The pace of seasonally adjusted existing-home sales in the U.S. fell 0.8 percent from a downwardly revised 5.09 million in March to a 5.05 million pace in April, down 12.9 percent on a year-over-year basis.
The median sale price for existing-homes in April was down 5.0 percent year-over-year to $163,700 as distressed sales accounted for 37 percent of sales volume, down three points from March, up four points year-over-year. Total housing inventory at the end of April increased 9.9 percent to 3.87 million, a 9.2 month supply, up from 8.3 months in March.
Existing-home sales in the west slipped 1.6 percent from March to April, down 0.8 percent on a year-over-year basis on a median sales price that’s 6.1 percent lower.
Existing U.S. Home Sales Pace Down 6.3% Year-Over-Year In March [SocketSite]
April Existing-Home Sales Ease []

27 thoughts on “Existing U.S. Home Sales Pace Down 12.9% Year-Over-Year In April”
  1. Isn’t April traditionally one of the strongest months?
    Sales declining from March when prices and interest rates are falling is a catastrophe.
    When sales fall, lower prices are not usually far behind. But sales falling in April is indicative of a disaster.

  2. Such a radical difference between much of America and Frisco. Here we’re talking about what a good deal it was for the buyer of that $7.4 million house recently.
    For people who are eager to own the roof over their heads, or who want to kindly provide for an ex-housekeeper, Bakersfield beckons with excellent houses on cul-de-sacs at 200k.

  3. “Such a radical difference between much of America and Frisco. Here we’re talking about what a good deal it was for the buyer of that $7.4 million house recently.”
    Given that they initially wanted $12.8 for the house that sold for $7.4 it would appear quite similar to a Bakersfieldian who thinks his $200k house is worth $345k!

  4. Yes, tc_sf, and if we were to use numbers instead of supposedly misleading percentages, the SF guy was off by $4.4 million and the Bakersfield guy was off by only $245,000. So you see, it is different here!

  5. No need to travel so far. Very decent single family home can be had in Antioch for $200K or under. For $50K more, you can live in Brentwood, an adjacent more upscale town with better school.
    Dreadful HWY 4 expansion is half done and BART extension from Pittsburg to Antioch may be a reality. Folks, we are talking $100 per sq ft in
    the Bay Area. SF is nice but is it worth 5-8 times that ? Most public schools in SF is nothing to write home about either.

  6. Fat finger — the Bakersfield guy was only off by $145,000 . . .
    And Outsider’s point illustrates why SF is no “island” as housing outside of Frisco proper draws away buyers and lowers prices here.

  7. Yes, dig deeper. All economists forecast the SA rate and the survey of 75 economists was for a 5.2mm rate. But of course all of those guys who do this for a living are looking at the wrong thing! If the SA rate is up, look at that! If the NSA rate is up, then that’s the real story! If you’re concerned about seasonal adjustments, you could look at YoY rates, but wait. . . that is even more negative (-12.9%). (Though this is a comparison with a period last year with the govt home credits.)

  8. DataQuick has YoY April sales down 1.4% for SF, from 428 in ’10 to 422 this year, which I would call roughly flat.

  9. When even the NAR titles the report “April Existing-Home Sales Ease”
    And their chief economist says:
    “Lawrence Yun, NAR chief economist, said the market is underperforming. “Given the great affordability conditions, job creation and pent-up demand, home sales should be stronger,” he said.”
    It’s not hard to divine the type of news this report is bearing.

  10. But I just got an email from a realtor telling me I’ll never get this opportunity again in my lifetime.

  11. While not terribly rigorous, the WSJ had a back of the envelope calculation about the fate of those who took advantage of the once in a lifetime tax-credit opportunity.
    “If you missed out on the $8,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers that expired just over a year ago, you might be better off for it. Numbers released Monday suggest typical recipients have lost twice as much to falling house prices as they gained from the incentive.”

  12. No surprise that Y-O-Y volume is down since the tax credits sucked so much demand forward this time last year. Y-O-Y numbers will be affected by this through the June report. The West region seems to be less affected by this than other parts of the country (only down 0.8% vs 12% nationally).

