Janet MatchinskyBy 2025, Minnesota’s reported statewide median sale price was higher than in 2019, while annual closed sales and year-end inventory were lower in the original annual reports. National mortgage rates were also higher. Those changes matter together: a household shopping with a mortgage faces both a purchase-price decision and a financing decision. This comparison was written September 22, 2026, after both calendar years were complete.
The table below uses the same statewide measures and calendar periods, but preserves each annual report’s original data snapshot. It is a comparison of published records, not a claim that every Minnesota home followed the same path.
The two annual reports side by side
The 2019 report was current as of January 7, 2020; the 2025 report was current as of January 8, 2026. Both describe residential MLS activity statewide. Historical counts can be revised, so percentages here are our calculations from these specific snapshots. 2019 annual report, 2025 annual report.
| Statewide measure | 2019 | 2025 | Calculated change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annual median sale price | $254,000 | $355,000 | +39.8% |
| Annual closed sales | 85,162 | 68,432 | −19.6% |
| Annual new listings | 109,704 | 96,408 | −12.1% |
| Active inventory at year-end | 13,988 | 12,550 | −10.3% |
The values are nominal: the price comparison is not adjusted for inflation. The inventory row compares year-end snapshots, not average supply through the year. Annual listings and annual closings are flows over twelve months; inventory is the stock available at a particular point.
The original reports give a useful documented comparison, but a research project requiring identical data vintages would need a single revised series covering both years. Small differences between this table and a later publication are a reason to check the source dates before assuming a contradiction.
A second price measure answers a different question
FHFA’s Minnesota purchase-only, seasonally adjusted quarterly index was 298.69 in the fourth quarter of 2019 and 432.30 in the fourth quarter of 2025 in the series retrieved for this article. The index uses 1991’s first quarter as 100. Our calculated increase between those fourth quarters is about 44.7%. These are index values, not dollar prices or full-year averages. FHFA state purchase-only data.
FHFA uses a repeat-sales method to examine price changes for the properties covered by its data. A median, by comparison, describes the middle transaction in a set of sales. Their samples, periods, and methods differ, so their percentages need not match. FHFA methodology questions.
Neither result is an appraisal of your house. A rural property with an added outbuilding, a remodeled city home, and a seasonal cabin require their own comparisons. The home pricing guide explains how current comparable properties help connect market evidence to an individual listing.
Separate the rate effect from the price effect
Our arithmetic averages of Freddie Mac’s published weekly national 30-year fixed rates are approximately 3.94% for 2019 and 6.60% for 2025. The underlying observations number 52 and 53, respectively. These are national benchmarks, not Minnesota loan quotes. Freddie Mac historical rate file.
PMMS collection changed in November 2022 from lender surveys to loan-application data. This comparison retains the published series across that change; it does not imply an unchanged collection process. Freddie Mac’s methodology explanation.
First, hold the hypothetical loan amount at $250,000 and amortize it over 30 years. Using the unrounded calculated annual rates, principal and interest would be about $1,184 monthly under the 2019 rate assumption and $1,596 under the 2025 assumption. That roughly $412 difference isolates financing cost while keeping the amount borrowed unchanged.
Next, allow the illustrative purchase price to change too:
| Hypothetical purchase | 2019 inputs | 2025 inputs |
|---|---|---|
| Price equal to that year’s reported median | $254,000 | $355,000 |
| Assumed 20% down payment | $50,800 | $71,000 |
| Starting loan amount | $203,200 | $284,000 |
| Calculated monthly principal and interest | About $963 | About $1,813 |
These are mathematical examples using different hypothetical purchases, not a tracked household or the same home. They exclude taxes, insurance, mortgage insurance, association charges, maintenance, and closing expenses. Actual loan pricing depends on the borrower and product.
The second example also requires $20,200 more in down payment cash. That is why a monthly-payment comparison alone can understate the change in the resources needed to buy. Use the closing cost guide to keep other upfront expenses visible.
Fewer transactions do not identify everyone’s reason
A lower closed-sales total establishes that fewer transactions were recorded in the chosen report. It cannot, on its own, tell us how many households postponed a move because of rates, could not find a suitable home, changed jobs, or decided to rent.
Likewise, lower year-end inventory does not tell a specific buyer how many homes will meet a search next spring. A household seeking a two-bedroom condo and one seeking acreage are shopping in different practical sets of choices.
Use the statewide comparison to ask a better local question: how many realistic alternatives match the property type, location, condition, and budget? For waterfront searches, the lake home buying guide adds shoreline and year-round-use considerations that a statewide inventory count cannot express.
Owners and first-time buyers face different arithmetic
An owner who purchased in 2019 may approach a move with equity, an existing mortgage, and sale expenses. A first-time buyer may approach the same asking price with savings and no property to sell. The statewide price increase affects those two starting positions differently.
For a move-up or downsizing decision, prepare two separate estimates. One shows likely sale proceeds after the mortgage payoff and selling costs. The other shows the cash and monthly expense required for the replacement property. Do not let a larger expected sale price obscure the cost of the next purchase.
For a first-time purchase, establish the sustainable payment and available cash before comparing property features. The first-time buyer guide helps turn those limits into a search plan. A historical benchmark can explain the environment; it cannot decide how much financial flexibility a household should retain.
One useful exercise is to price the smallest change that would make the current home work for another few years, then compare it with the full cost of moving. This is an individual planning exercise, not a claim that remodeling always pays for itself. Include disruption, usable space, expected time in the home, and cash remaining afterward. A historical increase in the statewide median does not establish which choice gives a household the better daily life.
Make the comparison useful to your own decision
Keep three lines on a personal worksheet: the historical reference, the current property evidence, and the household budget. Label the date and source of each number. Avoid moving a statewide percentage into the property-value line without comparable sales to support it.
The years differ on several dimensions, and the calculations make that difference concrete. The next step is to test the actual home, financing proposal, and moving schedule against the household’s needs. That produces a decision grounded in the present while preserving an accurate account of how the broader market changed. If the home is yours, ask me what it is worth now.
More of this series, one retrospective per year: