news-record.com

NEWS

Housing prices similar to 1997

Sunday, April 10, 2011
(Updated 3:04 am)

Four years ago, in February 2007, the average price of houses sold in the Triad peaked at more than $205,000.
But trouble lay ahead.

Ten months later, the nation would plunge into a prolonged recession from which the local housing market — and the economy at large — has yet to recover.

Evidence can be seen in the latest housing figures, which show that the average sale price in February 2011 had dropped to just over $156,000.

That’s a decline of nearly $49,000, or 24 percent, and the lowest average in more than 13 years.

The number of sales in the Triad has plunged as well, dropping nearly 48 percent in the past 61/2 years.

Economists say the situation may get worse before it gets better.

“We’ve been through a bad downturn,” said Don Jud, a professor emeritus at UNCG’s Bryan School of Business and Economics who tracks local housing data. “We are not certain that we are at the bottom yet.”

Housing numbers for Guilford County are just as bleak as those in the Triad.

In September, housing prices in the county fell below $152,000, the lowest average since Jud began collecting data in 1997. That represents a decline of more than $45,000, or 23 percent, in the past four years.

In addition, since November 2004, the number of houses sold in the county has dropped nearly 45 percent.

At existing sales rates, Jud said, it will take nearly 15 months to sell all the houses on the market in the Triad and more than 10 months to sell those in Guilford County.

Among houses priced more than $500,000, the slump is particularly acute. Across the Triad, Jud said, there’s more than a 40-month supply sitting on the market.

Longtime real estate agents say they’ve never encountered such a housing slump locally.

“I have been in other markets where this took place, but not here,” said Kathleen Sullivan, president of the Greensboro Regional Realtors Association, who has been selling real estate in Guilford County for 16 years. “Greensboro was recovering from 9/11, and then this challenge hit our doorsteps.”

The same challenge hit almost every doorstep in the country.

Nationally, the housing boom began about 1997, brought on by a combination of factors, including low interest rates, generous credit and innovative mortgages.

Economists say the boom peaked about 2005 or 2006, when the average house in the nation appreciated in value by about 12 percent a year.

That’s when the Federal Reserve began to increase interest rates in an effort to deflate what it considered a housing bubble. In late 2006, housing prices began to appreciate at a slower and slower rate.

“When they got to historically low appreciation rates, they didn’t stop there,” said Michael Walden, an economics professor at N.C. State. “Then the unheard-of happened. House prices started to fall.”

Most economists blame the housing crash for making the recession so deep and long. It reduced employment in the construction industry, slashed household wealth, got banks in trouble because of risky loans, resulted in a surge of foreclosures, cut consumer confidence and spending, and curtailed municipal revenues.

“It’s affecting the whole economy,” Jud said.

Locally, the housing market experienced “a severe slump,” Jud said, rather than a crash.

Prices didn’t increase as much in the Triad as they did in places such as California, Nevada and Florida. Therefore, they haven’t fallen as dramatically as they did in Detroit (44 percent), Las Vegas (57 percent), Miami (49.4 percent), Phoenix (53.9 percent) or Tampa (43.8 percent.)

But they have fallen. Significantly.

Part of that decline can be attributed to the area’s weak labor market. Data show that as employment rates fell in the Triad, so did housing prices.

“Employment is always a driver,” Jud said. “We have had one of the weakest employment markets of any around the country.”

Supporting data, supplied by the state Employment Security Commission, show that the Greensboro-High Point metro area has about the same number of jobs today (315,895) as it had in 1996 (314,966).

For the local housing market to improve, the area needs more jobs.

“If the number of jobs is not growing, we don’t need a lot of new homes built,” Jud said. “Nor do we need to sell a lot of new homes. ... If we don’t start getting some more employment growth, we’re not going to have a turnaround in the housing market.”

Local real estate agents say they’re optimistic, in part because housing prices in Guilford County rose 1.1 percent in January.

“Prices are ticking up,” Sullivan said. “Are we stabilizing? Time will tell.”

Out of all the gloomy numbers, there’s another piece of good news.

