Weekly Update, Nov. 29/13

EdmontonRealEstateMarketUpdate
Edmonton Real Estate Market Update

Here is our update on the Edmonton real estate market. (Previous week’s numbers are in brackets). For the past 7 days:

New Listings: 188 (248, 261, 326)
# Sales: 202 (212, 227, 213)
Ratio: 107% (85%, 87%, 65%)
# Price Changes: 126 (143, 154, 210)
# Expired/Off Market Listings: 114 (158, 138, 312)
Net loss/gain in listings this week: -128 (-122, -104, -199)
Active single family home listings: 2072 (2118, 2206, 2247)
Active condo listings: 1331 (1394, 1416, 1440)
Homes 4-week running average: $404k ($402k, $400k, $398k)
Condos 4-week running average: $243k ($236k, $235k, $234k)

Check out that sales to new listings ratio! While it is normal for the ratio to get quite high at the end of the year, it usually sits around 70-80% in November. We have seen it go over 100% in the last two weeks of December, but that is typically due to the fact that almost no one lists their home in the last two weeks of December. This week we can see sales are well ahead of previous years and listings are pretty much in line with previous years. Interesting times.

RealEstateListingsandSales 1
Real Estate Listings and Sales
Nov29one
Real Estate Prices

 Have a great weekend!

About 

Sara MacLennan is the Director of Marketing at Liv Real Estate and a licensed Real Estate Associate. The bulk of Sara’s experience and wealth of expertise lies in on-line technology and marketing both for agents and consumers. Sara is the former National Director for Interactive Marketing for Coldwell Banker Canada where she was responsible for an extensive training program traveling to offices across the country training agents and brokers on marketing and technology. Find Sara on Twitter @edmontonblogger.

del.icio.us Digg

18 Responses to “Weekly Update, Nov. 29/13”

  1. EdNo Gravatar 30. Nov, 2013 at 4:33 am #

    These charts indicate that pretty much every week of every year there are far more “new listings” than sales (by 60-100%).

    Over an extended period of time (one or two years), one expects that the number of listings should be of a similar size as the number of sales, unless the time on market is rather long. Until now, I have just assumed that the “new listings” that appear on the charts are relisted properties that did not sell.

    Is there another explanation (e.g. time on market, missing transactions)?

  2. 123kidNo Gravatar 30. Nov, 2013 at 12:16 pm #

    Mr Ed:

    Click here and stare at the last column good (sales over new listings):

    link to bobtruman.com

    Stare at the numerator, then the denominator, using what ever period in time you wish.

    What you should also consider is the term called the “absorption rate”

    • EdNo Gravatar 01. Dec, 2013 at 8:09 pm #

      According to Truman’s data for Jan 2007 to Oct 2013:

      Number of “new” listings: 83,466
      Number of homes sold: 50,660

      Discrepancy: 32,806 (equivalent to 400 homes per month on average).

      The easiest way to account for the discrepancy is to assume that many homes are relisted before sale. If so, the sales/listings ratio has no economic significance.

  3. jimNo Gravatar 30. Nov, 2013 at 3:08 pm #

    how lucky those guys who sold their 60′s bungalow for ~450k. Free at last, from the land of cold, snowy, crowded and governed by the most insane ones. congradulations!!! cant wait for that moment to come.

  4. JohnNo Gravatar 30. Nov, 2013 at 5:14 pm #

    Not sure if people are paying attention, the biggest thing I noticed is the different zones like Woodcroft, Bonnie Doon, and other good areas there are only 1-5 listings. Even if the prices haven’t firmed, there isn’t much quality inventory out there priced below $350,000.
    I have been investing for over 10 years and this can be only one sign prices are definitely going up. 2 years ago you could buy 1,200 sqft house in Delton for a little over $200,000, Westmount $330,000, so for all the naysayers prices have gone up a lot if you know what your doing.
    Biggest mistake I find is that people buy brand new houses, appreciation is not even close to places in the core, besides the central district.
    If you plan to stay in Edmonton you have to buy, average decent house for rent is $1,700, way cheaper to buy than rent, can rent out basement. Rental yields are amazing in Edmonton, simliar rent in Vancouver, but lot values are $600,000. I just laugh at the people if they can afford, not buying, your just making the landlord rich. Just to qualify, I worked 2 jobs. On a line of credit mortgage, you should cash flow at least $750.
    If you check on all of the richest people in this world, they all have property, definitely not renters. If your a landlord, you have 3 months to pay your mortgage before you lose your house. If renters can’t pay, they are normally out after one month.

    • wsnNo Gravatar 30. Nov, 2013 at 6:19 pm #

      You are comparing oranges to apples. For rental income, of course it doesn’t make sense to buy and rent out a new house.

      But for primary residence, there is much reason to buy new. Ever heard of something called “quality of life”? Like 10′/9′ ceilings, like new fixtures, like instant hot water and good air circulation?

    • harboursnugNo Gravatar 01. Dec, 2013 at 9:50 am #

      Rubbish

  5. JohnNo Gravatar 30. Nov, 2013 at 9:53 pm #

    Wsn,

    I live in Westmount, my house is built in 1954, fully renovated when I bought it. My lot is 48′ x 148′, love my backyard, can grow all the veggies and fruits, I like. New houses you are stuck to your neighbours, have to fight with all the traffic, like Henday, whitemud. I made over $100,000 in 2 years, doubt people can do that with new houses. Edmonton is growing by leaps and bounds, good luck with rush hour, unless you live by your work.
    Not disagreeing with you about new houses, you can pick your colours, but in real estate location, location, location if you want to make money.

