Wednesday, February 13, 2008

more foreclosure factoids

more of the same but money/CNN has updated data from RealtyTrac with 2007 numbers for foreclosures in the 100 largest regions. To stretch and parse something new from that. If you ignore the percentage decrease in foreclosures for Greenville, SC, and Baton Rouge, LA, the two regions with the largest percentage declines in foreclosures between 2006 and 2007 were both in PA: namely Philly and Pittsburgh. Worth noting that this isn't lagged data by much and reflects data through the end of 2007, which was just a few weeks ago.

That isn't to make any of this sound rosy. Just about 5% of all Detroit area households were in foreclosure in 2007. That's phenomenal. And the new center of gravity for the foreclosure mess looks to be the Washington, DC suburbs with the largest percentage increase in foreclosures being in places like Bethesda/Frederick, MD with +1288%, Washington, DC itself(+575%) and even Baltimore, MD (+544%).

I would not even want to paint an overly rosy here despire our relatively low ranking in all foreclosure metrics. An astute anonymous commenter here has pointed out that the difference in regulatory regimes here vs. Ohio may account for the big disparities in foreclosure rates here vs. Cleveland. I believe that.. but also wonder whether transaction costs coupled with the low value of many homes here makes strict foreclosure less of an option for lenders here vs. elsewhere.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those Ohio metros that clog the top of the ranking also are low cost housing markets... so I don't think that's the answer.

Wednesday, February 13, 2008 4:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe each region gets only a set amount of fiscal negligence and Pittsburgh's government uses our allocation so quickly that nobody else gets a chance.

Thursday, February 14, 2008 5:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Price appreciation is certainly a factor. Most of the sub-prime loans are for refinance, not for initial purchase. In hot markets buyers were cashing in on real or perceived equity, and risking their homes in the process. For the unscrupulous, it was a way of acquiring houses. In weak markets it was a rip-off on multiple levels. There wasn't any equity to borrow from, and prices weren't rising fast enough to make flipping the house worthwhile. The only money to be made in that deal was in the loan original process, and pity the souls that owned the house and the note.

Friday, February 15, 2008 8:10:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home