As of June 03 2013 there were about 8,714 single family and condo homes listed for sale in Portland Oregon. The median asking price of these homes was approximately $285,077. Since this time last year, the inventory of homes for sale has decreased by 23.4% and the median price has increased by 10.1%.
| June 03, 2013 | Month/Month | Year/Year | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Median Asking Price | $285,077 | +1.8% | +10.1% |
| Home Listings/Inventory | 8,714 | +3.5% | -23.4% |
Recent Asking Price and Inventory History for Portland
| Date | Single Family & Condo Inventory |
25th Percentile Asking Price |
Median Asking Price |
75th Percentile Asking Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/03/2013 | 8,714 | $199,000 | $285,077 | $449,900 |
| 05/27/2013 | 8,631 | $197,700 | $285,000 | $449,000 |
| 05/20/2013 | 8,597 | $195,000 | $282,500 | $441,100 |
| 05/13/2013 | 8,460 | $194,950 | $280,000 | $448,500 |
| 05/06/2013 | 8,420 | $191,900 | $279,900 | $449,000 |
Portland Asking Price History
The median asking price for homes in Portland peaked in April 2007 at $354,740 and is now $69,663 (19.6%) lower. From a low of $239,125 in February 2011, the median asking price in Portland has increased by $45,952 (19.2%).
25th, Median (50th) and 75th Percentile Asking Prices for Portland Oregon
Portland Housing Inventory History
Housing inventory in Portland, which is typically highest in the spring/summer and lowest in the fall/winter, peaked at 23,354 in July 2008. The lowest housing inventory level seen was 7,969 in March 2013.
Housing Inventory for Portland Oregon
Portland Asking Price and Inventory History
| Date | Single Family & Condo Inventory |
25th Percentile Asking Price |
Median Asking Price |
75th Percentile Asking Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| June 2013 | 8,714 | $199,000 | $285,077 | $449,900 |
| May 2013 | 8,527 | $194,888 | $281,850 | $446,900 |
| April 2013 | 8,075 | $186,800 | $274,540 | $439,060 |
| March 2013 | 7,969 | $182,923 | $267,425 | $427,213 |
| February 2013 | 7,981 | $179,900 | $262,450 | $419,731 |
| January 2013 | 8,250 | $179,075 | $259,217 | $404,725 |
| December 2012 | 8,627 | $178,900 | $259,720 | $405,750 |
| November 2012 | 9,408 | $179,675 | $260,950 | $408,963 |
| October 2012 | 10,259 | $179,900 | $267,160 | $418,600 |
| September 2012 | 10,828 | $179,900 | $268,975 | $418,450 |
| August 2012 | 11,102 | $179,675 | $268,725 | $418,500 |
| July 2012 | 11,140 | $177,600 | $266,598 | $411,651 |
| June 2012 | 11,362 | $174,825 | $259,675 | $399,950 |
| May 2012 | 11,227 | $169,713 | $252,463 | $399,450 |
| April 2012 | 10,820 | $169,160 | $249,910 | $397,940 |
| March 2012 | 9,683 | $174,450 | $259,450 | $406,225 |
| February 2012 | 10,549 | $169,225 | $248,250 | $388,025 |
| January 2012 | 10,833 | $169,080 | $246,960 | $381,960 |
| December 2011 | 11,461 | $169,925 | $248,375 | $385,675 |
| November 2011 | 12,018 | $174,750 | $250,972 | $397,425 |
| October 2011 | 12,846 | $179,530 | $258,720 | $399,900 |
| September 2011 | 13,509 | $179,939 | $259,900 | $399,900 |
| August 2011 | 14,672 | $179,360 | $256,590 | $395,540 |
| July 2011 | 14,772 | $178,150 | $253,188 | $389,225 |
| June 2011 | 14,762 | $176,475 | $250,970 | $386,970 |
| May 2011 | 14,582 | $173,184 | $249,160 | $375,780 |
| April 2011 | 14,748 | $169,950 | $242,400 | $364,975 |
| March 2011 | 15,458 | $169,800 | $239,675 | $359,575 |
| February 2011 | 15,531 | $169,675 | $239,125 | $354,725 |
| January 2011 | 15,001 | $170,760 | $239,158 | $356,380 |
| December 2010 | 16,118 | $176,200 | $242,700 | $363,363 |
| November 2010 | 17,018 | $180,160 | $249,330 | $373,780 |
| October 2010 | 17,614 | $184,975 | $253,375 | $381,975 |
| September 2010 | 18,282 | $189,100 | $258,925 | $390,950 |
| August 2010 | 18,579 | $190,940 | $261,150 | $397,160 |
| July 2010 | 18,160 | $195,163 | $267,475 | $399,000 |
| June 2010 | 17,488 | $196,853 | $268,875 | $399,800 |
| May 2010 | 17,035 | $198,880 | $269,620 | $399,818 |
| April 2010 | 17,279 | $198,000 | $266,750 | $392,500 |
| March 2010 | 16,495 | $195,600 | $264,460 | $393,960 |
| February 2010 | 15,382 | $194,938 | $264,450 | $395,198 |
| January 2010 | 14,895 | $197,819 | $267,425 | $399,225 |
| December 2009 | 15,329 | $199,897 | $272,038 | $402,212 |
| November 2009 | 15,902 | $202,750 | $277,760 | $417,780 |
| October 2009 | 16,573 | $209,675 | $283,646 | $428,225 |
| September 2009 | 17,165 | $210,000 | $289,475 | $436,100 |
| August 2009 | 17,595 | $211,760 | $292,880 | $444,320 |
| July 2009 | 17,819 | $212,950 | $294,950 | $449,000 |
| June 2009 | 17,870 | $213,460 | $294,920 | $449,100 |
| May 2009 | 17,713 | $211,475 | $293,291 | $445,250 |
| April 2009 | 17,978 | $212,525 | $289,925 | $444,725 |
| March 2009 | 18,506 | $214,153 | $289,930 | $443,360 |
| February 2009 | 18,449 | $216,014 | $293,968 | $448,125 |
| January 2009 | 18,872 | $219,952 | $297,855 | $452,809 |
| December 2008 | 19,842 | $223,220 | $302,773 | $458,508 |
| November 2008 | 20,983 | $226,382 | $307,532 | $464,024 |
| October 2008 | 22,086 | $229,650 | $312,450 | $469,724 |
| September 2008 | 22,973 | $233,730 | $319,580 | $474,990 |
| August 2008 | 23,314 | $235,200 | $322,000 | $475,725 |
| July 2008 | 23,354 | $236,074 | $324,550 | $475,000 |
| June 2008 | 22,657 | $239,150 | $324,920 | $479,459 |
| May 2008 | 21,505 | $239,900 | $325,000 | $480,947 |
| April 2008 | 20,669 | $239,900 | $324,937 | $479,912 |
| March 2008 | 19,381 | $241,300 | $324,860 | $485,960 |
| February 2008 | 18,409 | $240,485 | $324,925 | $479,912 |
| January 2008 | 17,659 | $243,500 | $324,962 | $481,765 |
| December 2007 | 18,584 | $245,120 | $327,975 | $489,355 |
| November 2007 | 19,926 | $248,665 | $330,475 | $486,425 |
| October 2007 | 20,762 | $249,950 | $337,260 | $493,980 |
| September 2007 | 20,656 | $253,425 | $339,900 | $497,749 |
| August 2007 | 19,837 | $257,712 | $342,975 | $499,124 |
| July 2007 | 18,710 | $261,120 | $349,120 | $499,930 |
| June 2007 | 17,670 | $264,282 | $349,950 | $507,949 |
| May 2007 | 16,386 | $264,900 | $350,975 | $512,662 |
| April 2007 | 15,059 | $264,900 | $354,740 | $517,740 |
| March 2007 | 13,897 | $264,450 | $353,850 | $523,425 |
| February 2007 | 13,814 | $258,517 | $349,800 | $516,750 |
| January 2007 | 13,726 | $255,810 | $349,637 | $507,441 |
| December 2006 | 14,746 | $257,149 | $348,246 | $499,949 |
| November 2006 | 15,671 | $258,837 | $348,750 | $499,900 |
| October 2006 | 16,027 | $259,640 | $348,834 | $499,900 |
| September 2006 | 15,239 | $261,098 | $349,675 | $499,937 |
| August 2006 | 14,029 | $264,925 | $350,737 | $518,587 |
| July 2006 | 12,864 | $264,920 | $350,470 | $525,980 |
| June 2006 | 11,261 | $264,925 | $349,975 | $530,937 |
| May 2006 | 9,804 | $262,340 | $350,940 | $532,360 |
| April 2006 | 8,701 | $256,433 | $346,433 | $526,224 |
Department of Numbers
The Department of Numbers contextualizes public data so that individuals can form independent opinions on everyday social and economic matters.
