- The May U.S. median listing price was $315,000, up 6.0 percent year-over-year. However, the rate of price growth is now the slowest on record since April 2015.
- Nationally, homes sold in 53 days in May, one day more quickly than last year.
- National inventory grew 2.9 percent year-over-year.
Realtor.com®’s May data shows the U.S. housing market is slowly adjusting to new normals. Inventory continues to increase but at a slower rate and the time properties spend on the market is similar to last May. The nation’s median listing price also continued to increase but at a slower rate, testing the limits of what the market will bear in this new environment.
Housing inventory continues to increase at the national level but at a decelerating pace. The national inventory grew by 2.9 percent year-over-year in May, amounting to approximately 41,000 additional listings. This is a deceleration compared to last month when the yearly national growth rate was 4.4 percent. Part of this deceleration of inventory growth is attributed to fewer newly listed homes, and the count of new listings has decreased by 0.8 percent compared to last year.
The median age of properties on realtor.com in May reached 53 days, spending one day less on the market than May of last year and, following the expected seasonal trend, 4 days less than April.
The nationwide median home list price has reached $315,000, 6.0 percent higher than a year ago, and a new record high. However, the rate of increase is slower than last May, when the median list price grew by 8.2 percent, and is the slowest rate of growth since April 2015. Additionally, median listing price growth continues to be driven by increases in the inventory of more expensive homes.
In May, the number of homes with price reductions increased by 10.2 percent compared to the previous year. This had a slight impact on the share of homes which have had their price cut, which increased to 17.8 percent in May compared to 16.4 percent last year. This is a slower rate of price cut increases than the 2 to 3 percent share increases seen from September of last year to January of this year, indicating that while this season’s slow down continues, it is at a slower pace than this past winter.
Affordability in the Nation’s Largest Markets is Increasing
The listing inventory increases that have taken place within the past 8 months, in addition to slowing median listing price growth, decreasing interest rates, and rising incomes, means that more buyers are finding more inventory available to them at their desired price point. In April, 74 out of the nation’s 100 largest metros became more affordable compared to last year, according to our REALTORS Affordability Distribution Curve and Score Report. This is an acceleration from the first quarter when only 44 metros increased in affordability over the year.
The 10 markets which saw affordability increase the most saw rising incomes, falling listing prices, and an increase in the inventory of available homes for sale. Incomes in these markets grew an estimated 6.0 percent over the past year on average, compared to an average of 3.5 percent for the largest 100 metros. They also saw April median listing prices decrease by 2.0 percent on average, compared to a 4.4 percent gain in the largest 100 markets. Lastly, they saw inventory increase by 26.2 percent on average, compared to a gain of 6.5 percent for the largest 100 markets.
However, not all buyers will feel the increase in affordability in these metros equally. As we noted in April, the number of homes across the country priced above $750,000 grew 11 percent over last year, while the number of homes $200,000 and under declined by 8 percent, meaning households in the low and mid-income tiers looking for more affordable homes are still facing tight inventory conditions. This trend sometimes holds at the market level as well. For example, as noted in the first quarter report, the improvement in affordability in the San Jose market was driven mostly by improvements in what the 80th and 90th percentile of income earners can afford to buy. By contrast, in Des Moines, most of the improvement in affordability was driven by the middle of the curve- households from the 40th to the 60th percentile of income.
