Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Determinants of a foreclosure discount

  • Article
  • Published:
Journal of Housing and the Built Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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 via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

  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

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Global Projects Center, Stanford University, Stanford, USA

    Herman Donner

Authors
  1. Herman Donner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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

Check for updates. 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

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-020-09757-1

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation