It’s 2007 all over again. Get ready because we’re going to crash. We’ve been hearing this for five years, but here we are in a market with high prices and not much relief. Let’s look at why prices haven’t crashed like so many have predicted.

UPCOMING SPEAKING GIGS:
3/27/26 Prime Real Estate (private)
4/9/26 Realtist Association of Sacramento
4/14/26 Culbertson & Gray
4/22/26 EDCAR
4/28/26 PCAR Rocklin
5/7/26 Empire State of Mind
5/15/26 Nevada County TBA
6/3/26 Wisdom Wednesday in Elk Grove
8/6/26 PCAR Auburn
10/2/26 PCAR Rocklin
10/21/26 Coldwell Banker EDH

ACTIVE LISTINGS ARE NOWHERE NEAR 2008 LEVELS
In our largest local county, we had nearly 9,000 active listings at this time in 2008 compared with 1,500 today. Can you imagine how different the housing market would feel if we added 7,500 more listings? No wonder why prices haven’t been able to implode like back then since the supply situation is far different today.

NOT THE WIDEST GAP EVER BETWEEN BUYERS & SELLERS
There is so much talk about the housing market having the widest gap ever between sellers and buyers, but let’s check the fine print. Look, I really like much of what Redfin puts out there, but this narrative is a miss. There is a viral Redfin story about “the biggest gap on record” with sellers outnumbering buyers, but their stats only go back to 2013, so “biggest gap” needs to be taken with a grain of salt. The problem is people hear “on record” and assume it’s even worse than 2007 today.

ONE THING IS NOT LIKE THE OTHER
There is a massive difference today compared with the carnage of the Great Financial Crisis. I wish there were more data sources showing this online so we can have informed discussions. It seems like listing data from the GFC just isn’t available or shared for whatever reason. So, here’s some local flavor. What stands out to you?

ONLY VOLUME STATS ARE SIMILAR TO THE CRASH
I think people often flippantly compare today with 2007 without really looking into the numbers. Out of all the stats I follow, the only one that is similar to those days is the number of sales happening. Housing supply was exponentially higher in those days, it was taking over 100 days to sell compared to about 40 days lately, prices were tanking compared with softening a couple percent this past year, and the market was dominated by foreclosures (they hardly exist today). I don’t say any of this to sugarcoat the trend today, so save your hate mail. I’m only trying to say we need to be cautious about flippantly saying it’s 2007 again in the stats. This doesn’t mean there aren’t red flags to watch today either such as mortgage delinquencies.

THE MARKET HAS GROWN SOFTER THOUGH
The gap between listings and sales has widened in recent years, so I get people talking about the housing market being softer or prices dipping. But the gap between listings and sales has been nowhere wide enough in most areas to create quick price change like we saw in 2007 and 2008. So, maybe stop telling people we’re going to see a 2007 implosion with 2026 stats. Could we still see prices go down though? Of course.
One thing to continue to watch ahead is buyer and seller behavior in light of higher mortgage rates and gas prices (Iran War). I don’t think the local housing market has seen an inflection point yet in the stats from this, but if rates keep moving up and confidence moves down, that’ll show up in the numbers at some point. The positive news in recent months is we’ve been seeing sellers come back to the market this year after backing off in 2025. The hope is to see this continue since we need more supply if we ever want this housing market to heal and not feel stuck.
2007 ISN’T THE ONLY TIME PRICES DROPPED
Some people treat what happened in 2007 like the new template for every future housing market correction, but what happened then isn’t the new formula for every downtrend ahead. Locally, prices dipped in the early ’80s and ’90s, so it’s not like 2007 is the only example on record of prices ever dropping. Here’s a snippet from the Sacramento Bee in 1994 to show year-over-year downward price change.

The median sales price declined 24% during the early ’90s. I realize we are dealing with smaller numbers, but that’s what the market was like back then. Declines felt real to people back then, so be careful about looking at this with the benefit of knowing the future.

SUPPLY HASN’T BUILT LIKE IT DID BACK THEN
One of the huge differences between back then and today is supply began to build immediately in the summer of 2005. In fact, it tripled in one year. Meanwhile, prices dropped 6% during this time, but the bigger issue was how much supply was building in the background to set the stage for an implosion in 2007. In contrast, supply is still pretty limited today no matter how we look at it, and prices have dropped about 7% to 8% over the course of FOUR YEARS. Notably, we don’t have a ton of supply that has built to help create quick change ahead like we did back then.

I realize some people say, “But the crash looks different today. It’s a slow burn crash over many years.” Umm, okay, then let’s call it a correction instead since a crash by definition is something sharp and quick.

FOUR LONG YEARS AND THIS IS ALL WE HAVE
It’s been nearly four years since prices peaked in the local market. The median sales price is down 8% in the region from mid-2022, and Zillow’s price index for Sacramento is down about 7%. I’m not glossing over this decline, but it’s stunning to only be down this amount in the midst of glaring affordability issues. The x-factor for why prices haven’t dropped more substantially is a lack of supply. Sellers have not been coming to the market at normal levels and distressed inventory has hardly built. By the way, I find myself these days looking at lots of different price metrics to interpret change (not just the median or average).
NOTE: Don’t be rigid about saying prices are down this exact amount in every neighborhood and price range. Look to the comps.


CLOSING THOUGHTS
Let’s keep watching the market and being cautious about looking at things through a doom or rose-colored lens. Imposing a narrative on the market makes conversation boring for me when we’re stuck in polarizing positions instead of trying to interpret what is in front of us. The goal here is to let the stats form the narrative rather than impose a narrative on the stats. And right now, we can say the housing market has definitely softened in recent years, but it’s also nothing like 2007 in the stats too.

Anyway, I hope that was helpful. Thanks for being here.
Questions: What stands out to you most above? What similarities and differences do you see today with 2007? Anything to add?
If you liked this post, subscribe by email (or RSS). Thanks for being here.











































