There will always be open house visitors looking for the free cookies, but there are also real aspiring homeowners wondering if now is a good time to put down an offer. The short answer is: No, but it’s getting better.

Home prices aren’t soaring like they were in 2021 and 2022. The median home sale price was $431,048 last month, up just 2.5% from a year ago, according to Redfin. But that doesn’t mean that buying a home has become more affordable: Elevated interest rates have raised home loan rates, causing mortgage payments to balloon:

• The average rate for a 30-year mortgage as of April 24 was 6.81%, compared to 2.98% in 2021, according to Freddie Mac.
• The median monthly mortgage payment was $2,207 last year, vs. $1,525 in 2021, per Bankrate.

High mortgage rates have pushed some would-be buyers out of the market, but it has also meant that fewer homeowners are willing to sell, since most people selling their main residence have to take out a mortgage for their next dwelling. This has led to outstandingly low numbers of Americans trading cash for keys.

But things are looking up for buyers

This spring, the balance has tipped in buyers’ favor as many home sellers decided to stop waiting for interest rates to come down:

• The number of homes for sale increased almost 20% last month from a year ago, according to the National Association of Realtors.
• Real estate agents are saying that buyers have more wiggle room to negotiate better deals, with 44% of home purchases in the first three months of the year involving some concession from the seller, per Redfin.

Meanwhile, recent tariff turmoil and subsequent economic haziness likely mean that even fewer Americans will jump into purchasing the priciest asset they’ll ever own, further lowering competition among buyers. But high interest rates have led to fewer new housing units getting built compared to 2021 and 2022, so analysts don’t anticipate a significant increase in the number of homes on the market anytime soon.

Looking ahead…it’s unclear if mortgages will get any cheaper in the near future, as the Federal Reserve is taking a wait-and-see approach before deciding whether to lower interest rates.—SK

More than a year after a historic legal settlement promised to deliver seismic shifts to commission structures, homebuyers and sellers are still waiting to see changes that impact their wallets.

ICYMI: A group of sellers accused the National Association of Realtors (NAR) of inflating home costs by letting buyer-side and seller-side agents discuss commission rates on the Multiple Listing Services (MLS) home database, which only agents can see. A jury agreed, so the NAR settled the lawsuit for $418 million in damages and barred agents from sharing commission rates on MLS databases—a huge change that was expected to extinguish the notoriously high 5% to 6% realtor fee in the US (global averages are 1% to 3%).

As a result…the US real estate industry braced for as much as a 30% drop in the estimated $100 billion Americans pay annually in commission fees. But the new rules have been a dud firecracker since taking effect in August:

• “It only took a matter of weeks really, for most agents to find a loophole,” one realtor told the New York Times, saying, “It’s almost a joke.” With commission discussions only banned from taking place on the NAR’s listing site, agents simply moved those conversations to phone, text, and email.
• Average commissions for buyers’ agents “barely budged” from Q3 to Q4, and ticked down less than 0.1% from a year earlier (e.g., $415 on a $415,000 home), per Redfin.
• Agents are pressuring sellers to continue offering 5% to 6% commission. Fifteen buyers and sellers told the NYT that they were boxed out when they tried to negotiate lower rates or go agentless.

There’s still hope: Housing experts predicted that commission declines would happen slowly, and progress may be getting held up by tight inventory. Buyers without agents have struggled to compete in high-demand areas, especially since listing agents tend to prefer working with represented buyers.—ML

Money can buy lots of great things—happiness, sports teams, the McRib—and it can apparently also get you peace of mind when it comes to owning property in environmental danger zones.

Extreme heat, rising sea levels, and unpredictable weather are causing extensive property damage in the US, but wealthy Americans remain undeterred in snapping up houses in at-risk areas. The reasons why may not be complicated: Oceanfronts, mountains, deserts, and other places particularly affected by climate change have always been popular destinations for the rich—and the risks do not outweigh the status these locales confer.

And any damage to the homes of the ultrawealthy likely doesn’t hit them as hard as it would someone with fewer assets:

• The Wall Street Journal reported that Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison lost a home in the Los Angeles wildfires that Zillow had valued at $21.5 million.
• While that’s a painful experience for anyone, it’s about 0.01% of his $216 billion net worth, equivalent to having $500 and losing a nickel in your couch cushions.

As for the merely wealthy, they don’t have that luxury, but they do have others. They can build homes that are more likely to survive thanks to pricey options that include fireproof materials, private firefighting outfits, and homes on stilts that others can’t afford.

This is a problem for everyone: Realtor.com reported that 44.8% of homes with a combined value of $22 trillion are located in an area at risk for at least one potential climate catastrophe, making it difficult to avoid completely. Less vulnerable properties are rising in cost—the total value of US homes in low-risk areas was up between 6% and 7% year over year in 2024.—DL

In some parts of the world, it’s actually never been more affordable to pack up your things, blast Rusted Root’s “Send Me On My Way,” and find somewhere new to start over. Pawnee City, NE, a town of just under 900 people, announced an initiative last month that will offer $50,000 toward down payment assistance for people who are willing to relocate to the small town and buy a house.

The program, called Vision 2030, aims to attract new residents to revitalize the town, particularly the downtown business district, which recently lost its only bar. As of March 27, the program had 115 applicants.

Cities around the US have offered perks to woo remote workers, but this aggressive housing incentive is reminiscent of international programs hoping to attract US expats:

• An Italian village on the island of Sardinia created a website last year of one-euro houses to “meet US post-elections relocation needs,” according to the village’s Mayor Francesco Columbu. Other small rural Italian towns have offered one-euro houses to lure foreigners since 2018.
• Countries like Ireland and Japan have offered similar programs aimed at revitalizing rural areas in the countryside.

There’s a catch. The homes that pop up in clickbaity “move to paradise for FREE” articles usually need a lot of work. In the case of some one-euro rural Italian homes, they are even partially or fully collapsed, and the Irish and Japanese options require the new residents to put tens of thousands of dollars into the slow process of rehabbing traditional architecture.—MM