  13. Tax credits were extended from their original November 30 date. The extension reqired a signed contract by 4/30, but not a closing. Most of the demand that would have closed in April had already been sucked into November by then. The extensions had some effect, but not enough at that point. It did boost some closings in May and June.
    If you look on the chart (lower chart of volume), you can see that sales usually spike up well above the trend in April, well above the trend, but last year it did not (look just to the right of the “500”. You can see a plateau just before the preceding end of year. That’s where most of the demand was. April sales last year were low relative to the trend. June and July last year were up, but not April. This was an easy comparison and yet it got missed anyway.
    So the effect of the tax credits was to DROP the volume in April last year, not raise it. The numbers this year should have beaten it handily, but did not.

  14. “[Editor’s Note: Recorded sales volume in San Francisco was down 1.4% in April (from 428 transactions in 2010 to 422 in 2011).]”
    Per what? Please do not say ReReport.
    I just did that search again. For YoY April, MLS now shows 433 this year to 389 last year.
    [Editor’s Note: Recorded sales (not simply MLS which doesn’t include unlisted transactions).]

  15. “Editor’s Note: Recorded sales (not simply MLS which doesn’t include unlisted transactions).”
    Unless it does, and someone enters something for comp purposes, and you allow three or four posters to scream fraud on here apropos of zilch.

  16. fluj, this happened twice, and one time it was very very clearly fraud, and you’re still trying to make this point?
    You frequently complain that other people’s posts should be deleted for not particular reason other than simple disagreement with you, but it’s amazing how much latitude the editor gives you for your nasty comments day-in and day-out. Maybe your threats to leave if the editor edits you have worked.
    What is the problem with Rereport? Editor, do you have any additional notes on why their March and April numbers were so strange? Is it because of the tax credit, so people pushed sales back into April 2010? That number was way off.

  17. “Unless it does, and someone enters something for comp purposes, ”
    If the MLS numbers may or may not reflect reality since there appears to be considerable flexibility as to if a sale is included, would it not be better to use numbers bases on recording?
    Especially since at a national level there are estimates that NAR’s numbers overstate sales by 15-20%? And the NAR’s own benchmarking found a 13% overstatement?

  18. Rereport counts a part of Daly City.
    Simple disagreement with me? More like irresponsible people with no insight saying words that they don’t bother to measure. Or else intentionally incorrect things, like tipster often does, or you throwing around “fraud.”

  19. “Rereport counts a part of Daly City.”
    No, it doesn’t. Saying this over and over, as you have, doesn’t make it true — just go to the site and see for yourself. If it included D11, then its numbers would be categorically higher, but we haven’t seen that.

  20. “No, it doesn’t”
    If it does not include part of D-11, then that’s a very recent methodology change. I’m pretty sure TC_SF was the one who pointed it out in the first place.

  21. Tipster- thanks for the discussion of the effects of the tax credit. I was surprised to see that the Federal tax credit distinctly boosted sales nationwide in March and April of 2010 (see CR graph at I was puzzled by the difference, until I saw that the CA state homebuyers tax only applied to sales that closed after May 1 2010.
    Savvy SF buyers likely signed contracts before April 31 and waited until May 1 to close to realize the benefits of both the Federal and CA state programs.

  22. “I’m pretty sure TC_SF was the one who pointed it out in the first place.”
    I recall mentioning that if you search for “San Francisco” in Redfin it will actually include a sliver of daily city. I don’t recall saying this about RE-report, but perhaps I forgot.
    Regardless, I believe that Data Quick shows the same ( 428 transactions in 2010 to 422 in 2011) numbers. Also, it would be anomalous if the sliver of Daily city included by Redfin would have enough sales to account for the overall 12% difference in estimates here.

  23. So the MLS has 11 MORE than what Redfin is reporting for 2011? Weird. I can understand the discrepancy when it’s down, but not up. Something is wrong. Regardless, the fact that we’re arguing about two different measuring sticks showing a relatively same-ish result versus a slightly up result shouldn’t be cause for some people to shout “catastrophe.” Now should it? Or were you all cool with that?

  24. It was still good to bring it up for discussion, PostIt. I thought the same thing you did this morning, but had checked into it and realized this is a very, very weak report. One month does not a trend make, but it isn’t looking good.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *