."

The strength of the U.S. dollar has caused some overseas buyers to pause.  Also, oversupply may be another problem facing the luxury market. For example, a surge in luxury condos and speculative homes over the past five years in markets like New York and Miami has sparked a slowdown. A luxury apartment in Manhattan was listed in April for $120 million and is now being offered at $96 million, a $24 million discount. A luxury condo in midtown is seeing developer discounts now being offered at 10 percent to 15 percent on lower-level units priced between $4 million and $12 million.

"We've priced to account for today's market," says developer Gary Barnett. And, "the market wants to see some discounting."

Source: “Luxury Home Sellers Slash Millions off Asking Prices,” The Wall Street Journal (Feb. 23, 2017) [Log-in required.]

California housing market kicks off year higher in January

- Existing, single-family home sales totaled 420,100 in January on a seasonally adjusted annualized rate, up 2.1 percent from December and 4.4 percent from January 2016.

- January’s statewide median home price was $489,580, down 3.8 percent from December and up 4.8 percent from January 2016.

- Statewide sales of condos fell 22.1 percent from December on a non-seasonally adjusted basis and rose 7.5 percent from January a year ago.

LOS ANGELES (Feb. 17) – California’s housing market started the year on a high note, following up on December’s strong showing with higher sales both on a monthly and yearly basis in January, the CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (C.A.R.) said today. 

Closed escrow sales of existing, single-family detached homes in California totaled a seasonally adjusted annualized rate of 420,100 units in January, according to information collected by C.A.R. from more than 90 local REALTOR® associations and MLSs statewide. The statewide sales figure represents what would be the total number of homes sold during 2017 if sales maintained the January pace throughout the year. It is adjusted to account for seasonal factors that typically influence home sales.

The January figure was up 2.1 percent from the 411,430 level in December, and up 4.4 percent compared with home sales in January 2016 of a revised 402,220. The month-to-month gain was the first December-to-January increase since 2012, which is an encouraging sign.

“California’s housing market continues to be defined by the higher-priced, coastal markets and the less expensive, inland areas that still offer access to major employment centers,” said C.A.R. President Geoff McIntosh. “For example, eroding affordability and tight housing inventory are pushing buyers away from the core Bay Area markets of San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara and into less expensive bedroom communities, such as Contra Costa, Napa, and Solano. In Southern California, an influx of buyers from coastal employment areas into the Inland Empire drove healthy year-over-year sales in Riverside and San Bernardino.”

The median price of an existing, single-family detached California home fell below the $500,000 mark for the first time since March 2016, but home prices remain seasonably strong. The median price was down 3.8 percent from a revised $508,870 in December to $489,580 in January. The median sales price is the point at which half of homes sold for more and half sold for less; it is influenced by the types of homes selling, as well as a general change in values.

January’s median price was up 4.8 percent from the revised $467,160 recorded in January 2016, a slightly slower pace than the 5.6 percent increase averaged last year. Since 2011, price declines from December to January have usually ranged from -11.7 percent to as little as -4.6 percent, but January’s 3.8 percent monthly smaller price decline suggests that price pressure remains relatively robust and could translate into additional price growth as the spring and summer home-buying seasons near.

“January’s sales increase was likely boosted by rising interest rates, which have risen sharply since the election and have given buyers an incentive to get off the sidelines and close escrow before rates go higher,” said C.A.R. Senior Vice President and Chief Economist Leslie Appleton-Young. “Yet, future anticipated rate hikes will increase the cost of homebuying and could have an adverse effect on affordability and future home sales.”

Other key points from C.A.R.’s January 2017 resale housing report include:

• C.A.R.’s Unsold Inventory Index, which measures the number of months needed to sell the supply of homes on the market at the current sales rate, rose to 3.7 months in January from 2.6 months in December. The index stood at 4.3 months in January 2016.

• New listings in pricey Bay Area counties, such as Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara rose significantly from December, a possible indication of sellers cashing out robust price appreciation experienced over the past few years.

• New statewide active listings continued to decline, dipping 0.3 percent from December and 10.5 percent from January 2016.

• The median number of days it took to sell a single-family home went up from 33 days in December to 37 days in January but was down from 44.2 days in January 2016.

• C.A.R.’s sales-to-list price ratio* was 98.1 of listing prices statewide in January, 98.2 percent in December and 97.8 in January 2016.

• The average price per square foot** for an existing, single-family home statewide was $240 in January, $242 in December, and $228 in January 2016.

