These U.S. metro areas are among the best for first-time homebuyers
With mortgage rates and housing prices still stubbornly elevated, potential homebuyers are looking for ways save wherever they can.
The median sale price for a home in the first-quarter of 2025 was over $400,000, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Mortgage rates, meanwhile, continue to hover around 7% — up from a record low of 2.65% in January 2021. Moody's decision to downgrade the U.S.' credit rating briefly pushed rates above the 7% threshold earlier this month.
While homebuyers cannot control median home prices and mortgage rates, their choice of city or town to buy in can play a defining role in how much they end up spending on a property. Certain locales will offer more affordable listings and a wider range of options to choose from — giving buyers something to think about as they decide where to make their next investment.
A recent study from SmartAsset ranks the best cities for first-time buyers — providing a cheat sheet of sorts for those on the hunt for a new home. The financial technology company looked at 180 U.S. cities and ranked their appeal for first-time buyers based on affordability, available housing inventory, demand and how much home prices are expected to shift in the area over the next year.
Here is a breakdown of the cities that will give first-time homebuyers the best bang for their buck.
Best place to buy overall
McAllen, Texas, located on the state's southern tip, claimed the No. 1 spot on SmartAsset's list. A major selling point for the border city is that housing prices are forecast to change just 0.4% over the next year, meaning that buyers can rest assured the market won't fluctuate too wildly as they search for the right home.
The median sale price for homes in McAllen — $204,499 — is about four times as much as the median local income, giving buyers more moderate wiggle room when it comes to affordability.
Best in affordability
When looking solely at affordability — the median sale price of a home relative to the median local income — Midwestern metro areas reign. Illinois cities Peoria and Decatur top the ranking in affordability, according to SmartAsset. Other locales house hunters may want to keep an eye on include Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Davenport, Iowa; Muncie, Indiana; Springfield, Illinois; and St. Joseph, Missouri, which are among the least expensive metro areas, according to the study.
While Midwestern cities ranked higher in affordability than others, only Lawton, Oklahoma, where homes have a median sale price of $150,007, made it into SmartAsset's top 10 cities for first-time homebuyers overall.
Best place for expanded inventory
One of biggest issues plaguing the housing market is the limited supply of homes for sale While studies show that the inventory of available properties is rising in many markets, some metro areas are still suffering from shortages, which increases competition and prices for homebuyers.
If you're looking for more robust inventory, you may want to consider heading south. Cape Coral, Florida, offers the greatest number of homes for sale per capita, according to SmartAsset, followed by Port St. Lucie, Florida.
E.l.f. Beauty calls Hailey Bieber an industry disruptor amid Rhode sale
These 3 record breakers have one thing in common
Reporter's Notebook: John Dickerson reflects on his spelling woes
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Tim Walz Tells Democrats to 'Be Meaner,' Calls Trump 'Cruel'
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz speaks to delegates at the South Carolina Democratic Party Convention on Saturday, May 31, 2025, in Columbia, South Carolina. Credit - Meg Kinnard—AP Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz shared some stark words for Democrats on Saturday, calling for his fellow party members to "be a little meaner" in the pushback against President Donald Trump. 'It's because he is,' Walz said at the South Carolina Democratic Party Convention, addressing why he called Trump a 'wannabe dictator.' Walz ran as the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee with then-Presidential candidate Kamala Harris against Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance in 2024. The former public school teacher was initially praised during the election for his relatability and Midwestern appeal. ''Oh, the Governor's being mean,' well, maybe it's time for us to be a little meaner, maybe it's time for us to be a little more fierce,' Walz said. 'We have to ferociously push back on this…the thing that bothers a teacher more than anything is to watch a bully.' When the bully is a child, you teach them why bullying is wrong, Walz explained, but when the 'bully is an adult like Donald Trump, you bully… him back.' 'At heart, this is a weak, cruel man,' Walz said of Trump. Walz's comments come amid wider efforts among the Democratic Party to step toe-to-toe with Trump's far-reaching and sweeping changes at the federal government, which have seen him attempt to flex his executive power in unprecedented ways. Other efforts from the Democratic Party and beyond include work by progressives like New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat, and Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who are currently holding rallies across the U.S. as part of their 'Fighting Oligarchy' tour, in an attempt to push back against and highlight the growing power of wealthy individuals in and around Trump's government. Read More: Sen. Bernie Sanders Issues Stark Warning About Trump During Surprise Coachella Appearance Meanwhile, leaders like Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy are looking for ways to rebuild the Democratic Party, leaning further into economic populism in order to win elections, especially after the economy loomed so large during the 2024 campaigns. As the left is rocked by just the first few months of Trump's second term at the White House, Democratic leaders seem eager to embrace new ideas in the hope they can rebound in 2026 and—eventually—2028. Contact us at letters@
The Hill
5 hours ago
- The Hill
Bond auction shows Trump's economic house of cards may soon collapse
Spectacle often substitutes for substance, and nowhere is this more evident than in the latest tremors shaking Wall Street. On May 21, a lackluster 20-year U.S. Treasury bond auction delivered what can only be described as a resounding vote of no confidence in Washington's economic stewardship. The numbers were as stark as they were symbolic: a bid-to-cover ratio of 2.46 and a yield of 5.047 percent — the highest in five years. The markets responded as they usually do to bad news in the Capitol Hill core: stocks tumbled, bond yields soared and the dollar retreated. Now, with Moody's recent downgrade of the U.S. credit rating, concerns about fiscal instability have deepened, reinforcing investor skepticism about the sustainability of Washington's approach. One could almost hear the groan of a global economy growing weary of underwriting President Trump's illusions. At the center of this financial unrest lies a paradox that has defined recent U.S. economic policy: the fantastical belief that one can cut taxes, ramp up spending, and somehow avoid the mathematical consequences. The latest offering from the House Republicans — an expansive tax-and-spend package aligned with Donald Trump's post-presidential ambitions — illustrates the delusion in full color. Advertised as a tonic for economic rejuvenation, the bill is projected to add $3.8 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. Not surprisingly, investors are beginning to ask whether Washington has any intention — let alone a plan — for reversing the fiscal tide. This concern has been magnified as the 30-year bond yield surged to 5.15 percent intraday on May 22 before settling at 5.05 percent, highlighting waning confidence in America's debt trajectory. Yet this story is neither new nor uniquely American. Japan, that other industrial behemoth weighed down by demographic decay and decades of tepid growth, held its own 20-year bond auction just a day earlier. It recorded its weakest demand since 2012. The yield spiked to levels not seen since the turn of the millennium. In both Washington and Tokyo, the bond markets are holding up an unflattering mirror: fiscal indiscipline, once tolerable and even fashionable, is losing its market cachet. To be clear, the stakes are global. For decades, U.S. Treasurys have represented the financial equivalent of terra firma — a bedrock in turbulent times. The dollar's status as the world's reserve currency has been undergirded not just by the size of the U.S. economy but by an assumption of stability, predictability and institutional maturity. All three are now in question. The sputtering auction of long-term debt, a financial instrument once deemed near-sacred by global investors, signals something deeper: an erosion of faith not just in fiscal management, but in the very political coherence of the United States. The temptation in elite financial circles, and increasingly among central bankers, is to reach once more for the palliative of quantitative easing — anesthetic for the markets, if not a cure for the underlying disease. The Federal