Advertisement

The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics

, Volume 55, Issue 4, pp 476–510 | Cite as

Mortgage Payment Problem Development and Recovery: A Joint Probability Model Approach

  • Thomas P. BoehmEmail author
  • Alan M. Schlottmann
Article
  • 224 Downloads

Abstract

The existing literature on mortgage default and foreclosure largely examines the development of mortgage problems (the first stage) and the possibility of recovery from such problems (the second stage) separately. Such studies may provide an incomplete picture of the development and possible resolution of mortgage problems. This paper uses the proprietary geo-coded version of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics from 2009 through 2013 to implement a different type of probability model. Three transitional probability equations are estimated: the likelihood of homeowners developing mortgage payment problems, the likelihood that those who develop such problems move to resolve their problems, and the conditional probability that those who develop such problems and don’t move will recover from them by other means. The coefficients from all three are combined to calculate the joint (state) probability of households having mortgage problems from which they will not recover. The analysis contains a number of unique results: changes in the mortgage front-end ratio are shown to have a substantial influence on both developing a mortgage problem and its resolution for those who do not move, 2) prior foreclosures are determined to affect the development of current mortgage problems, and 3) out-of-pocket medical expenses are found to influence both mortgage problem development and recovery. Also, the impact of policy actions are considered across several at-risk demographic groups. This experiment demonstrates that by improving the financial and mortgage characteristics, and the education level of households that actually develop mortgage problems, their predicted probability of developing mortgage problems that cannot be resolved could be reduced substantially.

Keywords

Mortgage payment problems Recovery Default Foreclosure 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the participants in our session of the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association National Meetings in 2014 in Washington DC where an initial draft of this work was presented. We would also like to thank Andy Puckett, and Ray DeGennaro for their insightful comments on an earlier version of the paper. In addition, thanks to an anonymous reviewer whose insightful comments substantially improved the final version of the paper. Finally, we would like to thank the Finance Department at the University of Tennessee for providing the funding to obtain the proprietary version of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics from the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan.

References

  1. Adelino, M., Gerardi, K., & Willen, P. S. (2013). Why don’t lenders renegotiate more home mortgages? Redefaults, self-cures and securitization. Journal of Monetary Economics, 60(7), 835–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bajari, Patrick L., Chenghuan S. Chu, Nekipelov, D., Park, M., (2013). A dynamic model of subprime mortgage default: estimation and policy implications. NBER Working Paper w18850.Google Scholar
  3. Boheim, R., & Taylor, M. P. (2000). My home was my castle: evictions and repossessions in Britain. Journal of Housing Economics, 9(4), 287–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradley, M. G., Cuts, A. C., & Liu, W. (2015). Strategic mortgage default: the effect of neighborhood factors. Real Estate Economics, 48(2), 271–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chan, S., Sharygin, C., Been, V., & Haughwout, A. (2014). Pathways after default: what happens to distressed mortgage borrowers and their homes? Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 48, 342–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins, J. M., and Reid, C. K. (2010). Who receives a mortgage modification? race and income differentials in loan workouts. Federal reserve bank of san francisco working paper 2010–07Google Scholar
  7. Domenich, T., & McFadden, D. L. (1975). Urban travel demand: a behavioral analysis. New York: North-Holland/American Elsevier Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  8. Elul, R. (2016). Securitization and mortgage default. Journal of Financial Services Research, 49(2–3), 281–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elul, R., Souleles, N. S., Chomsisengphet, S., Glennon, D., & Hunt, R. (2010). Mortgage market and the financial crisis: what triggers mortgage default. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 100, 490–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferreira, Fernando and Gyourko, Joseph (2015). A new look at the u.s. foreclosure crisis: panel data evidence of prime and subprime borrowers from 1997 to 2012. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 21261.Google Scholar
  11. Gathergood, J. (2009). Income shocks, mortgage repayment risk and financial distress among UK households. In Discussion papers 09/03, University of Nottingham, Centre for Finance. Credit and: Macroeconomics.Google Scholar
  12. Gerardi, K., & Willen, P. (2009). Subprime mortgages, foreclosures, and urban neighborhoods. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 9(3), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gerardi, K., Herkenhoff, K.F., Ohanian, L.E., Willen, P.S., (2015). Unemployment, negative equity, and strategic default. NBER Research Paper, No. w21630.Google Scholar
  14. Goldstein, R.M., Hanouna, P., Ramirez, C.D., and Stahel, C.W., (2011). Are foreclosures contagious? FDIC center for financial research. Working Paper No. 2011–14, February.Google Scholar
  15. Goodman, A. C., & Smith, B. C. (2010). Residential mortgage default: theory works and so does policy. Journal of Housing Economics., 19(4), 280–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Manski, C. F. (1993). Identification of endogenous effects: the reflection problem. The Review of Economic Studies, 60(3), 531–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Phillips, R. A., & VanderHoff, J. H. (2004). The conditional probability of foreclosure: an empirical analysis of conventional mortgage loan defaults. Real Estate Economics, 32(4), 571–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sarmiento, C. (2012). The role of financial economics on mortgage defaults in the great recession. Applied Financial Economics, 22, 243–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Train, K. (2009). Workshop. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Voicu, I., Jacob, M., Rengert, K., & Irene, F. (2012). Subprime loan and default resolutions: do they vary across mortgage products and borrower demographic groups. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 45, 939–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Finance DepartmentUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  2. 2.Economics DepartmentUniversity of Nevada – Las VegasLas VegasUSA

Personalised recommendations