Largest 100 Metros, Ranked by Increase in Affordability
Metro | April Affordability Score | YoY Affordability Score | May Median Listing Price | May Median Days on Market |
San Jose-Sunnyvale et al, CA | 0.50 | 0.11 | $1,167,444 | 28 |
Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA | 0.94 | 0.11 | $288,000 | 59 |
San Francisco-Oakland et al, CA | 0.54 | 0.09 | $954,500 | 28 |
Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL | 0.82 | 0.08 | $231,500 | 64 |
Atlanta-Sandy Springs et al, GA | 0.80 | 0.07 | $335,000 | 47 |
Portland-Vancouver et al, OR-WA | 0.59 | 0.07 | $474,975 | 34 |
Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL | 0.69 | 0.07 | $299,900 | 91 |
Austin-Round Rock, TX | 0.70 | 0.07 | $369,995 | 46 |
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX | 0.68 | 0.06 | $350,000 | 43 |
Charlotte-Concord et al, NC-SC | 0.75 | 0.06 | $329,450 | 49 |
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT | 0.56 | 0.06 | $754,500 | 60 |
Raleigh, NC | 0.87 | 0.06 | $349,950 | 45 |
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL | 0.69 | 0.06 | $315,000 | 57 |
Madison, WI | 0.86 | 0.06 | $339,500 | 40 |
Jackson, MS | 0.86 | 0.06 | $259,000 | 71 |
Tampa-St. Petersburg et al, FL | 0.77 | 0.05 | $279,950 | 58 |
Palm Bay-Melbourne et al, FL | 0.79 | 0.05 | $270,018 | 61 |
Jacksonville, FL | 0.74 | 0.05 | $315,000 | 60 |
Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN | 0.91 | 0.05 | $279,900 | 45 |
Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI | 0.80 | 0.05 | $289,900 | 31 |
Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO | 0.68 | 0.05 | $511,950 | 29 |
Colorado Springs, CO | 0.62 | 0.05 | $379,900 | 30 |
Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC | 0.90 | 0.05 | $223,225 | 60 |
Salt Lake City, UT | 0.70 | 0.05 | $436,250 | 31 |
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ | 0.70 | 0.05 | $350,000 | 46 |
Nashville-Davidson et al, TN | 0.72 | 0.05 | $355,495 | 37 |
Washington et al, DC-VA-MD-WV | 0.87 | 0.04 | $462,250 | 34 |
Stockton-Lodi, CA | 0.62 | 0.04 | $425,475 | 35 |
St. Louis, MO-IL | 1.08 | 0.04 | $229,188 | 52 |
Riverside et al, CA | 0.62 | 0.04 | $410,450 | 50 |
New Haven-Milford, CT | 0.90 | 0.04 | $279,900 | 50 |
Minneapolis et al, MN-WI | 0.81 | 0.04 | $360,000 | 34 |
Miami-Fort Lauderdale et al, FL | 0.62 | 0.04 | $399,000 | 88 |
Deltona-Daytona Beach et al, FL | 0.62 | 0.04 | $294,500 | 73 |
Allentown-Bethlehem et al, PA-NJ | 1.00 | 0.04 | $222,450 | 54 |
Los Angeles-Long Beach et al, CA | 0.37 | 0.04 | $769,500 | 42 |
Springfield, MA | 0.83 | 0.04 | $279,000 | 37 |
Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, SC | 0.84 | 0.04 | $269,000 | 50 |
Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI | 0.97 | 0.04 | $258,250 | 36 |
San Diego-Carlsbad, CA | 0.39 | 0.03 | $699,925 | 31 |
North Port-Sarasota et al, FL | 0.66 | 0.03 | $359,900 | 86 |
Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA | 1.07 | 0.03 | $219,900 | 45 |
Boise City, ID | 0.64 | 0.03 | $369,900 | 30 |
Sacramento–Roseville et al, CA | 0.57 | 0.03 | $493,725 | 35 |
Portland-South Portland, ME | 0.70 | 0.03 | $379,450 | 47 |
Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD | 0.96 | 0.03 | $334,500 | 43 |
Tucson, AZ | 0.67 | 0.02 | $298,250 | 52 |
San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX | 0.68 | 0.02 | $295,000 | 49 |
New York-Newark et al, NY-NJ-PA | 0.54 | 0.02 | $564,500 | 52 |
Little Rock et al, AR | 1.03 | 0.02 | $194,900 | 53 |
Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV | 0.72 | 0.02 | $319,900 | 43 |
Knoxville, TN | 0.77 | 0.02 | $289,900 | 56 |
Hartford-West Hartford et al, CT | 0.98 | 0.02 | $279,900 | 46 |
Fresno, CA | 0.66 | 0.02 | $322,500 | 42 |
Durham-Chapel Hill, NC | 0.68 | 0.02 | $361,250 | 43 |
Columbia, SC | 0.98 | 0.02 | $235,000 | 53 |
Chicago et al, IL-IN-WI | 0.86 | 0.02 | $311,386 | 42 |
Albuquerque, NM | 0.81 | 0.02 | $269,995 | 46 |
Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA | 0.69 | 0.02 | $329,995 | 31 |
Richmond, VA | 0.83 | 0.02 | $332,053 | 46 |
Wichita, KS | 0.96 | 0.01 | $212,450 | 44 |
Virginia Beach et al, VA-NC | 0.85 | 0.01 | $301,000 | 45 |
Urban Honolulu, HI | 0.52 | 0.01 | $694,900 | 56 |
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA | 0.51 | 0.01 | $627,500 | 30 |
Providence-Warwick, RI-MA | 0.64 | 0.01 | $369,900 | 44 |
Pittsburgh, PA | 1.05 | 0.01 | $197,250 | 59 |
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA | 0.43 | 0.01 | $689,475 | 40 |
Memphis, TN-MS-AR | 1.01 | 0.01 | $223,500 | 44 |
Columbus, OH | 0.95 | 0.01 | $264,900 | 35 |
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN | 0.89 | 0.01 | $289,900 | 43 |
Buffalo-Cheektowaga et al, NY | 0.92 | 0.01 | $220,000 | 36 |
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH | 0.62 | 0.01 | $594,250 | 30 |
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY | 0.84 | 0.01 | $299,900 | 64 |
Charleston-North Charleston, SC | 0.69 | 0.01 | $427,450 | 67 |
Worcester, MA-CT | 0.85 | 0 | $349,000 | 36 |
Toledo, OH | 1.13 | 0 | $166,950 | 43 |
Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA | 0.81 | 0 | $297,630 | 29 |
Milwaukee-Waukesha et al, WI | 0.86 | 0 | $279,900 | 36 |
Houston-The Woodlands et al, TX | 0.70 | 0 | $324,945 | 51 |
Cleveland-Elyria, OH | 1.03 | 0 | $190,606 | 49 |
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX | 0.68 | -0.01 | $196,000 | 83 |
Baton Rouge, LA | 0.93 | -0.01 | $249,900 | 70 |
Youngstown-Warren et al, OH-PA | 1.21 | -0.01 | $124,900 | 64 |
Dayton, OH | 1.15 | -0.01 | $157,745 | 38 |
Akron, OH | 1.11 | -0.02 | $174,900 | 40 |
Philadelphia et al, PA-NJ-DE-MD | 0.92 | -0.02 | $288,950 | 46 |
Winston-Salem, NC | 0.85 | -0.02 | $245,000 | 45 |
Scranton–Wilkes-Barre et al, PA | 1.06 | -0.02 | $162,400 | 67 |
Oklahoma City, OK | 0.87 | -0.02 | $256,500 | 43 |
New Orleans-Metairie, LA | 0.74 | -0.02 | $292,500 | 60 |
Louisville et al, KY-IN | 0.91 | -0.02 | $277,450 | 43 |
Greensboro-High Point, NC | 0.85 | -0.02 | $245,900 | 45 |
Chattanooga, TN-GA | 0.77 | -0.03 | $289,700 | 51 |
Birmingham-Hoover, AL | 0.96 | -0.03 | $249,000 | 50 |
Rochester, NY | 0.93 | -0.04 | $222,450 | 31 |
Bakersfield, CA | 0.79 | -0.04 | $260,000 | 43 |
Syracuse, NY | 1.04 | -0.04 | $184,950 | 51 |
Kansas City, MO-KS | 0.88 | -0.04 | $302,500 | 40 |
Tulsa, OK | 0.89 | -0.07 | $239,500 | 50 |
El Paso, TX | 0.79 | -0.09 | $191,475 | 68 |
Subscribe to our mailing list to receive monthly updates and notifications on the latest data and research.