• San Francisco County had the highest price per square foot in January at $841/sq. ft., followed by San Mateo ($723/sq. ft.), and Santa Clara ($567/sq. ft.). Counties with the lowest price per square foot in January included Del Norte ($124/sq. ft.), Kings ($125/sq. ft.), and Kern ($127/sq. ft.).

• After mortgage rates surged in the final few weeks of 2016, the 30-year, fixed-mortgage interest rate averaged 4.15 percent in January, down from 4.2 percent in December but was up from 3.87 percent in January 2016, according to Freddie Mac. The five-year, adjustable-rate mortgage interest rates edged up in January to an average of 3.24 percent, from 3.23 percent in December and 2.98 percent in January 2016.

Graphics (click links to open):

• January sales at-a-glance infographic.
• Calif. historical existing home sales.
• Calif. historical median home price.
• Share of sales by price range.
• Calif. price per square foot.
• Calif. sales to list price ratio.

Note:  The County MLS median price and sales data in the tables are generated from a survey of more than 90 associations of REALTORS® throughout the state, and represent statistics of existing single-family detached homes only. County sales data are not adjusted to account for seasonal factors that can influence home sales.  Movements in sales prices should not be interpreted as changes in the cost of a standard home.  The median price is where half sold for more and half sold for less; medians are more typical than average prices, which are skewed by a relatively small share of transactions at either the lower-end or the upper-end. Median prices can be influenced by changes in cost, as well as changes in the characteristics and the size of homes sold.  The change in median prices should not be construed as actual price changes in specific homes.

*Sales-to-list price ratio is an indicator that reflects the negotiation power of home buyers and home sellers under current market conditions. The ratio is calculated by dividing the final sales price of a property by its last list price and is expressed as a percentage.  A sales-to-list ratio with 100 percent or above suggests that the property sold for more than the list price, and a ratio below 100 percent indicates that the price sold below the asking price.

**Price per square foot is a measure commonly used by real estate agents and brokers to determine how much a square foot of space a buyer will pay for a property.  It is calculated as the sale price of the home divided by the number of finished square feet.  C.A.R. currently tracks price-per-square foot statistics for 39 counties.

Leading the way…® in California real estate for more than 110 years, the CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (www.car.org) is one of the largest state trade organizations in the United States with 185,000 members dedicated to the advancement of professionalism in real estate. C.A.R. is headquartered in Los Angeles.

January 2016 County Sales and Price Activity(Regional and condo sales data not seasonally adjusted)

