Ann Arbor Archives - Page 3 of 3

Ann Arbor snapshot

So many ways to measure

Markets are rarely identical and what happens as a nation isn’t necessarily what happens in a county, or what happens in an area, or even a submarket.

We hear a lot about the improving market conditions that are occurring nationally, but as in all things real estate, the market really is fundamentally local. I live and work in the Ann Arbor market. Not all markets within this area are moving in the same direction, or at the same pace. Even within Ann Arbor there are differences, and the data below represents current information comparing the Ann Arbor school district as a whole to one area within Ann Arbor, area 82, which encompasses a wide market but is the west side of town as well as into the western suburbs and rural area within the Ann Arbor school district.

How can you go about measuring the market? There are a number of different ways, but what I am doing now (and I do change things up as I learn of new techniques) is taking one years’ worth of data at a time, run on a monthly basis and compare and measure how markets change. The data is run as one year periods because it neutralizes the seasonality that you see happening in this area. It is almost clock-work to see our local market start to slow after Labor Day, and to start to pick up in February or March, depending on the weather. In addition to measuring year to year, I have also eliminated from the data below distress sales and “to-be-built” properties because including them skews data. This is addressed in a previous blog post. Depending on the market, it might make sense to include the distress sales but Ann Arbor hasn’t had a lot in general (Thank You University of Michigan) and if they are included the market actually looks like it is picked up more steam than it truly has. Apples-to-Apples with the data below.

My findings are in graphic formats below with a small explanation underneath the graph.

Number of sales

We are seeing an increasing number of sales in both the entire market and area 82. For instance, the one year period of 2011 showed 805 arm’s length sales, and in 2012 there were 939 sales, 2013 had 1,054 sales for the year. Clearly the numbers of sales are increasing. In area 82 our market jumped from 210 sales in 2011 to 260 in 2012 and 299 in 2012. Based on this information the expectation is around 88 sales per month for the entire market and 25 per month for area 82. As there are 139 available properties in the MLS for the entire school district today (2/9/14) and 36 in area 82, there is about a 1.6-month supply for the overall market and 1.45-month supply for area 82. Looks like an undersupply of properties, doesn’t it?

Days on market

The chart above shows the differences in days on the market in both the wider Ann Arbor market and area 82. Area 82 consistently has had quicker absorption than Ann Arbor as a whole, but take a look at how the market dipped in both segments to a low point in June/July 2013 and has been increasing steadily since that time. My take on this is that as inventory has increased (as evidenced by the number of sales above) that there are more options and therefore houses are not selling quite as quickly as they were at the peak in 2013. At this time days on market is still very short with the most recent reading showing 43 as a whole and 35 in area 82. Surprisingly close to the expected absorption rate addressed in the graph above.

There are more graphs and charts that I will examine, but I am going to save that for the next blog post, so as to keep you interested and coming back J. These other indicators include the list price to sales price ratios, median price over time, and median price per square foot. They also include my favorite, the contract-to-listing ratio which some of you are aware of from previous blog posts.

Hope you enjoy this information and find it useful. As always, if you have questions about the market from the perspective of the local appraisal expert, call or write. I am always happy to field whatever calls or emails that I can.

Data above is culled from the Ann Arbor Board of Realtors MLS

Rachel Massey, SRA, AI-RRS www.annarborappraisal.com

January 25, 2014 Washtenaw County market snapshot

January 25, 2014 Washtenaw County snapshot

On January 11, 2014 I posted a snapshot of the Washtenaw County market showing the number of arm’s length sales in each school district as well as the change in price per square foot over time and the current number of offerings and houses under contract.

After some consideration, I have eliminated all “to-be-built” houses as they are starting to flood into the market locally. These houses are not truly on the market as they are not yet started and are not available for immediate, or even generally quick, occupancy.

The data below is a snapshot of the supply and demand factors for the various Washtenaw County markets as of 1/25/14 through the Ann Arbor Area Board of Realtors MLS. Instead of showing price trends in this snippet, this data shows the number of arm’s length sales of houses that are already built, or under construction, compared to how many are on the market at this time that are NOT showing as under contract.

The number of sales relates to one year prior to 1/25/14 and the number of active listings are the number that were available and not under contract on that day.
The number of months’ supply relates to, given the number of historic sales, how quickly the current inventory “should” absorb.
The contract-to-listing ratio relates to how many of the current listings are under contract and to me, that number is most telling of current activity. Historically I find that between 25% – 30% is a typical active market and that less than 20% is generally slow, favoring buyers. Over 35% we start to see a seller’s market.

Without further ado, here are the results:

Based on this information, Ann Arbor still is in seller’s market territory, as is Lincoln and now Milan (when I did this last, Milan was showing over-supplied but that relates to a large number of “to-be-built” houses). Saline, Dexter, Chelsea, Ypsilanti, Willow Run and Whitmore Lake seem to be in a more normal market, and Manchester is slow with the greatest supply compared to historic demand. In most cases, inventory is in the 2-month range, which is an under-supply. Ann Arbor is particularly undersupplied.

