Determinants of a foreclosure discount

Abstract

This study adds to previous research analyzing the impact of foreclosure status on real estate sales price by using a Swedish dataset were an appraiser has estimated the market value of apartments before they were sold at foreclosure auction. Appraisal data can address the issue of selection bias and a potential overestimation of foreclosure related discount. A mean discount of 7.9% with a corresponding median value of 9.5% is shown when comparing appraisal estimates with prices achieved at foreclosure auction. A hedonic model is also applied, and the resulting discount is estimated at 23.9%. Measures of local market conditions are related to the foreclosure discount, with hedonic price models and models using appraisal data producing consistent results. It is found that the discount is higher in lower priced neighborhoods, in neighborhoods that are heterogeneous in terms of price and in less liquid neighborhoods (significant in the hedonic model). It is also found that apartments with a higher value relative to the neighborhood price level sell at larger discounts. The results are consistent with studies on search and matching theory and contrast from earlier studies that attribute a foreclosure discount to seller motivational factors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    The dataset used in Renigier-Biłozor et al. (2018) is small, totaling 113 properties in both Italy and Poland, of which 40 are foreclosed.

  2. 2.

    Eminenta Värdia. Official Website (Visited on April 2, 2020). http://www.eminenta.se/om-oss.

  3. 3.

    As of April, 16 2020, one Swedish Crown corresponds to approximately 0.1 US Dollar.

  4. 4.

    Defined as the standard deviation of the average square meter price divided by the average square meter price.

  5. 5.

    In this case the foreclosure rate is defined as the number of foreclosures as a percentage of all sales.

  6. 6.

    This is estimated as the standard deviation of the average square meter price divided by the average square meter price for the year of transaction.

  7. 7.

    As a measure of location, Base Areas are used. There are 645 distinct such Base Areas in the dataset.

  8. 8.

    This implies that all binary variables that shift from 0 to 1 have an impact on price given by g = 100[Expi) − 1], with g being the percentage change.

  9. 9.

    As previously mentioned, there are 645 Base Areas. As a robustness check, the hedonic models were also applied using parish as locational measure, these are larger and fewer, with the number of parishes at 70. Although producing a larger negative estimate of the price impact of a foreclosure, the results are otherwise consistent in the sense that all variables relating to local market conditions show the same signs and the estimated impact of a foreclosure decreases when adding interaction variables (from − .342 to − .233).

References

  1. Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for” lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 488–500.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Allen, M., & Swisher, J. (2000). An analysis of the price formation process at a HUD auction. Journal of Real Estate Research, 20(3), 279–298. https://doi.org/10.5555/rees.20.3.jqwl617266516655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. An, Z., Cheng, P., Lin, Z., & Liu, Y. (2013). How do market conditions impact price-TOM relationship? Evidence from real estate owned (REO) sales. Journal of Housing Economics, 22(3), 250–263.

