March is typically when inventory starts recharging here, after the midwinter low point. The reason is two fold. Some sellers take their houses off the market during the winter, because they don't want to keep them plowed out for showings, and put them back on the market in the spring. And new sellers often bring their houses to market in the spring in anticipation of the summer buying season.
The seasonal uptick is as predictable as the swallows returning to Capistrano, and this year is no exception. There have been 128 new or retread single family listings added to the Sullivan MLS over the past 30 days. So there have been a lot of new listings to ponder. What's notable in many cases sellers are stuck in the la-la land of another era regarding their asking prices. I've seen a handful of retreads come back to market with higher asking prices than when they were last on market in the late fall, and quite a few that still have asking prices the same as their last couple of trips to market.
Since early February, when the average asking price for single family homes listed in the Sullivan MLS hit a 7 year low of $251,649, the average asking price has risen 2.3% to $257,525 (which is 7.9% below the average asking price in March 2010.) The current average asking price is down 17% from the peak of $310,378 in June 2007. But since 2007, the average sales price has dropped roughly 35%. Some of the drop in the average sales price can be attributed to what's been selling. Sales of larger and more expensive upper end properties have been soft, and fewer of those sales push the average down. I don't have the statistical skills to adjust for that. But for the sake of argument, let's say that on an apples to apples basis that sales prices have dropped 25% to 30%. That still leaves a big gap between the drop in actual sales prices and the far more modest drop in seller price expectations as reflected in the average asking price.
I've been hoping we'd see a continuing drop in the average asking price, as it indicates that sellers are adjusting to the current realities of the market. I hear from listing agents across the spectrum here that pricing discussions with sellers are very tough, and that many just won't follow an agent's pricing recommendation.
The conundrum facing listing agents is whether to take the listing at the price the seller wants rather than the price they recommend, or not. (This has been debated a number of times on this blog.) But there's very little downside for an agent who takes an overpriced listing. For most agents, it takes only a few hours to take and post a basic listing in the MLS. It only costs them about ten bucks to post it in one MLS, maybe twenty if they list it in more than one MLS. Very few agents spend a lot of time photographing a house well or creating a virtual tour.
So for a half day's work, a couple of gallons of gas and twenty bucks, why not take the listing? The upside is that the seller may get religion after the house has languished on the market for six or nine months, and reduce the price. And every listing gives a listing agent one more marketing point on Realtor.com or other real estate websites where a potential buyer may see the listing and click or call through to the agent, which is also an opportunity to show or sell them something else.
This business is listing-centric, and the common wisdom is that the more listings you have — good or bad, overpriced or not — the bigger net you cast to snare buyers. Personally, I don't think that's "working smart." But the reality is that in Sullivan, as in most markets in the country, there are far too many Realtors for the amount of business. If an agent isn't busy selling, they might as well take listings.
There are, by the way, some agents here who do turn down listings. They tend to be the more successful agents who are actually busy. They're also the agents who spend considerably more time listing the property. They'll take two or three hours to photograph a house, with good cameras and lights. They'll spend time reviewing comps, and collect deeds and surveys so they have a complete listing package available. If they think a property isn't sellable at the price, they don't want to expend the time and effort. But these agents are few and far between.
The listing landscape would likely be very different if it was more costly to carry a listing. In New York City, listing agents tend to be very tough with sellers on pricing. Why? In the city, it's almost de rigeur that properties have to be advertised on the NY Times Real Estate website. That costs agents from $70 to $140 per property per month. That's a chunk of change, and agents are very hesitant to fork that out for a condo, coop or house that's significantly overpriced and unlikely to lead to a sale.
Here, the cost to carry a listing is close to nil, particularly since very few houses are advertised in print any more. If it cost agents even $25 or $50 a month to carry a listing here, there would probably be a lot more "tough love" with sellers.