The foreclosure discount: Myth or reality?
AbstractForeclosed properties sell at lower prices than do nearby non-distressed properties. Of particular concern, is whether there is a “stigma” foreclosure discount whereby REO properties sell at lower prices simply because they have been involved in foreclosure proceedings. To the extent that such a discount exists, arbitrage opportunities exist and the associated market failure has significant policy implications. We examine the foreclosure discount from a different perspective than prior researchers by comparing holding period returns earned by purchasers of REOs with those earned by purchasers of similar non-distressed properties. Our results show that the majority of REO purchasers do not earn economically significant excess returns. On average, the implied market discount is less than typical transaction costs. We also find evidence that REO properties and buyers vary systematically from their counterparts in the non-distressed market segment and that REO attribute prices differ from those of non-distressed properties. Overall, our evidence suggests that the market for REOs operates efficiently: lenders are not irrationally dumping REO properties and REO investors are not reaping extraordinary profits.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Urban Economics.
Volume (Year): 71 (2012)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622905
Foreclosure discount; Distressed borrowers; Bargaining; Valuation; Propensity score;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- G12 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Asset Pricing
- G21 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Banks; Other Depository Institutions; Micro Finance Institutions; Mortgages
- R31 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Real Estate Markets, Production Analysis, and Firm Location - - - Housing Supply and Markets
- G1 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets
- G2 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- John Y. Campbell & Stefano Giglio & Parag Pathak, 2011.
"Forced Sales and House Prices,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 101(5), pages 2108-31, August.
- Terrence M. Clauretie & Nasser Daneshvary, 2009. "Estimating the House Foreclosure Discount Corrected for Spatial Price Interdependence and Endogeneity of Marketing Time," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 43-67.
- Anthony Pennington-Cross, 2006.
"The Value of Foreclosed Property,"
Journal of Real Estate Research,
American Real Estate Society, vol. 28(2), pages 193-214.
- William G. Hardin, III & Marvin L. Wolverton, 1996. "The Relationship between Foreclosure Status and Apartment Price," Journal of Real Estate Research, American Real Estate Society, vol. 12(1), pages 101-109.
- Oaxaca, Ronald, 1973. "Male-Female Wage Differentials in Urban Labor Markets," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 14(3), pages 693-709, October.
- Steven C. BOURASSA & Martin HOESLI & Vincent S. PENG, 2002.
"Do Housing Submarkets Really Matter?,"
FAME Research Paper Series
rp58, International Center for Financial Asset Management and Engineering.
- Alberto Abadie & David Drukker & Jane Leber Herr & Guido W. Imbens, 2004. "Implementing matching estimators for average treatment effects in Stata," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 4(3), pages 290-311, September.
- Fred A. Forgey & Ronald C. Rutherford & Michael L. VanBuskirk, 1994. "Effect of Foreclosure Status on Residential Selling Price," Journal of Real Estate Research, American Real Estate Society, vol. 9(3), pages 313-318.
- James D. Shilling & John D. Benjamin & C.F. Sirmans, 1990. "Estimating Net Realizable Value for Distressed Real Estate," Journal of Real Estate Research, American Real Estate Society, vol. 5(1), pages 129-140.
- John P. Harding & Stuart S. Rosenthal & C. F. Sirmans, 2003. "Estimating Bargaining Power in the Market for Existing Homes," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(1), pages 178-188, February.
- Lee, Lung-fei & Maddala, G S & Trost, R P, 1980. "Asymptotic Covariance Matrices of Two-Stage Probit and Two-Stage Tobit Methods for Simultaneous Equations Models with Selectivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(2), pages 491-503, March.
- Rosen, Sherwin, 1974. "Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(1), pages 34-55, Jan.-Feb..
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wendy Shamier).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.