On last Friday’s delistings update post, a reader requested that I provide a view of the data showing cumulative year-long numbers.
So, here it is:
What stands out to me is how relatively stable the number of new listings has been through the past eight years, varying less than 20% from the lowest year (2008) to the highest (2001). Compare this to stale listings, which experienced an increase of 282% from 2005 to 2008.
Here are the total variances for each of the four indicators charted above:
Stale Listings: 281%
New Listings: 19%
Delisted: 183%
Sales: 81%
Note that all we’re doing here is adding up the monthly totals. This means that sales and delistings are only counted once, whereas a home that sits on the market for five months would count as a “stale listing” five times in the yearly total. However, this is not enough to explain away the entire massive variance in stale listings from 2005 to 2008.
In 2005, the largest number of stale listings in any single month was 3,081 in November. In 2008, stale listings peaked at 8,862 in August.
In a way, when we talk about stale listings, we’re really measuring another form of supply and demand. But when it comes to listings, it would appear that stale listings will be a more telling indicator of when the housing market has truly stabilized than the number of sales or delistings.
Kary L. Krismer » Mar 3, 2009 at 7:27 am
I’m not sure I’m following you totally. First, I don’t see why a delisting or even a sale would occur only once within a year for any given property. In 2007 (maybe 2008) I think there was even a large Seattle office building sold twice. But that’s a minor point. When you have fewer sales and roughly the same amount of inventory, the number of “stale” listings would rise, and thus so would the monthly count if you count them every month. What other explanation are you looking for?
Stated maybe a bit differently, I think it was during 2007 we saw an inventory rise. Assuming I have the right year, during most of that year the increase in inventory for the year was extremely close to the decrease in sales YTD. Buyers (or the lack of them) were controlling the numbers.
Dave0 » Mar 3, 2009 at 10:28 am
By Kary L. Krismer @ 1:
I think he’s saying it would show up once per listing, not once per property.
Me » Mar 3, 2009 at 1:08 pm
quick question: what is the definition of stale listing?
Is it any listing that has been open more than 1 month?
Example: property first lists in in Jan. but sells in june counts as 5 instances of a stale listing (Feb, March, April, May, June).
The Tim » Mar 3, 2009 at 1:09 pm
RE: Me @ 3 – That’s correct. That’s what I was trying to explain in the post.
alex » Mar 3, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Tim, I don’t like you anymore! Your blog has kept someone from buying my house :)
Raj » Mar 3, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Dow closed today @ 6726. I am just checking ur earlier polls.
Where will the Dow Jones close for 2009?
* Below 6,000 (17%, 118 Votes)
* 6,000 to < 7,000 (18%, 124 Votes)
* 7,000 to < 8,000 (22%, 156 Votes)
* 8,000 to < 9,000 (20%, 139 Votes)
* 9,000 to < 10,000 (16%, 112 Votes)
* Above 10,000 (8%, 55 Votes)
Total Voters: 704
Dogggis » Mar 3, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Off topic but I got a chuckle out of this
http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/rej/1058517469.html
WestSideBilly » Mar 3, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Because of their structure, it benefits the Real Estate houses to have as many agents as possible. That the income potential for new agents is quite poor right now is irrelevant to them.
Kary L. Krismer » Mar 3, 2009 at 5:30 pm
RE: WestSideBilly @ 8 – Depends on the structure. Where an agent has to pay over $300 a month to be with a firm, yes, where it’s something under $50 a month they probably lose money on new agents if they aren’t productive.
Ray Pepper » Mar 3, 2009 at 5:43 pm
RE: Dogggis @ 7 –
Quickly going the route of the dinosaur…They did NOT adapt to change and eliminate overhead .
The buffet is over and its just a matter of time!
Flotown » Mar 4, 2009 at 9:19 am
what happened to the SF inventory? why the huge jump last night?
Kary L. Krismer » Mar 4, 2009 at 9:35 am
RE: Ray Pepper @ 10 – Actually, this market is probably harder for the rebate brokers. I wonder how long Redfin can last with this kind of volume levels.
Don’t get me wrong. If they do fail I think that will be a bad thing. But their business model needs volume.
Cheap South » Mar 4, 2009 at 10:03 am
Unlike the customary start of the month cleansing (drop), the inventory has shot up.
What gives?
Lurker » Mar 4, 2009 at 10:09 am
Did the inventory shoot up about 1K for King County? I’m not seeing this reflected on redfin
Gerry » Mar 4, 2009 at 1:40 pm
I think “delisted” is an inaccurate term for properties no longer listed in the MLS. “Expired listings” is more accurate a title. It is rare that a property is “delisted” i.e. “cancelled”. Home listings that do not sell usually just expire, unsold.