“This is a great time to buy a house,” Jud said. “We have never had a period where there was so much choice, where there were so many bargains sitting on the market.”

Contact Donald W. Patterson at 373-7027 or don.patterson@news-record.com
 

Accompanying Photos

File photo (Associated Press)

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

rmacz

April 10, 2011 - 7:46 am EDT

Kinda reminds me of the days of "Cooking the Books", but now we have "Hope and Change",....hmmm.

ustaxpayer

April 10, 2011 - 9:18 am EDT

WELL....why doesn't the government adjust the values of our homes to correspond with the TRUE tax value. I just tried to sell my home and was SHOCKED to see what the market value is. Our taxes on our homes definitely needs to be adjusted....And your Guilford County Comissioners are going to INCREASE property taxes. Our Government is too big...we are, very soon, going to be unable to support it... be careful whom you vote for.

Panacea

April 10, 2011 - 10:25 am EDT

Guilford County is due to re assess the tax values of property sometime soon, within the next year or so IIRC. The timing is mandated by statute; there' some flexibility and naturally the county will put it off until the last minute to keep revenues up (as well they should).

rmacz

April 10, 2011 - 11:46 am EDT

(as well they should) What a joke!

Unaffiliated

April 10, 2011 - 11:54 am EDT

2012

sunset_hills

April 10, 2011 - 10:02 pm EDT

I sold my G’boro house in 2008 and moved to northern Virginia where they asses property values on a yearly basis and the county budget rolls with the wave. It seems Guildford County could easily implement a yearly property value based on a given geographic parameters for home sales. The fruit falls close to the tree and real estate values are all about location.

scribonz

April 10, 2011 - 12:20 pm EDT

Interesting article but I think the statisics are a bit misleading. There is no doubt that the housing market is in a slump but to say that housing has lost 25% of its value & has fallen to 1997 levels is not an accurate analysis. There have been thousands of foreclosures in the Triad over the last few years. Foreclosure sales are a symptom of a bad economy and ususally sell well below the market of the average home listed for sale. Including foreclosure sales in any analysis will significantly skew the result. Added to this is the huge slow down of the housing market over $400,000. If there are very few sales in this market range then it stands to reason that this would have an effect on the overall average selling price of all homes.
If you look at some price ranges and many market areas throughout the county you will find that they have continued to appreciate. You can always find a statistic to tell you that the "sky is falling" but if you look at the big picture and analyze the market properly then you will realize that we are not experiencing a collapse like some other areas of the country, we have just slowed down a bit.

scribonz

April 10, 2011 - 2:57 pm EDT

This link is for a web article on the real estate market in California, NY, and Tokyo. Not sure how it pertains to the market in NC.

rmacz

April 10, 2011 - 8:06 pm EDT

Reread the first paragraph, particularly the very first sentence....ha!
Not sure what you meant by many markets in the Country are appreciating, since you didn't back up your claim.

retiree

April 10, 2011 - 8:51 pm EDT

A better statistic for home sales would be to use the median price, not the average price. If they did the value would be even lower since the really high priced homes dwarf those below 100k. Same is true when reporting the average pay for new jobs when they give stats on a new company moving into town. The average also includes the company president as well as the lowest paid. Look at the median price for far more accurate figures.

Andrew Brod

April 11, 2011 - 2:04 pm EDT

Actually, using medians would make a lot of sense here. Not because it'd factor out the high prices and give a better sense of the typical home price (though it'd do that too), but because most foreclosures locally are for moderately priced homes, i.e. homes below the median. If something below the median falls, the median is unchanged. So comparing the median across time would give us a better idea of how non-foreclosed home prices have changed.

HotRodLincoln

April 11, 2011 - 12:21 am EDT

Your house lost it's value because the Republicans deregulated the banks and the banks started making loans to people that couldn't pay them back. Now we have all the houses we need till 2050 and the ones built in the last 8 years aren't worth what's owed on them.
Rockingham county re-evaluated my property and the value went up. What a slap in the face.

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Mobile
  • Social
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search