Not all houses that are on the market are appropriately priced, and if a house is over-priced for the market (due to condition or functional/external issues, or just too optimistic pricing); these houses show as part of the supply chain but are not yet truly competitive. When Realtors ® talk about how they are finding the market to be highly undersupplied, my opinion is that the market itself is undersupplied, but not significantly so, but there is a definite undersupply of appropriately priced houses in good condition.

If you are curious about the market from the perspective of a 30-year market veteran, follow this blog or contact me directly. I have experience both from the sales side (from 1984-1989) and as a full-time appraiser since 1989. I am always happy to discuss your needs on the appraisal end and am open to discussion as to how to best present data that helps you.

All the best to all of my readers! Rachel Massey @ www.annarborappraisal.com

Washtenaw County snapshot

Days on market and current activity Washtenaw County, MI

Based on my experience, as days on the market for a property decreases, prices tend to increase. When days on market start to increase, prices tend to stabilize or decline.

One of the largest obstacles in measuring market direction is that closed sales are usually contracted for sale one-to-two months earlier than the closing. As such, the closed sales data lags even with the most recent data available. Including contracted sales would indicate a higher number of days on the market, but as many contracted sales do not close, the data below includes only closed sales, and absorption is addressed further in this discussion.

The chart above is a compilation of the different school districts in my local area, Washtenaw County. The data refers to days on market of sales, ran in an annualized manner. In other words, each data point is one years’ worth of sales but presented month-by-month. This helps eliminate the seasonality that we see as our market normally slows down after Labor Day and start to pick up in February.

What is noticeable at first glance is the convergence of days on market to a low point around June to July 2013 and a steady increase in days since August 2013. All districts are showing an increase in days on the market other than Manchester, and are mostly back to levels seen in late 2012/early 2013.

After examining the days on market, the next step is to look at how many sales occurred in the most recent period in each market (all of 2013 in this case) and then look at how many are on the market, not under contract, within the first two weeks of 2014. This information provides an estimated supply based on the most recent years’ worth of sales. The last column that chart is the contract-to-listing ratio (CLR) which simply looks at all offerings and compares the number under contract to the total number available and derives a percentage of absorption. From my perspective, a market that is active is normally hovering around 30% CLR and when it pushes upwards to 40% or over, is very active and a seller’s market. Conversely, when it is 20% or below it is much less active, and much less than 20% indicates a buyer’s market. Of course the ratios are all dependent on agents reporting contracts within the required period of their MLS so that it is not lagging by more than a couple of weeks.

At the same time that the number of days on the market declined in most areas, the number of sales increased. For example, Ann Arbor went from 805 arm’s length sales in 2011 to 939 in 2012 and 1,086 in 2013; yet in 2013 days on the market was virtually identical to 2011 (although it was lower in 2012). Ypsilanti went from 115 sales to 158 to 220, almost double the first year reported, yet days on the market dropped. In each market shown, the number of arm’s length sales rose in this period.

All data is gathered using the Ann Arbor Board of Realtors MLS. Sales data excludes distress sales and GLR MLS but does include Realcomp and therefore there is some duplication of listings throughout. This is not considered a significant sampling problem due to consistency in application throughout all market segments and current/contract offerings. Data run from 1/2/14 through 1/11/14.

Based on this information, my interpretation is that Ann Arbor looks like it is still very strong, and Lincoln appears to be in the throes of a seller’s market at the moment. Chelsea, Dexter and Saline are in the 20% range, meaning slow but a balanced market, and Manchester and Milan may have crossed into being a buyer’s market at this time based on these ratios.

Note, in each market run, the entire school district is examined, not submarkets. In an appraisal, the appraiser will look at the submarket, or “micro” market that relates to the subject property. If you are interested in knowing how your property adds up in today’s market, contact your local real estate expert for an analysis.

Enjoy – Rachel Massey www.annarborappraisal.com

Measuring market change

Measuring market change

Most of the measurements we see reported in the MLS relate to median price change over time, not price per square foot. As house sizes rise, the price per square foot falls and does so because price per square foot includes not only the gross living area, as well as the garage, basement, improvements to the house, decks, patios, and other site improvements, and even more importantly, the site itself.

Since there is a diminishing return as house sizes increase, it is easy to see how a shift upward in house size could make the market look like it is improving at a higher rate than it actually is. Conversely, if house sizes are shifting downward, then the market may look like prices are going down when they are not.

In this first graph, it looks like the market dropped in early 2012 to late 2012 and then had a meteoric rise in mid to late 2013:

In the second graph, the market shows only a slight leveling of price increases in 2012 and then another slight leveling in early 2013 followed by a much steadier price increase towards the end of 2013.

Which of these graphs better represent the market? How about a blending of the data? If houses decrease in size in general, the price per square foot rises at a greater rate, and by looking at both measures, I feel the read of the market is more realistic and I have accounted for the change of buyer preferences. Sometimes one indicator is more reliable than another, and in those cases market change is best measured by the one that makes most sense.