    • MattNo Gravatar 01. Dec, 2013 at 9:48 am #

      In the next decade or so, the houses with the highest appreciation will be closer to the core around the River Valley, IMO. Neighbourhoods such as Forest Heights, Strathearn, Bonnie Doon, etc. With all the new development over the next five years such as the new RAM, arena, new restaurants, public transit, office towers, condos, hotels, going in around downtown, we are going to see a trend such as in Toronto where the houses near downtown are ridiculously expensive.

      Assuming the average house (bungalow) is about $400,000 in those neighbourhoods now, I believe in 10 years the average bungalow will be $600,000. While that seems high, that’s only 4% a year compounded over 10 years, which is realistic in those neighbourhoods IMO.

      • harboursnugNo Gravatar 01. Dec, 2013 at 2:19 pm #

        The average house (bungalow) already is $600,000 in the inner core. Actually a half duplex goes for $550,000 in Bonnie Doon

    • jimNo Gravatar 01. Dec, 2013 at 12:03 pm #

      Thanks John for good info for the readers like me. Not everyone want to share this kind of practical info with the public. When a realtor told me to buy westmount and eastmount I doubted it because not everyone enjoy shared air system up and down. After all I think people should make fair comments here. No rough no rude.

    • TonyNo Gravatar 02. Dec, 2013 at 8:43 am #

      In a city the size of Edmonton location hardly matters unless you don’t have a car.

    • wsnNo Gravatar 02. Dec, 2013 at 12:03 pm #

      John,

      The only thing you have proved was that you are good at finding deals. If you want to prove old houses are better deal than new houses in general, you need more samples. Like 1000 buyers with typical level of knowledge about real estate. That kind of thing.

      In new areas, yes, there are good amounts of money to be made. In Windermere alone, I know several locations where even bare land went up at least $100k in the last 2 years.

      • 123kidNo Gravatar 02. Dec, 2013 at 5:33 pm #

        The closer you are to the central business district the better. As a result the closer you are to CBD the older the houses tend to be.

        Although I will not explicitly list off the areas of YEG as prime RE investments/ and living. Strathcona is better for long term increases than say…. Windermere

        But I will admit those sitting in Windermere have made an excellent choice to at least, invest in the SE corridor of the city….

        Just sit back relax, those in the inner ring roads are going to be safe as YEG grows. Simple demographics related to the high rate of household formation occurring here.

  6. JohnNo Gravatar 02. Dec, 2013 at 11:42 am #

    Hi Tony,

    I have to disagree, depending on where you live, the morning commute is a nightmare. I use to work on 117 Ave and 170 street, took me 10-12 min (Westmount), try getting there living on the north side. The Yellowhead, Henday, even Whitemud is a mess especially going East into the city. I think if you have to go to work and don’t have to hit any mojor highways, your stress levels come way down.
    10 years you could say that just having a car os okay, but not now. You definitely pay more for top notch neighbourhoods, older home versus new, but what is 30-40 min waking up earlier, gas, wear/tear on car?

  7. JohnNo Gravatar 03. Dec, 2013 at 3:10 pm #

    Wsn,

    If you take any city, like Vancouver, Toronto, Calgary, Montreal, the high end areas always appreciate way more than the new areas and Edmonton is the same, but way slower.
    The land appreciates, not the house. A prime example is in Vancouver west side average house is $2, 000,000 and a house on the East is close to million. 40 years ago the difference was a mere $5,000. What I did as an investor is took all that information and used it towards Edmonton. If that strategy works in most parts of Canada, why wouldn’t it work here.

    • harboursnugNo Gravatar 03. Dec, 2013 at 4:03 pm #

      Because it’s Edmonton.

      Your only here for two reasons, born or you came here for a steel toed job.

  8. AnonNo Gravatar 04. Dec, 2013 at 1:47 am #

    Here’s my anecdote: bought my 1200 sq. ft. bungalow in May 2012 for $376,000. Windows, roof, all hardwood floors (half original, half not but very close in finish), kitchen, bathroom, and appliances renovated/updated already. I spent another $4000 on new interior and closet doors, paint, trimwork, and fixtures. The basement is also already set up as a nanny suite so that’s a bonus. In the past 6 months I have seen similar sized homes and many in their original (1959) condition sell for $400,000-$470,000 in my neighbourhood. As of today, the two cheapest listings in my neighbourhood are $415,000 (major gut needed) and $427,000 (renovated but only 1070sq. ft.). If I were to sell my house today, I would list it for $439,000.

    Most importantly, I’m a 15min. drive from downtown (work) and a 7min. bike ride from the river valley (biking to Hawrelak Park takes around 20mins).

    I’m certain had I bought in a newer neighbourhood (e.g. Terwillegar or the Hamptons) that I would not see that level of appreciation in a year and a half. Those were areas I had considered but just didn’t want to deal with the commute. Of course I plan on staying in my house for quite awhile so despite its increased value, it has no effect on my situation.