HERE’S WHERE YOU ARE
- Home
- / Asking Prices
- / Oregon
- / Portland
DATASETS & TOOLS
RECENT LINKS [ ARCHIVES ]
[QE] is definitely a pretty roundabout way of driving money into the real economy. Instead of putting the money directly to work, pay money to people who already have assets even more than their assets are currently trading for, in the hope that they’ll put at least some of the money to work.
In a sidenote he addresses “helicopter money” AKA “QE for the people.”
QE involves paying over a $ (or Pounds, or Yen) amount in return for an existing asset. This is a crucial feature, and accounts for many of the drawbacks — in particular that the policy benefits above all existing holders of assets. In theory, just handing money to everybody in the country is a more effective and equal way of acheiving its aims. But you don’t have to be a hard-money Bundesbanker to be at least a little uncomfortable with where this might end up
QE via asset purchases does strike me as a very roundabout way of addressing a demand shortfall in a substantially consumer driven economy. But as the above post suggests, nothing else may be politically viable.
…
Institutional home buying fatigue?
We just don’t see the returns there that are adequate to incentivize us to continue to invest, [Bruce] Rose, 55, chief executive officer of Carrington Holding Co. LLC, said in an interview at his Aliso Viejo, California office. There’s a lot of — bluntly — stupid money that jumped into the trade without any infrastructure, without any real capabilities and a kind of build-it-as-you-go mentality that we think is somewhat irresponsible.
#2013-05-29 [ via ]
…
You don’t see Housing inventory trajectory for 2013.
I forgot to point out this post by Calculated Risk earlier this week. He’s using my housing inventory data to chart the trajectory of listings coming online this year. Inventory has come way down over the past couple of years and the big question is whether this winter will mark a bottom. If a lot of homes go on the market this spring, it probably indicates a bottom.
…
Steve Randy Waldman: I think the behavior of real interest rates is the empirical fingerprint of the effect of inequality on demand.
Where the missing demand comes from:
Household borrowing represents, in a very direct sense, a redistribution of purchasing power from savers to borrowers. So if we worry that oversaving by the rich may lead to an insufficiency of purchases [by poorer households], household borrowing is a natural place to look for a remedy. Sure enough, we find that beginning in the early 1980s, household borrowing began a secular rise that continued until the financial crisis.
Why that’s a problem:
Suppose that the mechanism that reconciles inequality and adequate demand is household borrowing. Is that sustainable? After all, poorer households would have to borrow new purchasing power in every period in order to support demand for as long as inequality remains high.
How it messes with the role of banks in the economy:
We very explicitly ask banks to intermediate the deficit in demand, exhorting them to lend lend lend for macroeconomic reasons that are indifferent to microeconomic evaluations of solvency. We can have a banking system that performs the information work of credit analysis and lends appropriately, or we can have a banking system that overcomes deficiencies in demand. We cannot have both when great volumes of lending are continually required for structural reasons.
The elegance and insight density of this post is off the charts!
Data on deptofnumbers.com is for informational purposes only. No warranty or guarantee of accuracy is offered or implied. Contact ben@deptofnumbers.com (or @deptofnumbers on Twitter) if you have any questions, comments or suggestions.
Department of Numbers
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/
