{"id":812,"date":"2016-02-26T10:21:14","date_gmt":"2016-02-26T10:21:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/?p=812"},"modified":"2016-05-05T08:26:03","modified_gmt":"2016-05-05T08:26:03","slug":"cash-sales-share-declines-moderated-in-november-2015","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/cash-sales-share-declines-moderated-in-november-2015\/","title":{"rendered":"Cash sales share declines moderated in November 2015"},"content":{"rendered":"

Published on: Feb 26, 2016 @ 10:21 am<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Cash sales share declines moderated in November 2015<\/h3>\n

Cash sales accounted for 36.4% of total home sales in
\nNovember 2015, down 0.7 percentage points year over
\nyear from 37.1% in November 2014. On a month-over-month
\nbasis, the cash sales share increased by 2.5 percentage
\npoints in November 2015 compared with October 2015. The
\ncash sales share typically increases month over month
\nin November, and due to seasonality in the housing
\nmarket, cash sales share comparisons should primarily
\nbe made on a year-over-year basis. The November 2015
\nyear-over-year decrease in cash sales share was the
\nlowest in nearly three years. From January 2013 until
\nOctober 2015 decreases in the cash sales share averaged
\n2.7 percentage points, ranging from -1.4 to -5.1
\npercentage points. The elevated cash share for November
\nwas most likely related to the new federal mortgage
\nrules that took effect in October 2015 (TRID) as some
\nmortgage deals were delayed while the industry adjusted
\nto the new mortgage rules. These delays are not
\nexpected to carry forward in future months.\u00a0 The cash
\nsales share peaked in January 2011 when cash
\ntransactions accounted for 46.6% of total home sales
\nnationally. Prior to the housing crisis, the cash sales
\nshare of total home sales averaged approximately 25%.<\/p>\n

Real estate-owned (REO) sales had the largest cash
\nsales share in November 2015 at 63.2%. Resales had the
\nnext highest cash sales share at 35.7%, followed by
\nshort sales at 34.3% and newly constructed homes at
\n16.7%. While the percentage of REO sales that were
\nall-cash transactions remained high, REO transactions
\naccounted for only 8.7% of all sales in November 2015.
\nIn January 2011 when the cash sales share was at its
\npeak, REO sales represented 23.9% of total home sales.
\nResales typically make up the majority of home sales
\n(about 78% in November 2015), and therefore have the
\nbiggest impact on the total cash sales share. Michigan
\nhad the largest cash sales share of any state at 53.4%,
\nfollowed by Alabama (51.4%), Florida (50.2%), Kentucky
\n(49.1%) and New York (47%). Of the nation\u2019s largest 100
\nCore Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs)[2] measured by
\npopulation, Detroit, Mich. had the highest cash sales
\nshare at 61.5%, followed by West Palm Beach-Boca
\nRaton-Delray Beach, Fla. (53.4%), Miami-Miami
\nBeach-Kendall, Fla. (52.5%), Fort Lauderdale-Pompano
\nBeach-Deerfield Beach, Fla. (50.4%) and North
\nPort-Sarasota-Bradenton, Fla. (50.1%). Syracuse, N.Y.
\nhad the lowest cash sales share at 13.1%.<\/p>\n

Oil settles lower, but gains for the week<\/h3>\n

Oil futures turned lower late Friday, but still
\nfinished the week higher for the second time in a row
\nas the market continued to mull the likelihood of a
\nslowdown in global production. West Texas Intermediate
\ncrude “ran into some resistance technically” and pulled
\nback, said Colin Cieszynski, chief market strategist at
\nCMC Markets. Prices also likely saw some “profit-taking
\nahead of the weekend just like we’ve been seeing in the
\nDow today.” April West Texas Intermediate crude fell 29
\ncents, or 0.9%, to settle at $32.78 a barrel on the New
\nYork Mercantile Exchange. It gained more than 3% for
\nthe week.<\/p>\n

NAHB – study reveals the housing preferences of the
\nboomer generation<\/p>\n

The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) has
\nhad a long history of tracking the evolution of home
\nbuyer preferences. Builders and other industry
\nprofessionals now have an opportunity to find out what
\nbaby boomers want compared to other home buyers in
\nHousing Preferences of the Boomer Generation: How They
\nCompare to Other Home Buyers, a study recently released
\nby NAHB’s publishing arm, BuilderBooks.\u00a0 Based on a
\ncomprehensive, nationwide survey of recent and
\nprospective home buyers conducted in 2015, the study
\ndiscusses how various designs influence the home
\npurchase decision; the location, features and size of
\nthe homes consumers want, and the influence of certain
\nevents and people on the decision to move to another
\nhome.\u00a0 “This survey is a great resource for building
\nprofessionals, as it provides an inside look at the
\nthings boomers, and other generations, are looking for
\nin today’s homes,” said Rose Quint, NAHB’s Assistant
\nVice President for Survey Research, and one of the
\nstudy’s authors. “As the housing market continues to
\nrecover, more consumers are in the position to purchase
\na home, and it’s important for builders to have this
\nknowledge about their customers.”<\/p>\n

Here are some of the findings on what home buyers want:
\n–\u00a0 The majority of all buyers (65%), and boomers in
\nparticular (63%), would like to buy a single-family
\ndetached home.
\n–\u00a0 Most home buyers (64%) prefer a single-story home,
\nbut there is great variation by generation: Millennials
\n(35%), gen X’ers (49%), boomers (75%) and seniors
\n(88%).
\n–\u00a0 Fifty-eight% of home buyers want a full or partial
\nbasement, but the preference declines with age:
\nMillennials (77%), gen X’ers (67%), boomers (50%) and
\nseniors (43%).
\n–\u00a0 When asked if they would buy a home without a living
\nroom, 37% of buyers say they would, 42% would not and
\n21% are not sure. The share of buyers willing to part
\nwith this formal space falls steadily with age:
\nMillennials (43%), gen X (40%), baby boomers (37%) and
\nseniors (26%).<\/p>\n