The next chart is what I used for my graphs. Statistics are run on a yearly basis but one month at a time. The data presents one year of data for each segment and is a nuanced way to measure market change. As an appraiser I am tracking the number of sales, the list-price-to sales-price ratio, and the median sales price, the median sales price per square foot and days on market cumulatively.

The data below comes from information culled from the Ann Arbor Area Board of Realtors MLS and excludes distress sales and duplicate listings.

The presentation above is just one way to look at changing market perceptions over time. I will continue to present data about my local market as I see it. Check back often, as markets are fluid and are subject to change rapidly. Forces that cause market change include, but are not limited to, change in interest rates, change in inventory levels, introduction or withholding of distress inventory, tightening of the money market, catastrophic events, local employment, etc.

As always, if you are in need of a local expert in the Washtenaw County market, go straight to the local residential appraiser expert, Rachel Massey, SRA.

www.annarborappraisal.com

Sales compared to Valuation Models

Consumers rarely see comparisons between sales prices and alternative valuation models accessible via the web. I’ve not seen an actual comparison to recent closed sales to these models and thought it would be an interesting exercise to see how they stack up with properties that closed within the past couple of weeks through my local MLS.

The following data is a compilation of 21 recent sales in the Ann Arbor school district that closed in mid to late December 2013. These houses were exposed through the local MLS and picked up by a variety of different valuation models. Since these houses were exposed on the open market, my thinking was the models would be fairly accurate, but nothing seems to be further from the truth!

The value estimates are all over the board as far as too high, or too low, with only a few exceptions.

The sales above are sorted by sales price. To help you read this chart, the layout flows as follows: zip code and some comments about the property. The next column is the actual sales price, followed by a valuation model, followed by the percent difference between valuation model and sales price. For example, on the first sale, the sales price was $80,000 and the first estimate was $104,654 or 30.82% over-estimated compared to the sales price. There are a total of four different models used as well as the State Equalized Value from the tax roll (multiplied times two as is practice in Michigan).

Upon review, the lower priced sales were over-estimated and the higher priced sales were under-estimated, but even standard subdivision houses that were exposed through the MLS had discrepancies in the variance. This was unexpected as they were on the market, in homogeneous areas, and not in need of work, so why did the models fail?

In my opinion, the models fail because the market is simply not perfect and can’t easily be measured by pure statistics. Value really relates to a specific market segment, buyer preferences, condition (that can’t be measured by computer model) and locational nuances.

Instead of either overpricing a property based on potentially erroneous information in these models, or leaving money on the table by underpricing; hire a local appraiser to provide you an expert analysis of the market and where your property fits within it.

Rachel Massey, SRA is a local expert with close to 30-years of experience in and around the Ann Arbor area. She can be reached at 734-761-3065 or through email (rachmass@comcast.net) or through her website at www.annarborappraisal.com. Rachel is available to help you with your appraisal needs for divorce, estate, tax appeal, bankruptcy, etc.

Ann Arbor rentals part two – or why rent when you can buy?

(continued from previous post)

Why rent when you can buy?

Often the lack of a down payment, or a down payment that is small, compels the need for Private Mortgage Insurance. Sometimes it is the need for flexibility such as the ability to move and not be locked into a mortgage. There are a myriad of reasons not to buy, not the least of which is lack of money for the down payment and for ongoing property maintenance. With the upcoming changes in the mortgage market, financing a house/condo is likely to become more difficult and this upcoming change may also be spurring an interest in investment properties as addressed in the previous blog post.

In the previous post I addressed a $139,000 condo purchase. For a buyer with a 10% down payment and a 4.5% interest rate on a $125,100 mortgage for a payment of ~ $519, plus PMI of around $100 and taxes and condo fees of $580 combined for a payment that is almost equal to the landlord; but with benefits as well as risks.

The benefits include the mortgage interest deduction and being locked in to a payment that will only go up relative to condo fee and taxes. An intrinsic benefit is also that of being able to remodel, and even rent if the need arises. Pitfalls could include a market that declines in value, wiping out the small amount of equity; or like with the landlord scenario, too many rental properties in the project. Association fees could rise to a level where they are no longer affordable, and the owner is locked into a payment that may become too difficult to manage. Capital expenditures such as the need for exterior maintenance (roofs, siding, street paving, etc.) could come in the form of a high special assessment, further reducing the affordability. By renting, the tenant has the flexibility of simply picking up and moving if the financial burden is too great whereas the owner does not have that same flexibility.

A concern from the standpoint of the appraiser is that the market may be starting to repeat itself. The run-up in the market in 2002-2005 seems to have been driven largely by speculation in real estate, and therefore this increased push to buying properties as rentals is reminiscent of the prior run-up, and the fact that in 2013 over 32% of MLS sales in an area were purchased for rental purposes, gives me pause to wonder if we are taking that same direction again. This brings me to a future blog post: is history starting to repeat itself?