IBJNews

Area homes sales rise for 11th straight month

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Sales of existing homes in the Indianapolis area continued trending upward in March, according to statistics released Friday afternoon by F.C. Tucker Co.

Purchase agreements in the nine-county area tracked by the real estate firm hit 2,327, a 4.9-percent increase over March 2011. Existing home sales were up 13.3 percent in the first quarter of 2012 and have shown year-over-year improvements for 11 straight months.

Pending sales were up 14.7 percent in February and 13.4 percent in January.

In Marion County, sales agreements climbed 7.6 percent, from 982 in March 2011 to 1,057 in March 2012. Pending sales rose 8.3 percent in Hamilton County, from 460 to 498.

Purchase agreements in Hendricks and Johnson counties, however, fell by 11.3 percent and 16 percent, respectively.

Madison County saw a whopping 39-percent increase in March, with potential buyers reaching agreements on 146 homes.

Sales activity is ramping up, shrinking the number of available homes. Inventory in the nine-county area fell 12.1 percent over last March, to 13,079.

Inventory dropped 19.7 percent in Johnson County and 17.2 percent in Marion County.

“The market is slowly trending up, both nationally and here in central Indiana,” said Jim Litten, president of F.C. Tucker, in a prepared statement. “We anticipate prices will continue to creep up as investors and first-time homebuyers compete for bargain-priced homes."

The average sale price in the area rose slightly, by 0.1 percent, to $139,136. About 89 percent of the area’s sales agreements in March involved homes priced at $299,000 or less. Agreements were reached on eight homes priced at more than $1 million.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT