Asking Prices and Inventory for Homes in Portland Oregon June 3rd 2013


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

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/

Advertisements

Nearly Half of U.S. Families Teetering on Edge of Ruin. by MANDI WOODRUFF, Business Insider


In the past few years, Americans have certainly learned a thing or two about how quickly disaster can strike.

And with each Hurricane Sandy, housing crisis, and stock market crash that rocks our world, we’re faced with the harsh realization that many of us simply aren’t prepared for the worst. A sobering new report by the Corporation for Enterprise Development shows nearly half of U.S. households (132.1 million people) don’t have enough savings to weather emergencies or finance long-term needs like college tuition, health care and housing.

 

According to the Assets & Opportunity Scorecard, these people wouldn’t last three months if their income was suddenly depleted. More than 30 percent don’t even have a savings account, and another 8 percent don’t bank at all.

We’re not just talking about people who living people the poverty line, either. Plenty of the middle class have joined the ranks of the “working poor,” struggling right alongside families scraping by on food stamps and other forms of public assistance.

More than one-quarter of households earning $55,465 to $90,000 annually have less than three months of savings. And another quarter of households are considered net worth asset poor, meaning “the few assets they have, such as a savings account or durable assets like a home, business or car, are overwhelmed by their debts,” the study says.

BASIC NECESSITIES  
One of the prolonging reasons consumers have consistently struggled to make ends meet has more to do with larger economic issues than whether or not they can balance a checkbook. According to the report, household median net worth declined by over $27,000 from its peak in 2006 to $68,948 in 2010, and at the same time, the cost of basic necessities like housing, food, and education have soared.

It’s a dichotomy that is hammered home in a new book by finance expert Helaine Olen. In Pound Foolish: Exposing the Dark Side of the Personal Finance Industry, Olen knocks down much of the commonly-spread advice that is sold by the personal finance industry –– the idea that if you’re not making ends meet in America, you’re doing something wrong.

“The problem was fixed cost, the things that are difficult to ‘cut back’ on. Housing, health care, and education cost the average family 75 percent of their discretionary income in the 2000s. The comparable figure in 1973: 50 percent,” Olen writes.

“And even as the cost of buying a house plunged in many areas of the country in the latter half of the 2000s (causing, needless to say, its own set of problems) the price of other necessary expenditures kept rising.”

And wherever consumers can’t cope with costs, they continue to rely on plastic. The average borrower carries more than $10,700 in credit card debt, one in five households still rely on high-risk financial services that target low-income and under-banked consumers.
Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/02/04/Nearly-Half-of-US-Families-Teetering-on-Edge-of-Ruin.aspx#DVKZCYevJIMwCEyw.99

Top court ruling leaves Oregon’s residential real estate market in limbo, by Thomas Hillier, Davis, Tremain Wright,


In a ruling the Oregon Supreme Court will soon review, the Oregon Court of Appeals on July 18 issued a major decision.The case, Niday v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., et al, held that MERS, when acting as a nominee for a named lender, is not a beneficiary under Oregon law. The practical effect of the holding is that any trust deed naming MERS the beneficiary may not be foreclosed in the name of MERS by the more expedient nonjudicial method.

 

A little context is in order.

In 1959, to remain competitive for loan dollars, Oregon adopted the Oregon Trust Deed Act to establish trust deeds as a real estate security instrument. For lenders needing to foreclose, the act created a summary, nonjudicial procedure that bypassed the courts and allowed no redemption rights for borrowers. Foreclosure previously was a judicial process taking two years or more to complete; now it could be done in six months with the summary procedure.

Lenders were happy because the time to liquidate a non-performing loan was substantially reduced. Borrowers benefited because there was no right to a deficiency if the debt exceeded the value of the property and borrowers could cure defaults during the foreclosure process by paying only the amount in arrears rather than the full loan balance.

Trust deeds quickly became the favored real estate security instrument.

In 1993, in part to respond to a growing practice wherein lenders were bundling loans secured by trust deeds and selling them in secondary markets, a group of mortgage industry participants formed MERS and the MERS system.

Anytime a loan is sold from one member of the MERS system to another, the sale is tracked using the MERS system. MERS, the named beneficiary as nominee for the original lender and its assigns, remains the beneficiary as the loan is sold and becomes an agent of the new note owner. With no change to the named beneficiary, there is nothing to publicly record, an administrative convenience accomplishing a central purpose of MERS.

As MERS grew in acceptance, so did its popularity. Nationwide, there are more than 3,000 lender members of MERS that account for approximately 60 percent of all real estate secured loans nationwide.

The onslaught of the Great Recession resulted in a tremendous spike in foreclosure activity. To defend foreclosure proceedings, borrowers challenged the authority of MERS, in its own name, to foreclose non-judicially.

Because the trust deed is a creature of statute, the statutory elements allowing a nonjudicial foreclosure must be followed strictly. One such element is the requirement that the name of the beneficiary and any assignee be in the public record. Niday argued that the lender, not MERS, was the beneficiary. MERS countered that it was the named beneficiary in the trust deed and had the contractual right to foreclose as nominee of the lender and its assigns.

The court sided with Niday, holding that MERS is not a “beneficiary” as defined by the act. The court wrote that the beneficiary is “the person to whom the underlying, secured obligation is owed.” It reasoned that because the lender is owed the money, that party is the beneficiary. Only the person to whom the obligation is owed and whose interest is of record may legally prosecute a nonjudicial foreclosure.

What does all of this mean? Maybe nothing if the Supreme Court finds that the Court of Appeals defined “beneficiary” too narrowly.

Short of that, many issues arise. What is the effect on completed nonjudicial foreclosures of MERS trust deeds? Such sales may be void, in which case the ownership and right to possession of thousands of foreclosed properties fall into legal limbo. Perhaps the sales are only voidable, requiring a lawsuit by the borrower within a limited time to challenge the foreclosure sale.

Titles may now be in doubt for people who bought properties either at a foreclosure sale or further along the line. Also, no market may exist for these properties if title insurers choose not to insure titles until there is some clarity.

Going forward, will MERS lenders do business in Oregon? And if so, at what cost? Loans may be more expensive to administer because they either require that all assignments be documented and recorded or foreclosure via the more expensive judicial method. As such, loans in Oregon could demand higher interest rates.

Courts will see a sharp increase in the number of judicial foreclosure filings; it’s happening in Multnomah County already. An already overcrowded judicial system will gain additional burdens.

The Legislature could step in to fix the issue by clarifying the definition of “beneficiary” to include a nominee of the lender, such as MERS. But is there political will to legislate a solution that, on the surface, seems to benefit lenders?

A practice that for many years roamed freely under the radar has suddenly exploded to the surface, leaving the mortgage industry in limbo. Quick answers to the numerous issues now pending are imperative to restore certainty to real estate markets.

Home Affordability Jumps with Record Low Mortgage Rates!


Did you know that right now, more people can afford to buy a home, than any previous time in history? Record low rates, and home values are helping many go from renting to owning!

Refinancing will Change or even Save your life!


Did you know that a simple action can forever change your life, and possibly even save it?  It’s true!  Watch today’s video as I give the details … you might be surprised!  Mortgage rates at new record low.

Home Repairs Required by Lender for a Mortgage Loan


Home Buyers ask me all the time about what repairs will be required before closing their home purchase. Here’s a list of the most common items, and a few strategies on how to pay for those. Mortgage Rates at Record Lows right now!

Sell a Home Faster with a Closing Cost Credit for the Buyer!


Many home Buyers have less cash to work with when purchasing a new home.  Here’s a great way for a Seller to not only help the Buyer, but also make their home more attractive and sell for a higher price!  Mortgage Rates at Record Lows right now!