Home sales continue to slump, but prices rise

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Home-sale agreements in the nine-county area fell 22.8 percent in September compared with the same month a year ago, according to a report released Tuesday by F.C. Tucker Co.

Pending home sales dropped last month to 1,725, down from 2,235 in September 2009, the Indianapolis-based real estate company said.

The decline marked the fifth straight month that home sales have slumped in central Indiana following three straight months of improving sales activity spurred by generous federal tax credits. Pending sales were down 23 percent in August, 27 percent in July, 30 percent in June, and 32 percent in May.

Pending home sales account for sales agreements, not sales that have closed.

Year-to-date, sales agreements are off 6.1 percent from the same period in 2009, the report said.

In Marion County, September sales agreements fell 23.1 percent compared with the previous year, from 1,052 to 809. Pending sales dropped 30.9 percent in Hamilton County, from 427 to 295, and 28.9 percent in Hendricks County, from 201 to 143.

Three counties recorded an increase in sales contracts for September: Shelby County had 47 sales, up from 31 last year; Morgan County recorded 60, up from 58; and Hancock had 81, up from 80.

On a positive note, the average price of homes sold in the area is up 8.1 percent for the year to date, from $138,466 last year to $149,639 this year.

Prices are up 10.5 percent in Marion County, to $113,956, and 7.6 percent in Hamilton, to $243,801. But Shelby County has led the way so far this year with a 13.1-percent jump, to $96,707.

Meantime, the number of listings rose 1.7 percent in the central Indiana region.


Post a comment to this story

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

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.