Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom, CA
Executive Summary
Sacramento's housing market shows below-average risk, ranking 251st of 287 metros. The market recently entered Recovery. Inventory is growing moderately (+12% YoY) with stable liquidity. Early signs of stabilization — conditions may favor patient buyers.
Sacramento experienced a market correction from early 2025 through mid-2025. The market is currently recovering.
Inventory is growing at a moderate +12% pace with homes taking +10% longer to sell — within normal ranges.
Rent growth is roughly keeping pace with price appreciation, suggesting valuations are not stretched.
Cycle Phase
Market conditions are rebuilding after a correction period
Key Dynamics
Risk is primarily driven by employment and permits per capita, while migration provides the most support.
Top Drivers
Market Signals
Inventory is growing at a moderate +12% pace with homes taking +10% longer to sell — within normal ranges.
Liquidity
Valuation
Factor Details
12-month HPI change — higher = overheating
YoY permit change — higher = supply pressure
Permits per 1,000 residents — higher = overbuilding risk
Mortgage payment / income — higher = more burdened
12-month employment change (risk inverted)
Net AGI migration (risk inverted)
National Context
Credit Conditions
Credit Regime
Healthy recovery. Credit is flowing normally and transactions are steady — conditions favor continued rebuilding.
Supply Pipeline
Supply Regime
Supply pipeline is building up while credit remains available. New units are accumulating in the system — watch for delivery pressure in coming quarters.
Local Signals
Metro Permit Activity
Permit Activity
CoolingRaw signal — not the composite percentile
Relative to 2016–2019 norms for this metro
Builders are pulling back but demand remains healthy. A supply constraint could form — fewer new units entering a market that is still absorbing well.
Employment Concentration
Employment
ModerateInternal Structure
Sacramento's counties diverge significantly — Yolo County (Elevated) contrasts sharply with El Dorado County, making the metro average potentially misleading.
Sacramento, CA shows High internal divergence — the metro composite may obscure significant county-level differences. Yolo County contributes the most structural risk (Elevated, driven by affordability), while El Dorado County anchors the lower end (Low Risk).
| County | Score ▼ |
|---|---|
Sacramento County | 67 |
Yolo CountyRisk Driver | 67 |
Placer County | 66 |
El Dorado CountyStabilizer | 0 |
Score History
| Month | Score |
|---|---|
| 2025-11 | 36 |
| 2025-09 | 38 |
| 2025-07 | 38 |
| 2025-05 | 32 |
| 2025-03 | 32 |
| 2025-01 | 36 |
| 2024-11 | 35 |
| 2024-10 | 36 |
| 2024-08 | 34 |
| 2024-07 | 35 |
| 2024-06 | 43 |
| 2024-04 | 37 |
| 2024-03 | 37 |
| 2024-02 | 40 |
| 2023-12 | 41 |
| 2023-09 | 36 |
| 2023-08 | 36 |
| 2023-06 | 36 |
| 2023-03 | 36 |
| 2023-02 | 36 |
| 2023-01 | 36 |
| 2022-11 | 32 |
| 2022-10 | 34 |
| 2022-08 | 35 |
| 2022-07 | 35 |
| 2022-05 | 41 |
| 2022-04 | 42 |
| 2022-02 | 42 |
| 2022-01 | 42 |
| 2021-11 | 42 |
| 2021-10 | 41 |
| 2021-08 | 41 |
| 2021-05 | 45 |
| 2021-03 | 47 |
| 2021-01 | 48 |
| 2020-12 | 46 |
| 2020-10 | 46 |
| 2020-09 | 44 |
| 2020-07 | 42 |
| 2020-05 | 42 |
| 2020-03 | 36 |
| 2020-01 | 36 |
| 2019-11 | 34 |
| 2019-08 | 34 |
| 2019-05 | 34 |
| 2019-03 | 33 |
| 2019-01 | 36 |