Reserve may indeed expand its balance sheet in the coming months, but such measures are the fiscal equivalent of painkillers prescribed for organ failure. They may mask the symptoms, but they leave the rot untouched. Worse, they risk reinforcing a cycle in which fiscal irresponsibility is not only tolerated but incentivized, on the assumption that the central bank will always ride to the rescue. This moral hazard is not abstract. It undermines the very foundations of democratic accountability. What incentive remains for lawmakers to make unpopular decisions — on entitlement reform, tax equity or defense spending — if the consequences of inaction are indefinitely deferred? In this sense, the current drama on Wall Street is a symptom of a broader malaise: the decoupling of economic decision-making from political courage. Yet the White House remains allergic to introspection. The instinct is to externalize, to locate the cause of internal disarray in foreign villains — China, Russia, Iran — while studiously ignoring the unsustainable structure at home. If the bond market signals anything, it is that the margin for error is narrowing. Investors are not ideologues. They do not traffic in patriotic bromides. They want to know whether the empire can pay its bills. And they are not reassured. This should worry more than just Wall Street. For better or worse, the global economy is still chained to the health of the American financial system. A destabilized dollar or an imploding Treasury market would not merely dent U.S. prestige; it could spark global contagion, the effects of which would be felt from Lagos to Lahore, from São Paulo to Seoul. The dominoes may fall more slowly than in 2008, but fall they will. Japan's bond market woes further underscore this global fragility. Weak demand for its 20-year bond auction mirrors Washington's struggles, suggesting that investors are recalibrating their appetite for long-term debt in major economies. The simultaneous erosion of confidence in both U.S. and Japanese fiscal policies could foreshadow broader financial instability ahead. What's needed is not another round of fiscal theatrics, but a sober reckoning. The United States must confront its own contradictions — between rhetoric and reality, between consumption and production, between global ambition and domestic decay. This means real decisions: revisiting the tax code to ensure the wealthy pay their share, reducing wasteful defense expenditures and investing in productive capacity rather than speculative finance. Above all, it means recognizing that empire is expensive — and often unaffordable. As economist Herbert Stein once quipped with characteristic clarity, 'If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.' The current U.S. fiscal trajectory is not merely unsustainable; it is absurd. The only real question is whether the correction will be orderly — or catastrophic. The alarm bells have sounded, not just in economic data but in the global perception of American reliability. It is late in the day, but not too late — yet. If the world's most powerful economy cannot demonstrate basic fiscal sanity, it may not be long before the privileges of empire begin to vanish, one auction at a time. Imran Khalid is a physician and has a master's degree in international relations.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
The 20 counties where taxpayers netted the highest capital gains
The more value that investors can receive in the form of long-term capital gains rather than ordinary income, the less they will pay back to Uncle Sam. Those in the 20 counties below ranked by the average net capital gains reported on their federal returns to the IRS are getting above-average appreciation on their assets with much lower tax rates, generally, than their incoming income, according to a study last month by advisor lead generation and client matchmaking service SmartAsset. The mix of areas known for a large concentration of wealthy residents and regions that don't immediately come to mind as a home to lots of rich people offered only more evidence of the investment industry's national scope. For financial advisors and their clients, the list provided geographic insights into the potential wealth management client base in the areas, and a reminder of important state-level variations in taxes that could affect portfolios and after-tax yields. "Net capital gains represent the profits a taxpayer recognizes from selling a capital asset after offsetting capital losses. These gains are often created by highly appreciated assets," Kathy Buchs, a senior tax advisor, team leader and managing director with Cleveland, Ohio-based registered investment advisory firm MAI Capital Management, said in an email. "We take geography into account when advising clients to sell an asset or consider tax loss harvesting due to state income tax ramifications," Buchs continued. "For example, California is a high-tax state that does not have preferential rates for capital gains. Therefore, it tends to be much more expensive to recognize gains in that state as compared to others." That difference in tax rules at the state level raises the possibility of strategies such as an incomplete gift non-grantor trust that, in some areas, could "eliminate the state taxation of the trust-owned portfolio," said Richard Austin, an executive director for estate and business planning with San Diego and Waltham, Massachusetts-based RIA firm Integrated Partners. In some cases, investors can even offset their capital gains for federal tax purposes based on losses in other holdings, he noted in an email. "Tax efficiency significantly impacts the performance of a client's portfolio by maximizing the after-tax return on investments," Austin said. "Investing across different countries and regions can reduce portfolio volatility. Markets in different parts of the world often have low correlation, meaning they don't always move in the same direction at the same time. If one market experiences a downturn, others might perform well, potentially stabilizing overall returns and the potential for future capital gains. State-specific tax rates impact tax efficiency of a portfolio. The difference in state income taxes creates a significant layer of complexity in achieving tax efficiency for a client's portfolio." Even though any type of data presents the possibility of noise factors affecting any particular region, the study "highlights that taking geography into account is essential when advising clients on their asset allocations," said Michelle Ash, a senior wealth advisor with the Jacksonville, Florida-based office of RIA firm Mercer Advisors. "Net capital gains is measured when a person is selling assets, and so it requires past investment success to be in that position," Ash said in an email. "It's no surprise to me that Florida would be the top state by this metric. Florida has no state income, inheritance or estate taxes, and so it's a beneficial place to live when you're selling assets. These Florida traits also attract a lot of retiring individuals who may be selling assets like homes and businesses when they retire or move." In focusing on capital gains, SmartAsset sought to home in on the areas where investors netted the most gains with preferential rates compared to ordinary income, according to the report's author, SmartAsset Director of Economic Analysis Jaclyn DeJohn. "Net capital gains, the profits from selling assets like stocks, real estate or businesses, are a key measure of investment success and regional wealth," DeJohn wrote. "Overall, high net capital gains can signal robust markets and affluent populations, with realized gains potentially boosting local economies through tax revenues and spending." Besides the listing below, here are some of the other interesting takeaways from the study: Three Georgia counties, Chattahoochee, Quitman and Taliaferro, displayed the smallest average net capital gains, at $2,400 or less. Fewer than 10% of returns in the counties had net capital gains. At the state level, West Virginia tax returns had the lowest average net capital gains at $14,612, followed by Wisconsin with $19,590 and Iowa with $20,220. On the other end of the spectrum among the states, federal returns out of Florida ($84,911), Wyoming ($84,246), Nevada ($77,491), the District of Columbia ($58,733) and Texas ($52,926) reported the highest average net capital gains. Scroll down the slideshow for the ranking of the top 20 counties in the U.S. in terms of average net capital gains. To see a list of the top 10 cities with the highest income among retirees, click here. For the group of the top 20 metropolitan areas where financial advisors' median pay increased the most last year, follow this link. Note: The below rankings are based on a report by SmartAsset called, "Where Americans Earn the Most From Investments." The study crunched the latest tax return data for the 2022 tax year released by the IRS across 3,022 U.S. counties and for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The data include average net capital gains and investment-yield figures like taxable and tax-exempt interest and ordinary and qualified dividends. # of returns: 15,180# of returns reporting net capital gains: 6,010 (40%)Mean taxable interest: $40,033Mean tax-exempt interest: $39,659Mean qualified dividends: $167,921Mean ordinary dividends: $196,121Average net capital gains: $515,267 # of returns: 2,390# of returns reporting net capital gains: 150 (6%)Mean taxable interest: $977Mean tax-exempt interest: $1,600Mean qualified dividends: $4,055Mean ordinary dividends: $6,336Average net capital gains: $317,793 # of returns: 10,480# of returns reporting net capital gains: 4,170 (40%)Mean taxable interest: $30,111Mean tax-exempt interest: $28,688Mean qualified dividends: $53,044Mean ordinary dividends: $67,047Average net capital gains: $312,592 # of returns: 1,480# of returns reporting net capital gains: 300 (20%)Mean taxable interest: $6,082Mean tax-exempt interest: $13,317Mean qualified dividends: $11,627Mean ordinary dividends: $16,190Average net capital gains: $233,680 # of returns: 24,870# of returns reporting net capital gains: 9,370 (38%)Mean taxable interest: $9,425Mean tax-exempt interest: $22,022Mean qualified dividends: $36,713Mean ordinary dividends: $47,348Average net capital gains: $219,262 # of returns: 45,760# of returns reporting net capital gains: 12,220 (27%)Mean taxable interest: $13,432Mean tax-exempt interest: $29,645Mean qualified dividends: $66,673Mean ordinary dividends: $75,201Average net capital gains: $191,886 # of returns: 784,220# of returns reporting net capital gains: 216,920 (28%)Mean taxable interest: $16,155Mean tax-exempt interest: $29,882Mean qualified dividends: $42,043Mean ordinary dividends: $50,783Average net capital gains: $186,281 # of returns: 1,436,490# of returns reporting net capital gains: 202,220 (14%)Mean taxable interest: $13,127Mean tax-exempt interest: $23,350Mean qualified dividends: $29,924Mean ordinary dividends: $38,036Average net capital gains: $184,899 # of returns: 213,630# of returns reporting net capital gains: 73,450 (34%)Mean taxable interest: $12,151Mean tax-exempt interest: $29,690Mean qualified dividends: $47,507Mean ordinary dividends: $57,951Average net capital gains: $184,017 # of returns: 4,500# of returns reporting net capital gains: 1,560 (35%)Mean taxable interest: $9,440Mean tax-exempt interest: $17,268Mean qualified dividends: $25,636Mean ordinary dividends: $37,121Average net capital gains: $183,261 # of returns: 13,540# of returns reporting net capital gains: 4,910 (36%)Mean taxable interest: $10,555Mean tax-exempt interest: $19,372Mean qualified dividends: $38,999Mean ordinary dividends: $48,990Average net capital gains: $176,812 # of returns: 10,580# of returns reporting net capital gains: 1,720 (16%)Mean taxable interest: $1,262Mean tax-exempt interest: $4,845Mean qualified dividends: $3,916Mean ordinary dividends: $5,540Average net capital gains: $150,127 # of returns: 846,440# of returns reporting net capital gains: 302,610 (36%)Mean taxable interest: $19,397Mean tax-exempt interest: $18,965Mean qualified dividends: $32,211Mean ordinary dividends: $42,540Average net capital gains: $149,273 # of returns: 40,310# of returns reporting net capital gains: 10,470 (26%)Mean taxable interest: $8,426Mean tax-exempt interest: $17,430Mean qualified dividends: $21,624Mean ordinary dividends: $27,814Average net capital gains: $140,537 # of returns: 84,420# of returns reporting net capital gains: 28,290 (34%)Mean taxable interest: $10,613Mean tax-exempt interest: $19,398Mean qualified dividends: $32,712Mean ordinary dividends: $39,381Average net capital gains: $130,146 # of returns: 85,800# of returns reporting net capital gains: 25,510 (30%)Mean taxable interest: $9,009Mean tax-exempt interest: $23,468Mean qualified dividends: $35,483Mean ordinary dividends: $42,487Average net capital gains: $126,594 # of returns: 16,800# of returns reporting net capital gains: 4,520 (27%)Mean taxable interest: $5,083Mean tax-exempt interest: $10,513Mean qualified dividends: $13,262Mean ordinary dividends: $17,528Average net capital gains: $113,429 # of returns: 4,920# of returns reporting net capital gains: 1,480 (30%)Mean taxable interest: $1,936Mean tax-exempt interest: $10,200Mean qualified dividends: $17,662Mean ordinary dividends: $18,627Average net capital gains: $111,880 # of returns: 1,213,090# of returns reporting net capital gains: 188,570 (16%)Mean taxable interest: $7,393Mean tax-exempt interest: $14,890Mean qualified dividends: $20,200Mean ordinary dividends: $24,441Average net capital gains: $110,534 # of returns: 636,070# of returns reporting net capital gains: 172,730 (27%)Mean taxable interest: $5,131Mean tax-exempt interest: $9,958Mean qualified dividends: $12,869Mean ordinary dividends: $16,792Average net capital gains: $109,439
