One in four homes in Baltimore region selling for a loss
Twenty-five percent of homes that sold in the Baltimore region over the summer changed hands for less than their owners paid for them, up from 21 percent a year earlier, real estate search site Zillow says.
The share of homes selling at a loss is down from the spring, however, when it peaked at nearly 28 percent. (Zillow shows the percentage of losses generally spiking in the first half of the year, dipping in the summer and then heading back upward.)
The situation is worse nationally, with just over a third of homes -- 34 percent -- selling for a loss.
The calculation excludes foreclosures. Zillow crunched transactions from June through August, putting the most weight on sales in the most recent of the three months.
Oh, and it looked at the new sales price vs. the previous price, so that doesn't include homes that were a net loss for the owners after taking into account transaction expenses (like transfer taxes and real estate commissions) or money spent on renovations.
So what's the breakdown at a more local level? It varies a lot, as you might expect, though most places are seeing losses rise.
Thirty-two percent of Baltimore homes that sold this summer went for less than the previous purchase price, Zillow says. That's up from 26 percent during summer 2010.
Annapolis is at 26 percent, Ellicott City's at 24 percent and Columbia is at 20 percent (though Columbia has been all over the map, zigging as high as 31 percent this spring before zagging back).
At the low end among communities Zillow tracks are Arnold in Anne Arundel County and Parkville in Baltimore County, where fewer than 10 percent of homes are selling for a loss.
At the high end: Odenton -- next to Fort Meade in Anne Arundel -- with almost 40 percent of homes selling for a loss, Zillow says. The community was at 30 percent two years ago and 24 percent in August 2010.
Does that match up with your sense of things, folks?
Categories: Housing stats, The foreclosure mess, Underwater
Sign up for the At Home newsletter 
Comments
When my wife and I sell our home (hopefully in the spring of 2013), you can add our home to the list. We bought our home in 2007 for $172,000. We hope to sell it for around $100,000.
Posted by: Chris | October 17, 2011 7:52 AM
Odenton prices selling for a loss makes sense because some of the military members are often forced to move. Usually, they're getting home assistance/allowance.
Posted by: Mike | October 17, 2011 10:08 AM
Yikes -- sorry, Chris.
Mike, that makes sense.
Posted by: Jamie Smith Hopkins | October 17, 2011 10:21 AM
I wonder if this analysis takes into account how long the homes were owned by the seller? In Perry Hall, I am underwater and anticipating a short sale (paid $255k in 2009, likely to get $225k now after a long period on the market, lost all hope on recovering $50k+ improvements). My value seems depressed especially by the comps in the neighborhood that reflect the passing of many original owners - the homes were built in the 50's - and their children letting them go for nothing because they cannot afford to update them before sale. They will not reflect a loss in the statistics because of the long time lapse/inflation since last sale. Townhouses are also holding their value better than singles, which could explain why Parkville is doing OK.
Posted by: Elle | October 17, 2011 10:59 AM
Interesting point, Elle. I don't know if Zillow took tenure into account, but it's not breaking the statistics out in a way that notes how long the owners owned.
Posted by: Jamie Smith Hopkins | October 17, 2011 11:22 AM
Jamie - are these numbers through the entire month of August or jut August 1?
Chart is a little unclear.
Posted by: Tom | October 17, 2011 1:20 PM
Tom, you have to scroll down to the very bottom of the page to find this note: "Includes data and transactions through 08/31/2011."
Posted by: Jamie Smith Hopkins | October 17, 2011 1:37 PM
Elle- why would you buy a home only to try and sell 2 years later? The trasactional costs are enormous for this type of behavior. Also, do you have receipts totalling 50K or is this some perceived value of what you did to the home that someone else should pay for?
Posted by: elweedz | October 17, 2011 4:07 PM
@elweedz, I assume she means she spent 50k on improvements, not that her improvements actually added 50k in value (which, you are right, is subjective).
I am surprised that someone in 2009 would buy a house for such a short period, right after the bubble burst and right after major financial crises! I would love to hear more about the psychology behind that. Were they relying on their RE agent? Did they think RE could never go lower? Did they think their job was more secure than it was? Or maybe it was a mistake and they intended to be there a long time.It is a little puzzling, though.
Posted by: chappy10 | October 18, 2011 10:56 AM