    Google Scholar 

  4. An, X., Deng, Y., Rosenblatt, E., & Yao, V. (2012). Model stability and the subprime mortgage crisis. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 45(3), 545–568.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Anglin, P. M., Rutherford, R., & Springer, T. M. (2003). The trade-off between the selling price of residential properties and time-on-the-market: The impact of price setting. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 26(1), 95–111.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Asabere, P., & Huffman, F. (1992). Price determinants of foreclosed urban land. Urban Studies, 29(5), 701–707.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ben-David, I. (2011). Financial constraints and inflated home prices during the real estate boom. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3, 55–67.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Campbell, J. Y., Giglio, S., & Pathak, P. (2011). Forced sales and house prices. American Economic Review, 101(5), 2108–2131.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Carroll, T. M., Clauretie, T. M., & Neill, H. R. (1997). Effect of foreclosure status on residential selling price: comment. Journal of Real Estate Research, 13(1), 95–102.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cheng, P., Lin, Z., & Liu, Y. (2008). A model of time-on-market and real estate price under sequential search with recall. Real Estate Economics, 36(4), 813–843.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cheng, P., Lin, Z., Liu, Y., & Seiler, M. J. (2015). The benefit of search in housing markets. Journal of Real Estate Research, 37(4), 597–621.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chinloy, P., Hardin, W., III, & Wu, Z. (2016). Foreclosure, REO, and market sales in residential real estate. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 54, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Clauretie, T. M., & Daneshvary, N. (2009). Estimating the house foreclosure discount corrected for spatial price interdependence and endogeneity of marketing time. Real Estate Economics, 37(1), 43–67.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Courant, P. N. (1978). Racial prejudice in a search model of the urban housing market. Journal of Urban Economics, 5(3), 329–345.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ding, L., & Nakamura, L. (2016). The impact of the home valuation code of conduct on appraisal and mortgage outcomes. Real Estate Economics, 44(3), 658–690.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Donner, H. (2017). Foreclosures, returns, and buyer intentions. Journal of Real Estate Research, 39(2), 189–213.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Donner, H., Song, H.-S., & Wilhelmsson, M. (2016). Forced sales and their impact on real estate prices. Journal of Housing Economics, 34, 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2016.08.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Eriksen, M. D., Fout, H. B., Palim, M., & Rosenblatt, E. (2019). The influence of contract prices and relationships on appraisal bias. Journal of Urban Economics, 111, 132–143.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Forgey, F. A., Rutherford, R. C., & Springer, T. M. (1996). Search and liquidity in single-family housing. Real Estate Economics, 24(3), 273–292.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Forgey, F. A., Rutherford, R. C., & VanBuskirk, M. L. (1994). Effect of foreclosure status on residential selling price. Journal of Real Estate Research, 9(3), 313–318.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Genesove, D., & Mayer, C. J. (1997). Equity and time to sale in the real estate market. The American Economic Review, 87, 255–269.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Genesove, D., & Mayer, C. (2001). Loss aversion and seller behavior: Evidence from the housing market. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4), 1233–1260.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Goetzmann, W., & Peng, L. (2006). Estimating house price indexes in the presence of seller reservation prices. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(1), 100–112.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Halvorsen, R., & Palmquist, R. (1980). The interpretation of dummy variables in semilogarithmic equations. American Economic Review 70(3), 474–475.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hardin, W. G., & Wolverton, M. L. (1996). The relationship between foreclosure status and apartment price. Journal of Real Estate Research, 12(1), 101–109.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Harding, J. P., Rosenblatt, E., & Yao, V. W. (2012). The foreclosure discount: Myth or reality? Journal of Urban Economics, 71(2), 204–218.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Haurin, D. (1988). The duration of marketing time of residential housing. Real Estate Economics, 16(4), 396–410.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lazear, E. P. (1986). Retail pricing and clearance sales. The American Economic Review, 76(1), 14–32.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Levitt, S. D., & Syverson, C. (2008). Market distortions when agents are better informed: The value of information in real estate transactions. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 90(4), 599–611.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lippman, S. A., & McCall, J. J. (1986). An operational measure of liquidity. The American Economic Review, 76(1), 43–55.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Mayer, C. J. (1995). A model of negotiated sales applied to real estate auctions. Journal of Urban Economics, 38(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Mayer, C. J. (1998). Assessing the performance of real estate auctions. Real Estate Economics, 26(1), 41–66.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mocking, R., & Overvest, B. (2017). Direct and spillover effects of forced sales on house prices: Evidence from the Netherlands. Journal of Housing Economics, 38, 50–61.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ong, S. (2006). Price discovery in real estate auctions: The story of unsuccessful attempts. Journal of Real Estate Research, 28, 39–60.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ong, S. E., & Koh, Y. C. (2000). Time on-market and price trade-offs in high-rise housing sub-markets. Urban Studies, 37(11), 2057–2071.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Pennington-Cross, A. (2006). The value of foreclosed property. Journal of Real Estate Research, 28(2), 193–214.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Quan, D. C. (2002). Market mechanism choice and real estate disposition: Search versus auction. Available at SSRN 314960.

  38. Renigier-Biłozor, M., Walacik, M., Źróbek, S., & d’Amato, M. (2018). Forced sale discount on property market–How to assess it? Land Use Policy, 78, 104–115.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy, 82(1), 34-55.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Rutherford, R. C., Springer, T., & Yavas, A. (2005). Conflicts between principals and agents: Evidence from residential brokerage. Journal of Financial Economics, 76(3), 627–665.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Shilling, J. D., Benjamin, J. D., & Sirmans, C. (1990). Estimating net realizable value for distressed real estate. Journal of Real Estate Research, 5(1), 129–140.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1992). Liquidation values and debt capacity: A market equilibrium approach. The Journal of Finance, 47(4), 1343–1366.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Springer, T. M. (1996). Single-family housing transactions: Seller motivations, price, and marketing time. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 13(3), 237–254.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Stigler, G. J. (1961). The economics of information. The Journal of Political Economy, 69, 213–225.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Taylor, C. R. (1999). Time-on-the-market as a sign of quality. The Review of Economic Studies, 66(3), 555–578.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Wong, S. K., Yiu, C. Y., & Chau, K. W. (2012). Liquidity and information asymmetry in the real estate market. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 45(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-011-9326-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Yavas, A., & Yang, S. (1995). The strategic role of listing price in marketing real estate: theory and evidence. Real Estate Economics, 23(3), 347–368.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Yinger, J. (1981). A search model of real estate broker behavior. The American Economic Review, 71(4), 591–605.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Yiu, C. Y., Wong, S. K., & Chau, K. W. (2009). Transaction volume and price dispersion in the presale and spot real estate markets. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 38(3), 241–253.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Yiu, C. Y., et al. (2006). Alternative theories of appraisal bias. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 14(3), 321–344.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Zhou, H., Yuan, Y., Lako, C., Sklarz, M., & McKinney, C. (2015). Foreclosure discount: Definition and dynamic patterns. Real Estate Economics, 43, 683–718.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Herman Donner.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Donner, H. Determinants of a foreclosure discount. J Hous and the Built Environ 35, 1079–1097 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-020-09757-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Foreclosure
  • Hedonic Model
  • Search Theory

JEL Classification

  • D80
  • D82
  • R30
  • R31