And here are some of the findings on what most buyers
\ndo not want:
\n–\u00a0 Few buyers (8%) or boomers (7%) prefer a central
\ncity location. About two-thirds prefer a home in the
\nsuburbs (close-in or outlying) and just over a quarter
\nprefer a rural area.
\n–\u00a0 Only 14% of buyers overall (and 13% of boomers) are
\nwilling to pay more for a home out of pure concern for
\nthe environment.<\/p>\n

Personal income, spending both up 0.5% in January
\nThe Commerce Department said on Friday consumer
\nspending increased 0.5% as households ramped up
\npurchases of a range of goods and the return to normal
\nwinter temperatures boosted demand for heating.
\nConsumer spending, which accounts for more than
\ntwo-thirds of US economic activity, rose by an upwardly
\nrevised 0.1% in December.\u00a0 The report added to data on
\nmanufacturing and employment that have suggested
\neconomic growth picked up at the start of the year.
\nGross domestic product increased at a 1.0% annual pace
\nin the fourth quarter.\u00a0 Economists polled by Reuters
\nhad forecast consumer spending rising 0.3% last month
\nafter a previously unchanged reading in December.
\nThere were also signs of price pressures stirring last
\nmonth, which will most likely be welcomed by Fed
\nofficials against the backdrop of low inflation
\nexpectations that are threatening to keep inflation
\nbelow the US central bank’s 2% target for an extended
\nperiod.\u00a0 A price index for consumer spending edged up
\n0.1% after dipping 0.1% in December. In the 12 months
\nthrough January, the personal consumption expenditures
\n(PCE) price index increased 1.3%, the largest increase
\nsince October 2014. The PCE index advanced 0.7% in
\nDecember.\u00a0 Excluding food and energy, prices rose 0.3%.
\nThat was the largest increase since January 2012 and
\nfollowed a 0.1% gain in December.\u00a0 The so-called core
\nPCE price index increased 1.7% in the 12 months through
\nJanuary, the largest rise since July 2014. The core
\nPCE, the Fed’s preferred inflation measure, rose 1.5%
\nin December.\u00a0 Consumer spending last month was
\nsupported by a 0.5% rise in income. That was the
\nlargest increase since June and added to a 0.3%
\nincrease in December. Wages and salaries shot up 0.6%
\nalso as minimum wage increases came into effect in some
\nstates. Wages and salaries increased 0.2% in December.<\/p>\n

Florida single-family home prices up 14% over last year
\nFlorida\u2019s housing market reported rising median prices,
\nfewer all-cash closed sales and a tight inventory of
\nfor-sale homes in January, according to the latest
\nhousing data released by Florida Realtors.\u00a0 As
\npredicted by Florida Realtors, January 2016
\nsingle-family home sales rose, totalling 16,529, an
\nincrease of 2.7% from January 2015.\u00a0 “Florida’s housing
\nmarket remains on a steady path,” said Matey Veissi,
\nFlorida Realtors president, broker and co-owner of
\nVeissi & Associates in Miami. “While inventory levels
\nare tight, the months’ supply of homes for sale remains
\nstable and distressed property sales continue to fall.\u201d
\nStatewide, the median single-family home sales price
\nwas up 13.7% from last year at $199,000, according to
\ndata from Florida Realtors\u2019 industry data and analysis
\ndepartment. Condo sales prices are also up 10.9% from
\nlast year at $152,000. January marked the 50th month in
\na row that statewide median sales prices for both
\nsingle-family homes and for townhouse-condo properties
\nrose year-over-year.\u00a0 \u201cThe current market offers a
\ngreat opportunity for sellers, who are getting nearly
\n94% (for existing single-family homes) of their asking
\nprice at the closing table; existing townhouse-condo
\nsellers are getting more than 93% of their asking
\nprice,\u201d Veissi said. \u201cAnd while mortgage rates are
\ninching higher, they remain historically low, which
\ngives consumers more buying power.”<\/p>\n

Although the townhouse-condo market was down by 4.8%
\ncompared to January 2015, data reflected few short
\nsales and cash-only sales during January 2016.
\n“Overall, statewide sales growth remained slow in
\nJanuary, but it’s important to note that this trend has
\nnot been uniform across all price points,” Florida
\nRealtors Chief Economist Brad O’Connor said. “Taking a
\ncloser look at the data, what we are seeing are large
\nyear-over-year declines in properties selling for less
\nthan $150,000. Sales in this price range, which
\ncomprised over a third of January’s total sales, were
\ndown by nearly 17% compared to January 2015.\u201d\u00a0 \u201cSales
\nof homes in price tiers of $150,000 or more, on the
\nother hand, were actually up over 14%, year-over-year,\u201d
\nhe said. \u201cAn overall rise in home values is partly
\nresponsible for these contrasting trends, but the real
\nculprit is a lack of inventory in lower price tiers
\nthat has resulted from high rates of investor activity
\nand conversions into rentals.”\u00a0 Inventory was at a
\n4.5-months’ supply in January for single-family homes
\nand at a 5.9-months’ supply for townhouse-condo
\nproperties<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Published on: Feb 26, 2016 @ 10:21 am Cash sales share declines moderated in November 2015 Cash sales accounted for 36.4% of total home sales in November 2015, down 0.7 percentage points year over year from 37.1% in November 2014. On a month-over-month basis, the cash sales share increased by 2.5 percentage points in November […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[39],"tags":[151,166,163,168,167,152,153,169],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/812"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=812"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/812\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":814,"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/812\/revisions\/814"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=812"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=812"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=812"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}