January-17	Median Sold Price of Existing Single-Family Homes							Sales
State/Region/County	Jan-17	Dec-16		Jan-16		MTM% Chg	YTY% Chg	MTM% Chg	YTY% Chg
CA SFH (SAAR)	$489,580	$508,870		$467,160	r	-3.8%	4.8%	2.1%	4.4%
CA Condo/Townhomes	$399,710	$403,240		$380,110	r	-0.9%	5.2%	-22.1%	7.5%
Los Angeles Metro Area	$450,710	$463,380		$434,000	r	-2.7%	3.9%	-31.2%	-5.6%
Inland Empire	$312,500	$320,970		$291,920		-2.6%	7.0%	-18.4%	8.6%
S.F. Bay Area	$723,750	$770,000	r	$690,000	r	-6.0%	4.9%	-30.7%	-0.9%
S.F. Bay Area
Alameda	$755,000	$755,000		$700,000	r	0.0%	7.9%	-32.9%	-0.4%
Contra Costa	$540,000	$550,000		$500,000	r	-1.8%	8.0%	-26.0%	10.4%
Marin	$1,150,000	$1,118,700		$952,500	r	2.8%	20.7%	-37.2%	-3.6%
Napa	$662,500	$605,000		$584,500	r	9.5%	13.3%	-18.3%	0.0%
San Francisco	$1,250,000	$1,315,210		$1,160,000	r	-5.0%	7.8%	-45.7%	1.0%
San Mateo	$1,150,000	$1,332,500		$1,077,500		-13.7%	6.7%	-38.9%	-11.6%
Santa Clara	$927,500	$965,000		$895,000		-3.9%	3.6%	-33.9%	-7.8%
Solano	$387,400	$405,000		$354,000	r	-4.3%	9.4%	-22.3%	6.8%
Sonoma	$579,500	$585,000		$550,000	r	-0.9%	5.4%	-23.3%	-11.3%
Southern California
Los Angeles	$509,320	$519,280	r	$480,950		-1.9%	5.9%	-26.3%	6.7%
Orange	$740,000	$745,000		$699,900	r	-0.7%	5.7%	-26.8%	-1.1%
Riverside	$357,500	$360,000		$328,000	r	-0.7%	9.0%	-20.6%	9.9%
San Bernardino	$242,650	$253,460		$234,460		-4.3%	3.5%	-14.6%	6.7%
San Diego	$550,000	$568,000		$530,000	r	-3.2%	3.8%	-25.3%	6.8%
Ventura	$606,150	$627,580		$638,590		-3.4%	-5.1%	-29.7%	-17.3%
Central Coast
Monterey	$572,500	$497,000		$500,000		15.2%	14.5%	-24.9%	2.5%
San Luis Obispo	$536,000	$559,000		$540,000	r	-4.1%	-0.7%	-14.2%	13.4%
Santa Barbara	$710,000	$735,000		$748,000	r	-3.4%	-5.1%	-22.3%	1.4%
Santa Cruz	$800,000	$805,000		$694,500		-0.6%	15.2%	-7.9%	20.8%
Central Valley
Fresno	$235,000	$238,220		$216,000	r	-1.4%	8.8%	-29.4%	3.8%
Glenn	$221,000	$197,500		$159,975	r	11.9%	38.1%	6.7%	-11.1%
Kern	$215,000	$220,000		$215,000		-2.3%	0.0%	-12.5%	-7.7%
Kings	$200,000	$215,000		$190,000	r	-7.0%	5.3%	-14.1%	65.9%
Madera	$229,900	$227,950		$227,500	r	0.9%	1.1%	-33.8%	-2.2%
Merced	$225,500	$235,000		$193,950	r	-4.0%	16.3%	-11.6%	2.4%
Placer	$425,000	$425,000		$405,000	r	0.0%	4.9%	-40.0%	-10.2%
Sacramento	$305,000	$314,940		$281,000	r	-3.2%	8.5%	-27.2%	14.1%
San Benito	$550,000	$475,000		$480,000		15.8%	14.6%	-21.1%	-37.5%
San Joaquin	$307,500	$326,750		$290,000	r	-5.9%	6.0%	-32.3%	-16.1%
Stanislaus	$279,750	$275,000		$245,000	r	1.7%	14.2%	-27.0%	4.0%
Tulare	$202,500	$204,950		$195,000	r	-1.2%	3.8%	-29.8%	28.0%
Other Calif. Counties
Amador	$295,000	$272,500		$215,500	r	8.3%	36.9%	-22.7%	13.3%
Butte	$264,000	$294,250		$260,000	r	-10.3%	1.5%	-69.4%	-56.3%
Calaveras	$285,000	$288,000		$258,750	r	-1.0%	10.1%	-29.0%	42.0%
Del Norte	$218,500	$232,250		$157,000	r	-5.9%	39.2%	-12.5%	-26.3%
El Dorado	$414,250	$434,500		$405,000	r	-4.7%	2.3%	-36.0%	-2.8%
Humboldt	$296,500	$295,000		$247,800	r	0.5%	19.7%	-21.0%	16.9%
Lake	$215,000	$210,000		$235,000	r	2.4%	-8.5%	-24.4%	15.7%
Mariposa	$272,450	$227,000		$279,000	r	20.0%	-2.3%	-30.0%	-6.7%
Mendocino	$417,500	$366,000		$355,000	r	14.1%	17.6%	-17.0%	25.8%
Mono	$526,750	$528,500		$475,000		-0.3%	10.9%	-42.9%	-27.3%
Nevada	$366,500	$355,000		$339,500	r	3.2%	8.0%	11.1%	45.2%
Plumas	$300,250	$230,000		$342,000	r	30.5%	-12.2%	-26.7%	15.8%
Shasta	$233,375	$235,750		$226,250	r	-1.0%	3.1%	-34.4%	22.9%
Siskiyou	$239,000	$255,000		$195,000	r	-6.3%	22.6%	-12.9%	-12.9%
Sutter	$251,995	$253,500		$213,700	r	-0.6%	17.9%	-30.6%	-3.8%
Tehama	$210,000	$204,250		$190,000	r	2.8%	10.5%	-20.6%	42.1%
Tuolumne	$279,450	$253,375		$210,000	r	10.3%	33.1%	-28.6%	-12.3%
Yolo	$380,000	$405,000		$345,000	r	-6.2%	10.1%	-18.7%	18.9%
Yuba	$250,000	$247,450		$210,000	r	1.0%	19.0%	-16.2%	-9.5%

r = revised

January 2016 County Unsold Inventory and Time on Market(Regional and condo sales data not seasonally adjusted)

