Should we Fear the Shadow? House Prices, Shadow Inventory, and the Nascent Housing Recovery

Article
  • 291 Downloads

Abstract

Although a broad-based increase in house prices has been observed over the past year, not everyone is convinced the rise of house prices will persist and lead to a steady recovery of the economy. The main reason for this skepticism is uncertainty about the “shadow inventory”: foreclosed homes held by investors or as REOs, which have not yet hit the market but likely will as market prices rise. The volume of shadow inventory itself in local markets is largely unknown, as is its impact on the housing market. This study quantifies the size of the shadow inventory and investigates the spatial impact of the out-flow of shadow inventory. The scope of our study is a set of housing markets (AZ, CA, and FL) that vary in both their historic housing price volatility as well as institutional factors - such as foreclosure law statutes - that may influence the relationship between the shadow inventory and house price dynamics. To address the endogeneity that characterizes the spatial interaction of house prices and the out-flow of the shadow inventory, we utilize a simultaneous equation system of spatial autoregressions (SESSAR). The model is estimated using measures of the shadow inventory derived from DataQuick’s national transaction history database and county-level house price indices provided by Black Knight. Lastly, because our estimate - as well as all other existing estimates - of the shadow inventory relies upon string matching algorithms to identify entry into and exit out of REO status, we validate the accuracy of our measures of REOs using loss mitigation data from the OCC Mortgage Metrics database.

Keywords

House prices Spatial econometrics Foreclosures 

References

  1. Baltagi, B.H. (2001). Econometric analysis of panel data, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  2. Benkard, C.L., & Berry, S. (2006). On the nonparametric identification of nonlinear simultaneous equations models: Comment on B. Brown (1983) and Roehrig (1988). Econometrica, 74, 1429–2440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boarnet, M. (1994). An empirical model of intra-metropolitan population and employment growth. Papers in Regional Science, 73(2), 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, B.W. (1983). The identification problem in systems nonlinear in the variables. Econometrica, 51, 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Can, A. (1992). “Specification and Estimation of Hedonic Housing Price Models,”. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 22(3), 453–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Can, A., & Megbolugbe, I. (1997). Spatial dependence and house price index construction. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 14(1), 203–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlino, G., & Mills, E. (1987). The Determinants of County Growth. Journal of Regional Science, 27(1), 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cliff, A.D., & Ord, J.K. (1973). Spatial Autocorrelation. London: Pion Ltd.Google Scholar
  9. Coulson, E., & Li, H. (2013). Measuring the External Benefits of Homeownership. Journal of Urban Economics. forthcoming.Google Scholar
  10. Ellen, E., Madar, J., & Weselcouch, M. (2012). What’s really happening to the REO stock? An analysis of three cities: New York, Atlanta, and Miami. Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  11. Ellen, I., Lacoe, J., & Sharygin, C. (2013). Do foreclosures cause crime? Journal of Urban Economics, 74, 59–70. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119012000617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frame, W. (2010). Estimating the effect of mortgage foreclosures on nearby property values: A critical review of the literature. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review, 95(3), 1–9.Google Scholar
  13. Gebremariam, G., Gebremedhin, T., Schaeffer, P., & Jackson, R. (2011). Modeling regional growth spillovers: An analysis of employment growth, migration behavior, local public services and household income in Appalachia. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  14. Ghent, A., & Kudlyak, M. (2011). Recourse and residential mortgage default: Evidence from US States. Review of Financial Studies, 24(9), 3139–3186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Henry, M., Schmitt, B., & Piguet, V. (2001). Spatial econometric models for simultaneous systems: Application to rural community growth in France. International Regional Science Review, 24(2), 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Henry, M., Barkley, D., & Bao, S. (1997). The Hinterland’s stake in Metropolitan growth: Evidence from selected southern regions. Journal of Regional Science, 37(3), 479–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kiefer, H., & Kiefer, L. (2011). The co-movement of mortgage foreclosure rate and house price depreciation: A spatial simultaneous equation system. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  18. Harding, J., Rosenblatt, E., & Yao, V. (2009). The contagion effect of foreclosed properties. Journal of Urban Economics, 66(3), 164–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ihlanfeldt, K., & Mayock, T (2013). The impact of REO sales on neighborhoods and their residents. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics. forthcoming.Google Scholar
  20. Immergluck, D. (2010). The accumulation of lender-owned homes during the U.S. mortgage crisis: Examining metropolitan REO inventories. Housing Policy Debate, 20 (4), 619–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kelejian, H., & Piras, G. (2009). An extension of Kelejian’s spatial J-Test and an application for a test of the error structure. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  22. Kelejian, H. (2008). A spatial J-test for model specification against a single or a set of nonnested alternatives. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  23. Kelejian, H., & Prucha, I. (2004). Estimation of simultaneous systems of spatially interrelated cross sectional equations. Journal of Econometrics, 118, 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee, L.F., & Yu, J. (2010). “Estimation of spatial autoregressive panel data models with fixed effects. Journal of Econometrics, 154, 165–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee, L.F. (2003). Best spatial two-stage least squares estimators for a spatial autoregressive model with autoregressive disturbances. Econometric Reviews, 22(4), 307–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. LeSage, J., & Pace, K. (2009). Introduction to Spatial Econometrics. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pace, K., & Gilley, O. (1997). Using the spatial configuration of the data to improve estimation. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 14(3), 333–340. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1007762613901#page-1
  28. Pace, K., Barry, R., Clapp, J., & Rodriguez, R. (1998). Spatio-temporal estimation of neighborhood effects. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 17(1), 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roehrig, C. S. (1988). Conditions for identification in nonparametric and parametric models. Econometrica, 56, 433–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith, G., & Duda, S. (2009). Roadblock to Recovery: Examining the disparate impact of vacant lender-owned properties in Chicago. Woodstock Institute.Google Scholar
  31. Steinnes, D., & Fisher, W. (1974). An econometric model of intra-urban location. Journal of Regional Science, 14(1), 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wheaton, W. (1990). Vacancy, search, and prices in a housing market matching model. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1270–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Office of the Comptroller of the CurrencyWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Freddie MacMcLeanUSA

Personalised recommendations