Charlottesville and Albemarle Sold properties by price range

As promised last week and with apologies for the delay, this is the breakdown by price range of sold properties in Charlottesville and Albemarle for the first quarters of 2004-2008.

The $400,000 to $750,000 price range seems more stable than the rest, but take into account the following caveats –

* This is for all properties – single family, attached (townhomes) and condos.
* The data is from the CAAR MLS, and the data is only as accurate as those entering it.
* This is just for sold properties; I do analyses of inventory levels, absorption rates and number and percentage of under contract and withdrawn (likely due to rental) properties for my clients or for “paid-for” deeper analyses.
* Deeper analysis also takes into account days on market as well as whether Dual Agency was involved in specific sales.
* Google Docs is getting far better and easier to use than either Excel or NeoOffice.
* Foreclosures in the Charlottesville area are most likely excluded from the MLS data.

* All previous stories written specifically about the Charlottesville area’s real estate market, including trends and analyses and data area here.

For an example of the condo trends in the Central Virginia region, see this chart:

* For some reason, I couldn’t figure out how to display the years in the legend, so I worked around it a bit.

(Visited 2 times, 1 visits today)

4 Comments

  1. Scott R June 23, 2008 at 11:45

    Jim – nice information, as always. One comment:

    This captures what the volumes are like in each bracket, but doesn’t account for bracket mobility – that is, it would be nice to get a picture, for our MSA, of same-home sales (ala Case-Shiller).

    The two ‘big buckets’ you’ve got – 200-400k and >400, seem…not meaningfully distinct in our market. That is, I believe a histogram of all properties, with much smaller spacing (say, 10k increments) would show where the big clusters are – and clusters could be more reasonably grouped.

    I don’t, obviously, have the same access to the raw data you have, but I suspect that there’s much more of cluster of like properties in the 300-600k range, than below 300k or 750 and above.

    Moreover, I would expect part of the picture to get lost here – as I wonder how many homes which sold in the 450k range two years ago would now sell for 350k (assuming the buyer isn’t underwater and can actually sell).

    Except for the top bracket, I’d guess your breakout has the effect of smoothing the data and reflecting the overall market numbers. The three groupings which have some shape at all suggest this, with the notable artifacts for 1Q ’06 – a plunge in cheaper properties and a spike in the more expensive ones – I think a same-house analysis would demonstrate this is caused by same house price inflation and later deflation.

    NB – I’ve commented on the foreclosure situation, using my Trustee’s-Sales-from-the-newspaper and spreadsheet method. I don’t see the same spike around here as is being recorded elsewhere. However, I do see properties getting listed multiple times. That suggests to me that the effect here in c’ville is somewhat delayed. The real peak in ’06-vintage option ARM resets comes later this year, and into next, so I would expect things to pick up more. They are up now but not nearly as much as FL, CA, NV, NoVa…yet. I would be interested in your take on REOs being marketed through RE agents. That is a back-handed way of putting foreclosures into the MLS. In fact, although there’s a bit of lag time, I’m encouraged banks are doing this – since most are bidding up to the note face value at the trustee’s actions, which reflects artificially high bubble pricing. The “hit” or loss is taken by the bank when they actually cut the prices later as the owner/seller – and that is reflected for comps in the MLS.

    Reply
  2. Jim Duncan June 23, 2008 at 15:57

    That is, I believe a histogram of all properties, with much smaller spacing (say, 10k increments) would show where the big clusters are – and clusters could be more reasonably grouped.

    I would *love* to be able to do this, but putting these reports together – as they are – is so time-consuming.

    Moreover, I would expect part of the picture to get lost here – as I wonder how many homes which sold in the 450k range two years ago would now sell for 350k (assuming the buyer isn’t underwater and can actually sell).

    Very valid point, and I’m wondering how to sort through the data for that.

    I would be interested in your take on REOs being marketed through RE agents. That is a back-handed way of putting foreclosures into the MLS

    In time, in time … 🙂

    Thank you as always for your time, comment and insight. I am truly appreciative.

    Reply
  3. Andy K June 24, 2008 at 08:47

    Hi Jim

    Your 2 charts appear to be identical…..is that correct?

    Reply
  4. Jim Duncan June 24, 2008 at 12:51

    Darn it. Fixed. Thanks, Andy.

    Reply

Leave A Comment

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