January-17	Unsold Inventory Index					Median Time on Market
State/Region/County	Jan-17	Dec-16		Jan-16		Jan-17	Dec-16		Jan-16
CA SFH (SAAR)	3.7	2.6		4.3		37.3	33.0		44.2	r
CA Condo/Townhomes	3.2	2.2		3.8		32.0	29.6		40.7
Los Angeles Metro Area	4.1	3.0		5.5	r	46.6	42.9		57.3
Inland Empire	4.6	3.6		5.0	r	49.8	46.7		61.9
S.F. Bay Area	2.5	1.5		1.9	r	23.8	26.7		28.1
S.F. Bay Area
Alameda	2.0	1.2		2.0		24.1	21.9		22.5
Contra Costa	2.2	1.6		2.5		24.6	23.9		24.3
Marin	3.7	1.9		2.8		47.7	46.2		45.5
Napa	4.5	3.6		4.1		79.6	51.3		65.1
San Francisco	2.2	0.9		2.3		37.7	31.0		33.9
San Mateo	2.3	1.1		1.9		24.3	21.7		22.1
Santa Clara	2.2	1.2		1.9		23.7	23.3		23.6
Solano	2.9	2.1		3.4		58.3	48.6		50.0
Sonoma	3.4	2.5		3.2		56.3	50.1		65.6
Southern California
Los Angeles	3.6	2.6		4.3		40.8	35.1		51.2
Orange	4.0	2.6		4.1		50.3	47.2		64.2
Riverside	5.1	3.8		6.3		52.1	47.2		64.5
San Bernardino	3.8	3.2		4.8		46.1	45.7		57.0
San Diego	3.6	2.6		4.3		27.4	26.6		27.0
Ventura	4.4	3.3		4.8		61.2	65.9		72.2
Central Coast
Monterey	4.9	3.5		4.7		39.9	32.2		51.5
San Luis Obispo	4.1	3.4		5.1		40.3	36.6		43.4
Santa Barbara	5.6	4.0		4.9		52.4	32.5		51.4
Santa Cruz	2.5	2.4		2.8		32.2	31.0		38.6
Central Valley
Fresno	4.4	3.0		5.1		27.5	27.4		32.0
Glenn	4.5	4.9		3.1		91.0	52.8		24.7
Kern	4.3	3.6		4.8		32.6	29.7		41.0
Kings	3.2	2.8		6.1		28.1	25.2		31.0
Madera	5.8	4.1		7.8		49.1	54.2		78.4
Merced	3.8	3.1		4.7		39.1	29.1		55.5
Placer	3.3	1.8		3.5		26.5	27.0		27.5
Sacramento	2.2	1.6		3.0		24.4	24.0		26.6
San Benito	4.8	3.7		2.4		42.6	31.0		35.5
San Joaquin	3.2	2.2		3.1		27.9	26.5		28.9
Stanislaus	3.4	2.4		3.7		28.2	26.8		31.5
Tulare	5.2	3.2		6.4		31.8	28.1		43.3
Other Counties in California
Amador	4.9	3.9		6.3		82.8	75.5		91.0
Butte	4.0	2.4		3.9		42.7	26.2		55.7
Calaveras	5.5	4.3		8.1		84.6	46.4		86.8
Del Norte	8.2	7.1		6.7		124.6	110.3		122.5
El Dorado	3.0	2.6		4.7		53.1	54.4		53.8
Humboldt	4.0	2.8		4.9		38.3	29.2		41.2
Lake	5.5	3.9		6.8		55.7	91.0		82.3
Mariposa	3.8	3.1		6.1		48.4	100.7		98.3
Mendocino	6.4	5.5		10.2		123.1	73.7		112.8
Mono	11.3	6.8		NA		130.7	129.7		134.1
Nevada	3.6	4.1		6.0		45.5	26.0		61.0
Plumas	8.2	6.7		10.0		132.3	128.3		132.8
Shasta	5.0	3.4		7.7		41.2	28.7		51.9
Siskiyou	7.3	6.8		7.3		82.8	49.1		78.4
Sutter	3.3	2.1		4.1		27.9	29.2		27.9
Tehama	6.4	5.4		9.0		75.5	80.3		82.8
Tuolumne	5.5	4.3		5.1		65.1	52.8		98.3
Yolo	2.6	1.8		3.0		31.6	22.4		31.5
Yuba	3.1	2.8		3.2		32.0	23.9		29.5

r = revised
NA = not available