Nearly 2/3 of Home Listings Have Been Sitting on the Market Longer Than a Month

The ones sitting want 20% more than sometimes literally the same house sold for last year, and also need $20k-$50k of work. Or, the owner looked around and saw what good houses are going for and is asking that for their house that has [some critical flaw in location or character or condition].

At least in the market I’m looking in.

The good ones go inside three days… and way over asking price.

This is up from 60% a year ago, so it's not like this is some huge aberration. Tbh it seems like a odd metric to use as an indicator, since it seems like more of a reflection of how long ppl are leaving listings up rather than how quickly stuff is selling.

The fact that they didn't go with more straightforward metrics like transaction volume or avg price tells me there's nothing really there, and this is just content marketing built on confirmation bias.

Original title "Nearly Two-Thirds of Home Listings Have Been Sitting on the Market Longer Than a Month As Buyers Grapple With High Costs" summarized due to title limit.

"It's not a loss if you don't sell" is harmless for stocks, but has some negative externalities for real estate. REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts) demonstrate the issue for commercial real estate where in order to lower the rent for a property the newest shareholders have to give up their shares. So instead of lowering the rent and recording a loss, junior shareholders would prefer to own a part of an empty lot hoping a business will come along and start renting.

Having millions of empty houses near millions of homeless people is a direct result of real estate owners trying to maximize the value of their assets. The solution to this would be to find a way to decommoditize housing, but that would never happen because that's socialism. Land value tax may be an easier jump to disincentive this inefficiency.

Awesome, please ship some of them over here to Australia and help solve our housing crisis.

Good. Prices need to drop to account for the higher interest rates.

This is an expected correction.

Housing prices are "sticky", which means when demand goes down, prices don't fall quickly - things like this happen initially. Then if it continues, prices eventually drop.

Yes because nobody can get fire insurance anymore. Which is required for a loan. The cal fair solution is 7-8 times the cost of traditional insurance.

We can debate another time whether or not it’s good for real estate, a necessity for life, should also be a financial instrument. Right now in the US, and most other countries, it is.

As long as it is being treated as an investment, that means people can profit from it. It also means people have to sometimes take a loss, maybe even a big one. Investing means accepting risk.

Too much of our laws, policies, and behaviors surrounding real estate seek to remove this risk. How come homeowners and real estate investors get so much help and insurance from government to make sure their investment never goes sour? Why can’t we get that kind of protection on stock market investments?

Yeah, it will probably have big economic consequences if people have to lose money on real estate. Landlords won’t be able to set rent high enough to cover their expenses. Homeowners won’t be able to sell at a price high enough to cover their remaining mortgage. But hey, they invested, they have to be able to lose and suffer the consequences. It will have huge benefits for other people who have money and want homes, as they’ll be able to finally buy low.