Year to Year:

Initial vacation rental pricing suggests caution= for Summer 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE= RELEASE

Contact:        &= nbsp; Jeff Talmadge

Phone:        &= nbsp;    888-281-8660

E-mail:        &= nbsp;   jeff@weneedavacation.com

Website:         = www.weneedavacation.com

WELLESLEY – February 16, 2005

Although vacation rental prices increase every y= ear, this = year the % of increase was less than in previous years. Soft demand in 2004 has dampened expectations for Cape Cod rentals, but Martha’s Vineyard has rebounded from an especially soft 2003.

The information in th= is review is a year to year analysis based on NEW INFORMATION of the initial prices[1] = for the summer seasons of 1,402 properties that have been listed on our site for at least the last three summer seasons. An additional section will disc= uss rental prices for properties ‘on the beach,’ ‘on water but not on a beach,’ within ‘walking distance to the beach,’ = and ‘not near the beach.’ For the purposes of this review, ‘beach’ in all cases includes both salt water and fresh water beaches.

A seasonal month-to-m= onth review will be completed as we get further into 2005 and can begin to see h= ow the vacationers respond. This will compare the then current price to the owner’s initial price.

The following is an a= nalysis of 1,402 properties that have = been listed on our site for the last th= ree summer seasons and use an availability calendar that contains pricing for e= ach summer week:

% increase yr to yr

Sample size

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005 avg. price

Cape Cod

1138

4.1%

2.2%

$2,113

Martha’s Vineyard

192

1.4%

3.4%

$2,792

Nantucket

72

3.0%

3.1%

$3,787

Total

1402

3.6%

2.5%

$2,292

Ta= ble 1: properties with us for 3 years

The data reflects a difference between properties on the Cape and properties on the Islands. Price increases for the Cape reflected a higher percentage increase from 2003 to 2004 than from 2004 to 2005. From 2003 to 2004, Martha’s Vineyard properties reflected only a 1.4 percent increase, but rebounded this year f= or a 3.4% increase over last year. Nantucket = has remained consistent from 2003 to 2004, and 2004 to 2005, with 3.0% and 3.1% increases respective= ly. Demand was soft last summer and many owners found themselves with unexpected availability as the season started. Thus, many dropped their pricing, some considerably, to attract demand. In light of this, they are obviously cautious about 2005. On the Vineyard, 2003 was especially bad and an abundance of supply and weakened demand left many owners with unbooked summer weeks. Thus a year ago, they dared raise prices= only by 1.4%. Last summer, while s= oft, was not as bad as 2003, so they feel emboldened this year. Nantucket held steady, more impervious to yearly whims.

As the rental year progresses, we will compare any pricing changes to these initial prices and provide that information in subsequent releases.

Rental prices of properties near either a salt w= ater or fresh water beach:

We compared price inc= reases from 2004 to 2005 for all 1,875 properties listed on our site for the Cape and the Islands that have weekly pricing in their calendars. This analysis compared price increases from 2004 to 2005 for properties in four mutually exclusive group= s:

‘on the beach’

‘on the water, not beach’ (homes on water but without a beach) =

‘walk to beach’ (1/2 mile or less)

‘not near beach’

Once again, these pri= ces reflect the homeowners’ init= ial prices entered at the beginning of the season. Assuming that these price changes reflect movement in the demand for vacation housing, they provide an interesting glimpse into the three markets. All information is in Table 3 below.

The most interesting = numbers were totals for each of the three areas. They showed much higher year to ye= ar increases than in Table 1.

Fr= om Table 1:

Pr= operties listed for 3+ years

Fr= om Table 3:

al= l properties

% increase yr to yr

2004-2005

2005 avg. price

2004-2005

2005 avg. price

Cape Cod

2.2%

$2,113

6.1%

$2,183

Martha’s Vineyard

3.4%

$2,792

9.0%

$2,887

Nantucket

3.1%

$3,787

5.8%

$3,917

Total

2.5%

$2,292

7.4%

$2,403

Ta= ble 2: comparison of the two data sets

This remarkable diffe= rence is due to the nature of the two data sets.&nb= sp; The properties in Table 1 are those that have advertised with us for= at least three years. They have = lived through some trying years and are cautious. The properties in Table 3 have = been with us for less than three years and include new listings to us this year.= Why would the latter’s prices and price increases be so much higher? We k= now anecdotally that many of them have recently purchased their homes, and they= had to pay preciously, especially for homes anywhere near the water. Thus they = are being more aggressive to cover new, high mortgage payments.

On Cape Cod, properties ‘on the water, not beach’ had a price increase three times that of properties either ‘on the beach’ or not within &#= 8216;walking distance to the beach’ (1= 1.5%). Properties within ‘walking distance to the beach’ have rate increases twice that of those = ‘on the beach’ or ‘not near the beach.’ This year’s rental rates for properties ‘on the beach’ are still almost tw= ice those ‘not near the beach,’ but properties within ‘walking distance to the beach’ are only 17.7% higher than those not near the beach. It appears, therefore, that the demand for properties within = 216;walking distance to the beach’ are becoming more reasonable alternatives, allowing for a greater increase in price. Rental rates for properties ̵= 6;on the water not beach,’ fall approximately halfway in between propertie= s ‘on the beach’ and within ‘walking distance to the beach.’

Martha’s Vineyard had= the greatest price increases for the past year overall (9%), with properties = 216;NOT near the beach’ increasing the most (10%). On Martha’s Vineyard, the = major price difference is determined by whether the property is on the water or n= ot. ‘Walking distance to the beach’ is not a major influence in the rental rate. Rental prices on the beach are more than double the prices of properties not near = the beach (104.2%), with properties ‘on the water not beach’ not far behind (86.4%). These properties are also priced 78% and 63% higher respectively than those properties within ‘walking distance to the be= ach.’ Properties within ‘walking distance to the beach’ have rental r= ates only 14.3% above those ‘not near the beach.’<= /p>

Nantucket continues to sustain the highest renta= l rates over the Cape and Martha’s Vineyard, but our sample size is too small= for homes on the water or on the beach to be meaningful. Nantucket continues to be an entirely different animal. Vacation rental prices for properties within walking distance to the beach increased a robust 9.7%. Properties not near the beach had a decrease in rental rates of -2.9%. This suggests t= hat people are willing to pay higher vacation rental rates to be on the Island, but it appears to be just as important to b= e in town than it is to be on the water.

# of properties<= o:p>

2005 price

% increase 2004-= 2005

% higher than &#= 8216;not near beach’

% higher than &#= 8216;walk to beach’

Cape

On the beach

213

$3,304

3.6%

91.5%

62.8%

On the water not beach

122

$2,753

11.5%

59.6%

35.6%

Walk to beach

713

$2,030

7.6%

17.7%

Not near beach

433

$1,725

3.3%

Total Cap= e <= o:p>

1481

$2,183

6.1%

Martha’s

On the beach

12

$5,135

7.4%

104.2%

78.7%

Vineyard

On the water not beach

17

$4,687

8.0%

86.4%

63.1%

Walk to beach

82

$2,874

8.3%

14.3%

Not near beach

152

$2,515

10.0%

To= tal Vineyard

263

$2,887

9.0%

Nantucket

On the beach

6

Sample size too small to produce meaningful nu= mbers.

On the water not beach

5

Sample size too small to produce meaningful nu= mbers.

Walk to beach

70

$3,930

9.7%

2.8%

Not near beach

50

$3,822

-2.9%

To= tal Nantucket

131

$3,917

5.8%

Cape and

On the beach

231

$3,424

4.6%

64.7%

51.3%

Islands

On the water not beach

144

$3,034

14.7%

45.9%

34.1%

Walk to beach

865

$2,263

8.9%

8.9%

Not near beach

635

$2,079

4.7%

To= tal Cape & Islands

1875

$2,403

7.4%

Ta= ble 3: all properties and their water proximity

###

WeNeedaVacation.com is the pre= mier website for vacation rentals on Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket, and all of Florida= . The website’s unique and user-friendly advanced search allows vacationers to select homes based on preferred dates, location, price range, and size. Founded in 1997 by Jeff and Joan Talmadge, WeNeedaVacation.com now lists over 2,000 vacation homes, which were viewed more than six million ti= mes in 2004. It is owned and oper= ated by All Seasons Vacation Rentals, LLC of Wellesley, MA.

% increase yr to yr	Sample size	2003-2004	2004-2005	2005 avg. price
Cape Cod	1138	4.1%	2.2%	$2,113
Martha’s Vineyard	192	1.4%	3.4%	$2,792
Nantucket	72	3.0%	3.1%	$3,787
Total	1402	3.6%	2.5%	$2,292
Ta= ble 1: properties with us for 3 years

	Fr= om Table 1: Pr= operties listed for 3+ years	Fr= om Table 3: al= l properties
% increase yr to yr	2004-2005	2005 avg. price	2004-2005	2005 avg. price
Cape Cod	2.2%	$2,113	6.1%	$2,183
Martha’s Vineyard	3.4%	$2,792	9.0%	$2,887
Nantucket	3.1%	$3,787	5.8%	$3,917
Total	2.5%	$2,292	7.4%	$2,403
Ta= ble 2: comparison of the two data sets

		# of properties<= o:p>	2005 price	% increase 2004-= 2005	% higher than &#= 8216;not near beach’	% higher than &#= 8216;walk to beach’
Cape	On the beach	213	$3,304	3.6%	91.5%	62.8%
	On the water not beach	122	$2,753	11.5%	59.6%	35.6%
	Walk to beach	713	$2,030	7.6%	17.7%
	Not near beach	433	$1,725	3.3%
	Total Cap= e <= o:p>	1481	$2,183	6.1%

Martha’s	On the beach	12	$5,135	7.4%	104.2%	78.7%
Vineyard	On the water not beach	17	$4,687	8.0%	86.4%	63.1%
	Walk to beach	82	$2,874	8.3%	14.3%
	Not near beach	152	$2,515	10.0%
	To= tal Vineyard	263	$2,887	9.0%

Nantucket	On the beach	6	Sample size too small to produce meaningful nu= mbers.
	On the water not beach	5	Sample size too small to produce meaningful nu= mbers.
	Walk to beach	70	$3,930	9.7%	2.8%
	Not near beach	50	$3,822	-2.9%
	To= tal Nantucket	131	$3,917	5.8%

Cape and	On the beach	231	$3,424	4.6%	64.7%	51.3%
Islands	On the water not beach	144	$3,034	14.7%	45.9%	34.1%
	Walk to beach	865	$2,263	8.9%	8.9%
	Not near beach	635	$2,079	4.7%
	To= tal Cape & Islands	1875	$2,403	7.4%
Ta= ble 3: all properties and their water proximity