These 5 cities are seeing big home price cuts ⁠31%

By Eric Revell⁠74%

5/25/2026, 4:44:27 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Anchoring Bias, Pessimism Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 25.3% saturation with 82 hits. Analysis detected 695 faulty-reasoning hits from 324 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 40.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠31% (15,197 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 69.40% of the article peer group.

The housing market remains hot in much of the country, with rising prices creating affordability concerns for would-be buyers – though some markets are seeing sizable amounts of price cuts over the last month. 
Data from Realtor.com found that nationally, the share of active listings that carry a price reduction was at 16.7% in April – a figure that is elevated compared with historical trends but is actually lower than a year ago as prices trended toward an equilibrium. 
Several markets across the Sun Belt and Mountain West regions have seen price cuts more frequently than the national average, the data showed. 
"Put simply, homes are not moving in these markets," said Realtor.com senior economist Jake Krimmel. 
"That's down in part due to ample supply but also anemic demand at current prices and interest rates." 
Two of the metro areas also led Realtor.com's report about major markets with price cuts in April 2025, as Phoenix and Tampa had 31.3% and 29.3% of listings with price cuts last year, respectively. 
"Why are these metros continually topping this price cut list? 
It's likely part unrealistic expectations and part wishful thinking, but price reductions do mean sellers are getting the message loud and clear," Krimmel said. 
Here's a look at the five housing markets where price reductions were the most prevalent in April. 
Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, Arizona 
Share of listings with price cuts: 29.1% 
Change year-over-year: -2.2 percentage points 
Median list price: $499,000 
Tampa-St. 
Petersburg-Clearwater, Florida 
Share of listings with price cuts: 25.13% 
Change year-over-year: -4.2 percentage points 
Median list price: $406,500 
San Antonio-New Braunfels, Texas 
Share of listings with price cuts: 24.95% 
Change year-over-year: -0.7 percentage points 
Median list price: $324,700 
Denver-Aurora-Centennial, Colorado 
Share of listings with price cuts: 24.35% 
Change year-over-year: -2.8 percentage points 
Median list price: $587,000 
Portland-Hillsboro-Vancouver, Oregon and Washington 
Share of listings with price cuts: 24.04% 
Change year-over-year: 0.7 percentage points 
Median list price: $579,750 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.9%Eric Revell: 2.6%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Confirmation Bias13.9%This article: 24.7%Eric Revell: 4.7%FoxBusiness: 3.4%Anchoring Bias24.7%This article: 4.6%Eric Revell: 3.6%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Availability Heuristic4.6%This article: 7.1%Eric Revell: 1.3%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic7.1%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Eric Revell: 3.0%FoxBusiness: 3.7%Overconfidence Bias4.6%This article: 13.3%Eric Revell: 11.0%FoxBusiness: 12.9%Framing Effect13.3%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 1.4%FoxBusiness: 1.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 1.4%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 9.5%FoxBusiness: 8.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.9%Eric Revell: 1.7%FoxBusiness: 2.0%Pessimism Bias17.9%This article: 7.4%Eric Revell: 6.9%FoxBusiness: 7.9%Negativity Bias7.4%This article: 7.4%Eric Revell: 2.5%FoxBusiness: 4.5%Self-Serving Bias7.4%This article: 5.6%Eric Revell: 0.5%FoxBusiness: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error5.6%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.6%FoxBusiness: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 3.1%FoxBusiness: 3.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.5%Eric Revell: 2.8%FoxBusiness: 2.3%Recency Bias10.5%This article: 5.2%Eric Revell: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Primacy Effect5.2%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.5%Eric Revell: 6.7%FoxBusiness: 7.2%Appeal to Authority10.5%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 1.2%FoxBusiness: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.8%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.5%Eric Revell: 4.2%FoxBusiness: 6.3%Hasty Generalization14.5%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.9%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 3.4%FoxBusiness: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.8%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.6%Eric Revell: 3.9%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.6%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.4%Eric Revell: 1.0%FoxBusiness: 2.4%Anecdotal7.4%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 13.9%Eric Revell: 2.1%FoxBusiness: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.9%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.1%Eric Revell: 1.3%FoxBusiness: 1.8%Unattributed Quote3.1%This article: 12.0%Eric Revell: 0.9%FoxBusiness: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection12.0%This article: 25.3%Eric Revell: 3.2%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice25.3%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 1.9%FoxBusiness: 1.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 2.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Revell: 2.8%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

324 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker21%attributed speech257writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageJake Krimmel • 15 words • 100.0% coverageJake Krimmel • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageJake Krimmel • 10 words • 100.0% coverageJake Krimmel • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jake Krimmel

100%flagged-word coverage
67 attributed words100% of attributed speech79% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Quote-first Misdirection+58.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jake Krimmel: 58.2%58.2%Biased Writer Voice+41.5 ptsWriter: 16.7%Jake Krimmel: 58.2%58.2%Unattributed Quote+14.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jake Krimmel: 14.9%14.9%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.