Foreclosure Trends
September 2017
Foreclosure Trends Q2 2017
Joseph Speer Research Analyst
RESEARCH AND PLANNING DIVISION Tennessee Housing Development Agency Andrew Jackson Building 502 Deaderick St., Third Floor Nashville, TN 37243
Key Findings: •
• •
•
Mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures both decreased during the 2nd quarter of 2017; while this has been the general trend in Tennessee for the last several years, the magnitude of declines during Q2 was stronger than most quarter-over-quarter declines observed recently. Tennessee’s REO count rose slightly during Q2, the first quarter-over-quarter increase in REOs since Q1 of 2014. While the volume of delinquency and foreclosure decreases was driven by larger, urban counties, plenty of smaller counties experienced reductions in foreclosure totals, and almost every county in Tennessee experienced reductions in delinquency totals. Several Tennessee counties that rank at or near the top of the state in these indices are there because of small totals of active home loans that prove volatile within these indices and the rankings should be viewed with caution. For all county level Index Values, see Appendix A at the end of this document.
INTRODUCTION The past several years of Tennessee’s housing market data have fit well into the broader narrative of recovery from the Great Recession. Since their peak levels in 2011 and 2012, Tennessee’s delinquency, foreclosure, and REO totals have steadily diminished. While the third and fourth quarter of 2016 represented a departure from this trend, the first six months of 2017 have seen the trend of decreases in delinquency, foreclosure, and REO totals resume. Of the state’s four largest counties, Shelby had the highest Index Values 1, while Hamilton County was near the state average in all three categories, and Davidson and Knox Counties were at below-average levels of distress at all three stages of mortgage delinquency. 2 Tennessee’s Four Most Populous Counties, Compared (listed by Population) Delinquency Foreclosure County REO Index Index Index Shelby 172 174 145 Davidson 63 60 14 Knox 72 73 93 Hamilton 109 97 103 Within Tennessee, the highest rates of delinquencies, REOs, and foreclosures are generally found within smaller counties, often in West Tennessee. For most of 2015 and 2016, much like Tennessee overall, these high-Index counties were seeing notable declines in all three categories. In Q2 of 2017, this trend resumed in places like Hardeman, Haywood, and Lauderdale Counties.
1
By indexing county-level delinquency, REO, and foreclosure rates relative to the state average, we can show which areas of the state stand out. Shelby County’s Delinquency Index Value of 172, for example, signifies a delinquency rate 1.72 times the Tennessee overall delinquency rate. A value of 100 indicates a rate consistent with the state’s rate. 2 Delinquency totals in CoreLogic’s data include mortgages in foreclosure and REO properties.
2
While counties such as those listed in the chart below (selected for their high Index Values across all three stages of delinquency) may appear severely distressed, the Indices indicate rates relative to the state, and a high Index Value is not always indicative of severe distress. In the case of foreclosures and REOs, which occur with less frequency than delinquencies, quarterly values in small counties are especially volatile. Tennessee Counties with High Index Values in all Three Categories (Irrespective of Population) Delinquency REO County Foreclosure Index Index Index Lauderdale 256 251 193 Hardeman 252 206 336 Haywood 242 270 140 Lake 207 294 408 For each of the “foreclosure trend” variables, there are five maps: four mapping Index Values by county (showing East, Middle, West, and the State of Tennessee) and a fifth map showing volume, by ZIP code, irrespective of rates/Index Values. Because high Index Values may not necessarily reflect a noteworthy pattern, particularly in less populated counties, the fifth map is provided to show “hot spots” by volume, whether it be delinquencies, REOs, or foreclosures. These ZIP code-level volume maps are highly correlated with population, whereas county-level Index maps are relative to each county’s pool of active home loans.
3
DELINQUENCY As mentioned above, mortgage delinquencies experienced a substantial decrease during Q2 of 2017. Delinquent home loans are now at their lowest point in at least seven years, both as a volume total and as a percentage of active home loans. Figure 1
Table 1 The 10 Counties with the Highest Delinquency Index Values
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
County
Q2 2017 Delinquency Index Value
Q1 2017 Index Value
Increase or Decrease in Delinquencies?
Grand Division
Lauderdale Hardeman Haywood Lake Hancock Shelby Henderson Rhea Gibson Cocke
256 252 242 207 187 172 160 159 154 153
252 278 248 198 126 174 168 142 158 135
Decrease Decrease Decrease No Change Increase Decrease Decrease Increase Decrease Increase
West West West West East West West East West East
Note: State delinquency rate=100. Lauderdale County’s delinquency rate equals 2.56 times the Tennessee rate. A value of 100 indicates a rate consistent with the state’s rate. The column titled “Increase or Decrease in Delinquencies?” is may not reflect individual month-over-month changes, but instead uses the average of Q2’s three end-of-month delinquency totals.
Of the 10 counties at the top of the Delinquency Index, six saw their delinquency totals decrease in the first quarter. If a countywide decrease in delinquencies was outpaced by the decline across Tennessee, however, then said county’s Index Values were higher than the previous quarter, Lauderdale County being
4
an example of this. Q2 of 2017 is the first quarter (since THDA began calculating Delinquency Index relative to loan count) that Hardeman County did not finish with the state’s highest delinquency rate. For the seventh consecutive quarter, Williamson County ranked in the bottom five of the Delinquency Index, with a delinquency rate roughly one-fifth of Tennessee’s overall rate. Figure 2 below allows for a visualization of Tennessee counties and their quarterly changes in delinquency totals relative to their size. The magnitude of declines in delinquency was so pronounced in Shelby County that the scale of Figure 2 minimizes the changes elsewhere in Tennessee. Overall, 77 counties experienced falling delinquency totals, while 12 experienced an increase (six saw no change). The magnitude of these increases was minimal, as illustrated by Figure 2. Figure 2
Maps 1-4 below display county-level delinquency outcomes, while the top ZIP codes are listed and then mapped in Map 5. Map 5 focuses on the delinquency hot spots, showing high totals of delinquencies, rather than the Index Values in Maps 1-4. As seen in map 5, 12 of the top 15 ZIP codes for delinquency were located in Shelby County.
5
6
Map 4 & 5
7
Table 3
Top 5 Tennessee Counties for Delinquency Volume 1
Shelby
2
Davidson
3
Hamilton
4
Knox
5
Rutherford Table 4
Top 5 Tennessee ZIP Codes for Delinquency Index* ZIP Code
County; City
Index Value
38105
Shelby; Memphis
446
38106
Shelby; Memphis
387
37407
Hamilton; Chattanooga
387
38127
Shelby; Memphis
384
38109
Shelby; Memphis
368
*Excluding ZIP Codes with fewer than 100 loans*
Table 5
Top 5 Tennessee ZIP Codes for Delinquency Volume ZIP Code
County; City
38125
Shelby; Memphis
37042
Montgomery; Clarksville
38128
Shelby; Memphis
38127
Shelby; Memphis
37013
Davidson; Nashville
8
FORECLOSURE Figure 3
As was the case for delinquencies, foreclosures in Tennessee experienced a significant drop during Q2 of 2017. As Figure 3 above shows, foreclosure totals remained largely unchanged for most of 2016. Q2 2017 data reveals that the reductions in foreclosure have resumed across the state. Table 6 The 10 Counties with the Highest Foreclosure Index Values Q2 2017 Q1 2017 Increase or Decrease Grand County Foreclosure Index Foreclosure Index in Foreclosures? Division Value Value 1 Lake 294 382 Decreased West 2 Meigs 274 81 Increased East 3 Haywood 270 238 No Change West 4 Lauderdale 251 119 Increased West 5 Stewart 213 75 Increased Middle 6 Wayne 211 182 No Change Middle 7 Chester 207 102 Increased West 8 Hardeman 206 282 Decreased West 9 Decatur 178 120 Increased West 10 Shelby 174 175 Decreased West Note: State rate=100; Lake County’s value of 294 denotes a foreclosure rate 2.94 times that of the Tennessee overall rate. If a county’s foreclosure rate did not change from the previous quarter, but the Tennessee rate decreased, then that individual county’s Foreclosure Index Value increased (i.e. Haywood County).
In terms of volume, foreclosures are much lower than delinquencies, 3 resulting in more erratic percentage changes on a quarter-to-quarter basis.
3
For perspective, there are nearly 6.5 delinquent mortgages for every mortgage in foreclosure within Tennessee. It should be noted, however, that this delinquency total includes both loans in foreclosure and REO properties.
9
As Figure 4 illustrates, the majority of counties saw their foreclosure totals decrease, much like delinquency totals. The bulk of the statewide reduction in foreclosure, however, came from reductions in the state’s eight largest counties. This has generally been the trend for some time, with Q1 of 2017 being a notable exception, where seven out of the largest eight counties experienced increases in foreclosures. Meigs County, despite being one of the state’s smallest in terms of loan volume, experienced Tennessee’s largest county-level increase in foreclosure volume during Q2. Figure 4
Maps 6 through 9 display the county-level Foreclosure Index, broken down by Grand Division. To illustrate where the bulk of foreclosure volume occurs, irrespective of rates, Map 10 is included, showing ZIP codelevel foreclosure totals, which are concentrated in Shelby County largely due to its population.
10
11
Maps 9 & 10
12
Table 7
Top 5 Tennessee Counties for Foreclosure Volume 1
Shelby
2
Davidson
3
Hamilton
4
Knox
5
Montgomery Table 8
Top 5 Tennessee ZIP Codes for Foreclosure Index* ZIP Code
County; City
Index Value
37023
Stewart; Big Rock
Index Value=593
37142
Montgomery; Palmyra
Index Value=522
38367
McNairy; Ramer
Index Value=502
38374
Decatur/Henderson; Scott’s Hill
Index Value=461
37410
Hamilton; Chattanooga
Index Value=432
*Excluding ZIP Codes with fewer than 100 loans*
Table 9
Top 5 Tennessee ZIP Codes for Foreclosure Volume ZIP Code
County; City
37042
Montgomery; Clarksville
38125
Shelby; Memphis
38127
Shelby; Memphis
37013
Davidson; Nashville
38128
Shelby; Memphis
13
REAL ESTATE OWNED (REO) PROPERTIES During Q2 of 2017, Real Estate Owned (REO) properties in Tennessee increased over the previous quarter’s total, for the first time in nearly three years. As Figure 5 below shows, however, this increase was very minimal in the context of REO volume over the past several years. Figure 5
As shown in Figure 5, the pace of decline in Tennessee’s REO inventory has generally slowed down over the last twelve months, and the trajectory of REO inventory has not been as strongly seasonal as delinquency has been (where most declines have happened during the 1st quarter). With only a few exceptions, most countywide REO totals finished with very little quarterly change, as shown in Figure 6 on the following page. Table 10 The 10 Counties with Tennessee’s Highest REO Index Values County 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Wayne Cocke Campbell Houston Lewis Hancock Jackson Van Buren Lake Weakley
REO Index Value
Q1 2017 REO Index Value
Increase or Decrease in REOs?
Grand Division
730 507 501 475 468 446 413 413 408 375
607 422 454 589 308 451 426 424 424 542
Increased Increased Increased Decreased Increased No Change No Change No Change No Change Decreased
Middle East East Middle Middle East Middle Middle West West
Note: State REO rate=100; Wayne County’s value of 730 denotes an REO rate 7.30 times that of the Tennessee overall rate.
14
Unlike delinquency, the distribution of the REO Index is far less clustered around the state average of 100; with a maximum value reaching more than seven times the state average. 4 Furthermore, the highest value counties are primarily smaller, rural counties; the top ten counties shown above had an average of around 1,000 active mortgages and six REO properties. The relative infrequency of REOs 5 statewide meant that five REOs in a small county was a high rate of incidence. Shelby County, for example, is ranked 49th overall in REO rate, which may seem surprisingly low, given that Shelby County has 9 of the top 15 ZIP codes for REO totals. Figure 6
The top REO Index ZIP codes are far more scattered across the state’s smaller counties and Grand Divisions than the top ZIP codes in the Delinquency Index, which were by and large in Shelby County and the Nashville MSA (listed on page seven). Maps 11-14 show county-level REO Index values by grand division, and Map 15 is included to show the 45 Tennessee ZIP codes with the highest REO totals, which were The REO Index is prone to dispersion and extremes for two reasons: one, the relative infrequency of REOs in Tennessee, and two, the lack of home price appreciation in smaller, rural counties, which can increase REO incidence. In the first quarter of 2017, a delinquent loan was more than 21 times as frequent as an REO in Tennessee. This infrequency inevitably leads to huge swings in REO Index Values. Because REOs make up less than two tenths of a percent of Tennessee’s active loan total, a countywide increase from four to six REOs, for example, very well could vault it into the upper end of the REO Index. 5 CoreLogic estimates it has less overall coverage of REO properties at a national level than it does for delinquencies and foreclosures. Within the state of Tennessee, however, it is unclear to what extent an underestimation may be present. Existing coverage of REOs in Tennessee, however, show a decided reduction in REO inventory statewide, and an underestimation of the overall total would not change the high frequency of properties exiting REO status. 4
15
generally found in Tennessee’s most populous ZIP codes in metro areas. With REOs, however, more lowpopulation ZIP codes had top 15 REO totals, and zero ZIP codes in the entire Nashville MSA finished in the top 45 for ZIP code-level REO volume. Newport (37821) finished in the top 15 despite ranking 118th in active loan totals, as did La Follette (37766) and Madisonville (37354) despite a similar profile.
Maps 11 & 12
16
Map 13
17
Maps 14 & 15
18
Table 11
Top 5 Tennessee Counties for REO Volume 1
Shelby
2
Knox
3
Hamilton
4
Montgomery
5
Sullivan Table 12
Top 5 Tennessee ZIP Codes for REO Index* ZIP Code
County; City
Index Value
38316
Gibson; Bradford
Index Value=1524
37410
Hamilton; Chattanooga
Index Value=1026
38230
Weakley; Greenfield
Index Value=1007
37332
Rhea; Evensville
Index Value=789
37308
Hamilton/Meigs; Birchwood
Index Value=774
*Excluding ZIP Codes with fewer than 100 loans*
Table 13
Top 5 Tennessee ZIP Codes for REO Volume ZIP Code
County; City
38109
Shelby; Memphis
38128
Shelby; Memphis
38116
Shelby; Memphis
38127
Shelby; Memphis
38125
Shelby; Memphis
19
Appendix A: Tennessee’s 95 Counties, Alphabetical Statewide Ranking (1 through 95) County Name Anderson Bedford Benton Bledsoe Blount Bradley Campbell Cannon Carroll Carter Cheatham Chester Claiborne Clay Cocke Coffee Crockett Cumberland Davidson Decatur DeKalb Dickson Dyer Fayette Fentress Franklin Gibson Giles Grainger Greene Grundy Hamblen Hamilton Hancock Hardeman Hardin Hawkins Haywood
Delinquency Foreclosure
61 32 50 48 78 33 14 44 30 56 67 43 45 92 10 75 15 74 88 63 66 51 26 69 79 84 9 29 46 53 13 42 52 5 2 81 38 3
51 69 44 31 77 30 49 87 46 57 40 7 37 70 11 61 78 34 84 9 75 52 29 58 81 59 14 21 50 22 64 24 54 88 8 90 28 3
2nd Quarter 2017
Index Values
REO
Delinquency
Foreclosure
REO
42 68 23 28 72 57 3 39 25 26 83 77 22 93 2 56 84 36 89 78 40 62 24 50 74 54 13 63 31 32 27 41 64 6 12 45 37 52
100 126 111 113 77 125 148 117 128 104 96 117 116 44 153 82 146 83 63 98 97 110 133 94 75 72 154 131 115 109 150 118 109 187 252 73 119 242
98 75 111 127 71 128 101 55 105 92 114 207 119 75 174 86 70 125 60 178 71 98 128 92 66 88 161 142 100 139 85 137 97 54 206 43 131 270
167 90 251 233 82 119 501 184 244 244 54 72 252 0 507 128 54 190 14 70 177 104 246 142 78 134 333 104 225 208 235 176 103 446 336 159 190 140
Appendix A: Tennessee’s 95 Counties, Alphabetical Statewide Ranking (1 through 95) County Name Henderson Henry Hickman Houston Humphreys Jackson Jefferson Johnson Knox Lake Lauderdale Lawrence Lewis Lincoln Loudon Macon Madison Marion Marshall Maury McMinn McNairy Meigs Monroe Montgomery Moore Morgan Obion Overton Perry Pickett Polk Putnam Rhea Roane Robertson Rutherford Scott
Delinquency Foreclosure
7 72 20 54 57 36 71 73 83 4 1 60 55 68 77 47 17 23 64 90 25 21 24 41 37 89 39 58 59 94 93 35 86 8 28 62 80 31
56 38 62 86 67 55 23 47 74 1 4 71 92 82 72 36 26 13 63 91 42 25 2 53 12 94 66 83 39 73 95 85 41 19 32 79 76 16
2nd Quarter 2017
Index Values
REO
Delinquency
Foreclosure
REO
55 20 11 4 47 7 75 17 67 9 35 70 5 33 51 66 65 19 82 86 43 48 46 15 71 73 92 69 29 94 95 79 80 21 16 76 90 30
160 88 142 108 104 122 92 84 72 207 256 102 107 95 78 114 145 139 97 56 133 141 137 118 121 61 119 103 103 32 36 123 69 159 132 99 73 127
93 119 86 57 77 93 137 103 73 294 251 74 31 65 74 121 132 163 86 36 112 134 274 98 163 0 79 65 114 73 0 58 113 145 126 69 71 152
129 273 351 475 156 413 77 284 93 408 193 88 468 206 140 95 96 273 57 36 164 154 157 316 83 78 0 90 232 0 0 69 59 254 288 72 13 230
Appendix A: Tennessee’s 95 Counties, Alphabetical Statewide Ranking (1 through 95) County Name Sequatchie Sevier Shelby Smith Stewart Sullivan Sumner Tipton Trousdale Unicoi Union Van Buren Warren Washington Wayne Weakley White Williamson Wilson
Delinquency Foreclosure
16 82 6 76 49 70 85 11 34 65 19 22 18 87 27 12 40 95 91
18 65 10 43 5 27 80 33 15 48 17 68 35 45 6 60 20 93 89
2nd Quarter 2017
Index Values
REO
Delinquency
Foreclosure
REO
38 60 49 81 59 44 87 53 85 18 34 8 14 61 1 10 58 91 88
146 73 172 80 111 94 69 152 124 97 143 141 143 67 133 150 119 22 52
147 81 174 111 213 131 69 125 155 101 150 75 122 110 211 87 144 20 50
187 106 145 58 107 164 30 138 53 281 197 413 329 105 730 375 117 2 26
Appendix B: County Level Index Values by Loan Count Greater than 100,000 Active Loans 1 County Name
1 Shelby
Delinquency Index 2
Foreclosure Index
REO Index
172
174
145
Percent Change in Population from 2010 to 2015 3
Median Homeowner Household Income 4
2016 Median Home Sales Price 5
Percent Change in Population from 2010 to 2015
Median Homeowner Household Income
2016 Median Home Sales Price
Median Homeowner Household Income
2016 Median Home Sales Price
1.63%
$65,665
$187,500
Between 50,000 and 100,000 Active Loans County Name
2 Davidson 3 Knox
Delinquency Index
Foreclosure Index
REO Index
63 72
60 73
14 93
7.44% 4.86%
$66,621 $64,311
$248,250 $180,101
Between 20,000 and 50,000 Active Loans
4 5 6 7 8
1
County Name
Delinquency Index
Foreclosure Index
REO Index
Hamilton Rutherford Williamson Montgomery Sumner
109 73 22 121 69
97 71 20 163 69
103 13 2 83 30
Percent Change in Population from 2010 to 2015
5.82% 12.79% 14.46% 13.68% 9.02%
$64,498 $70,096 $107,630 $62,174 $67,820
$190,000 $199,000 $419,000 $174,500 $232,400
Data on active mortgage totals is provided by CoreLogic, as is the data for Delinquency, Foreclosure, and REO indices. Index values, as explained in the report, reference a county’s delinquency, foreclosure, and REO rate relative to the Tennessee overall rate. Shelby County’s Delinquency Index value of 174, for example, denotes a countywide delinquency rate that is 1.74 times the Tennessee delinquency rate. 3 U.S. Census Bureau ACS 5-year estimates of countywide population from 2006-2010 were compared to the 2011-2015 5-year estimates. 4 U.S. Census Bureau. For more, visit https://thda.org/research-planning/county-level-data-1. 5 2016 home sales prices provided from the Tennessee Comptroller’s Office. For more, visit https://thda.org/research-planning/home-sales-price-by-county. 2
Appendix B: County Level Index Values by Loan Count Between 10,000 and 20,000 Active Loans
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
County Name
Delinquency Index
Foreclosure Index
REO Index
Wilson Maury Blount Sevier Bradley Sullivan Washington
52 56 77 73 125 94 67
50 36 71 81 128 131 110
26 36 82 106 119 164 105
Percent Change in Population from 2010 to 2015
Median Homeowner Household Income
11.76% 6.40% 3.34% 6.98% 5.01% 0.60% 4.63%
$70,829 $59,994 $57,629 $51,729 $55,561 $50,359 $54,046
Percent Change in Population from 2010 to 2015
Median Homeowner Household Income
2016 Median Home Sales Price
$254,950 $189,900 $179,900 $173,000 $156,000 $134,000 $163,200
Between 5,000 and 10,000 Active Loans
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
County Name
Delinquency Index
Foreclosure Index
REO Index
Madison Robertson Anderson Putnam Loudon Tipton Hamblen Cumberland Fayette Cheatham
145 99 100 69 78 152 118 83 94 96
132 69 98 113 74 125 137 125 92 114
96 72 167 59 140 138 176 190 142 54
0.83% 4.78% 1.58% 4.59% 6.64% 3.33% 1.85% 4.51% 3.62% 1.58%
$56,585 $61,096 $54,180 $50,547 $60,555 $64,336 $47,409 $43,280 $64,762 $60,842
2016 Median Home Sales Price
$130,000 $183,922 $139,950 $148,500 $223,500 $150,000 $132,950 $148,000 $205,000 $180,000
Appendix B: County Level Index Values by Loan Count Between 2,000 and 5,000 Active Loans
County Name
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Dickson Greene Roane Coffee Gibson McMinn Jefferson Bedford Monroe Franklin Hawkins Lincoln Dyer Warren Marshall Lawrence Rhea Campbell Carter Henry Giles
Delinquency Index
Foreclosure Index
REO Index
110 109 132 82 154 133 92 126 118 72 119 95 133 143 97 102 159 148 104 88 131
98 139 126 86 161 112 137 75 98 88 131 65 128 122 86 74 145 101 92 119 142
104 208 288 128 333 164 77 90 316 134 190 206 246 329 57 88 254 501 244 273 104
Percent Change in Population from 2010 to 2015
3.61% 0.59% -1.84% 2.11% 1.14% 0.83% 3.74% 4.11% 2.90% 0.20% 0.06% 2.02% -0.31% 1.20% 4.20% 2.20% 3.78% -1.10% -1.33% 0.71% -2.06%
Median Homeowner Household Income
2016 Median Home Sales Price
$51,494 $41,925 $50,953 $51,022 $46,113 $47,073 $50,746 $51,775 $41,606 $50,158 $43,185 $47,495 $56,048 $46,589 $51,409 $46,318 $47,281 $39,123 $40,463 $43,928 $49,683
$159,900 $117,000 $145,500 $132,500 $115,500 $125,500 $140,000 $131,900 $139,900 $135,000 $127,750 $112,000 $113,300 $100,000 $135,000 $103,500 $135,500 $125,000 $119,900 $98,575 $112,000
Appendix B: County Level Index Values by Loan Count 47 48 49 50 51
White Marion Obion Cocke Hardin
119 139 103 153 73
144 163 65 174 43
117 273 90 507 159
3.11% 0.65% -2.43% -0.43% -0.37%
$40,913 $48,540 $49,371 $40,600 $39,439
$106,000 $123,500 $89,500 $110,000 $120,000
Between 1,000 and 2,000 Active Loans
52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68
County Name
Delinquency Index
Foreclosure Index
REO Index
Henderson Weakley Carroll McNairy Claiborne Hickman Hardeman Grainger Smith Lauderdale Humphreys DeKalb Overton Union Polk Haywood Chester
160 150 128 141 116 142 252 115 80 256 104 97 103 143 123 242 117
93 87 105 134 119 86 206 100 111 251 77 71 114 150 58 270 207
129 375 244 154 252 351 336 225 58 193 156 177 232 197 69 140 72
Percent Change in Population from 2010 to 2015
1.80% -0.41% -1.02% 1.33% -0.48% -0.91% -5.07% 1.41% 0.53% -1.15% -0.96% 2.53% 1.48% 0.04% -0.02% -4.01% 3.16%
Median Homeowner Household Income
$45,648 $46,171 $43,046 $36,173 $42,183 $43,475 $37,950 $39,497 $53,697 $41,207 $49,298 $46,057 $41,359 $42,529 $43,129 $44,177 $50,625
2016 Median Home Sales Price
$110,000 $89,000 $68,800 $80,000 $123,000 $119,650 $94,000 $140,000 $122,050 $79,900 $110,000 $124,950 $120,000 $139,450 $121,950 $103,000 $115,500
Appendix B: County Level Index Values by Loan Count 69 Macon 114 70 Fentress 75 Fewer than 1,000 Active Loans
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91
121 66
95 78
3.77% 0.87%
$41,261 $34,535
$107,250 $107,500
Percent Change in Population from 2010 to 2015
Median Homeowner Household Income
2016 Median Home Sales Price
County Name
Delinquency Index
Foreclosure Index
REO Index
Meigs Stewart Crockett Benton Unicoi Cannon Sequatchie Johnson Decatur Morgan Scott Lewis Grundy Wayne Jackson Houston Trousdale Bledsoe Pickett Moore Perry
137 111 146 111 97 117 146 84 98 119 127 107 150 133 122 108 124 113 36 61 32
274 213 70 111 101 55 147 103 178 79 152 31 85 211 93 57 155 127 0 0 73
157 107 54 251 281 184 187 284 70 0 230 468 235 730 413 475 53 233 0 78 0
1.17% 1.17% 0.52% -1.18% -1.03% 1.14% 5.63% -0.95% -0.26% 0.60% -0.58% -0.49% -2.77% -0.70% 0.04% 0.05% 1.72% 5.72% 0.49% 1.36% 1.11%
$38,814 $47,886 $42,500 $38,590 $39,581 $49,031 $50,711 $36,747 $43,113 $44,018 $34,439 $41,378 $32,567 $36,840 $36,017 $44,837 $54,205 $42,306 $44,972 $49,863 $35,920
$135,750 $119,000 $83,600 $90,000 $125,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $81,375 $97,886 $84,750 $105,000 $96,750 $74,100 $85,000 $96,000 $143,500 $96,000 $110,000 $165,500 $71,621
Appendix B: County Level Index Values by Loan Count 92 93 94 95
Van Buren Clay Lake Hancock
141 44 207 187
75 75 294 54
413 0 408 446
1.69% -1.37% -1.79% -2.06%
$44,280 $34,918 $44,042 $31,779
$114,750 $82,000 $51,000 $87,500
Foreclosure Trends Q2 2017
Joseph Speer Research Analyst
RESEARCH AND PLANNING DIVISION Tennessee Housing Development Agency Andrew Jackson Building 502 Deaderick St., Third Floor Nashville, TN 37243
Key Findings: •
• •
•
Mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures both decreased during the 2nd quarter of 2017; while this has been the general trend in Tennessee for the last several years, the magnitude of declines during Q2 was stronger than most quarter-over-quarter declines observed recently. Tennessee’s REO count rose slightly during Q2, the first quarter-over-quarter increase in REOs since Q1 of 2014. While the volume of delinquency and foreclosure decreases was driven by larger, urban counties, plenty of smaller counties experienced reductions in foreclosure totals, and almost every county in Tennessee experienced reductions in delinquency totals. Several Tennessee counties that rank at or near the top of the state in these indices are there because of small totals of active home loans that prove volatile within these indices and the rankings should be viewed with caution. For all county level Index Values, see Appendix A at the end of this document.
INTRODUCTION The past several years of Tennessee’s housing market data have fit well into the broader narrative of recovery from the Great Recession. Since their peak levels in 2011 and 2012, Tennessee’s delinquency, foreclosure, and REO totals have steadily diminished. While the third and fourth quarter of 2016 represented a departure from this trend, the first six months of 2017 have seen the trend of decreases in delinquency, foreclosure, and REO totals resume. Of the state’s four largest counties, Shelby had the highest Index Values 1, while Hamilton County was near the state average in all three categories, and Davidson and Knox Counties were at below-average levels of distress at all three stages of mortgage delinquency. 2 Tennessee’s Four Most Populous Counties, Compared (listed by Population) Delinquency Foreclosure County REO Index Index Index Shelby 172 174 145 Davidson 63 60 14 Knox 72 73 93 Hamilton 109 97 103 Within Tennessee, the highest rates of delinquencies, REOs, and foreclosures are generally found within smaller counties, often in West Tennessee. For most of 2015 and 2016, much like Tennessee overall, these high-Index counties were seeing notable declines in all three categories. In Q2 of 2017, this trend resumed in places like Hardeman, Haywood, and Lauderdale Counties.
1
By indexing county-level delinquency, REO, and foreclosure rates relative to the state average, we can show which areas of the state stand out. Shelby County’s Delinquency Index Value of 172, for example, signifies a delinquency rate 1.72 times the Tennessee overall delinquency rate. A value of 100 indicates a rate consistent with the state’s rate. 2 Delinquency totals in CoreLogic’s data include mortgages in foreclosure and REO properties.
2
While counties such as those listed in the chart below (selected for their high Index Values across all three stages of delinquency) may appear severely distressed, the Indices indicate rates relative to the state, and a high Index Value is not always indicative of severe distress. In the case of foreclosures and REOs, which occur with less frequency than delinquencies, quarterly values in small counties are especially volatile. Tennessee Counties with High Index Values in all Three Categories (Irrespective of Population) Delinquency REO County Foreclosure Index Index Index Lauderdale 256 251 193 Hardeman 252 206 336 Haywood 242 270 140 Lake 207 294 408 For each of the “foreclosure trend” variables, there are five maps: four mapping Index Values by county (showing East, Middle, West, and the State of Tennessee) and a fifth map showing volume, by ZIP code, irrespective of rates/Index Values. Because high Index Values may not necessarily reflect a noteworthy pattern, particularly in less populated counties, the fifth map is provided to show “hot spots” by volume, whether it be delinquencies, REOs, or foreclosures. These ZIP code-level volume maps are highly correlated with population, whereas county-level Index maps are relative to each county’s pool of active home loans.
3
DELINQUENCY As mentioned above, mortgage delinquencies experienced a substantial decrease during Q2 of 2017. Delinquent home loans are now at their lowest point in at least seven years, both as a volume total and as a percentage of active home loans. Figure 1
Table 1 The 10 Counties with the Highest Delinquency Index Values
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
County
Q2 2017 Delinquency Index Value
Q1 2017 Index Value
Increase or Decrease in Delinquencies?
Grand Division
Lauderdale Hardeman Haywood Lake Hancock Shelby Henderson Rhea Gibson Cocke
256 252 242 207 187 172 160 159 154 153
252 278 248 198 126 174 168 142 158 135
Decrease Decrease Decrease No Change Increase Decrease Decrease Increase Decrease Increase
West West West West East West West East West East
Note: State delinquency rate=100. Lauderdale County’s delinquency rate equals 2.56 times the Tennessee rate. A value of 100 indicates a rate consistent with the state’s rate. The column titled “Increase or Decrease in Delinquencies?” is may not reflect individual month-over-month changes, but instead uses the average of Q2’s three end-of-month delinquency totals.
Of the 10 counties at the top of the Delinquency Index, six saw their delinquency totals decrease in the first quarter. If a countywide decrease in delinquencies was outpaced by the decline across Tennessee, however, then said county’s Index Values were higher than the previous quarter, Lauderdale County being
4
an example of this. Q2 of 2017 is the first quarter (since THDA began calculating Delinquency Index relative to loan count) that Hardeman County did not finish with the state’s highest delinquency rate. For the seventh consecutive quarter, Williamson County ranked in the bottom five of the Delinquency Index, with a delinquency rate roughly one-fifth of Tennessee’s overall rate. Figure 2 below allows for a visualization of Tennessee counties and their quarterly changes in delinquency totals relative to their size. The magnitude of declines in delinquency was so pronounced in Shelby County that the scale of Figure 2 minimizes the changes elsewhere in Tennessee. Overall, 77 counties experienced falling delinquency totals, while 12 experienced an increase (six saw no change). The magnitude of these increases was minimal, as illustrated by Figure 2. Figure 2
Maps 1-4 below display county-level delinquency outcomes, while the top ZIP codes are listed and then mapped in Map 5. Map 5 focuses on the delinquency hot spots, showing high totals of delinquencies, rather than the Index Values in Maps 1-4. As seen in map 5, 12 of the top 15 ZIP codes for delinquency were located in Shelby County.
5
6
Map 4 & 5
7
Table 3
Top 5 Tennessee Counties for Delinquency Volume 1
Shelby
2
Davidson
3
Hamilton
4
Knox
5
Rutherford Table 4
Top 5 Tennessee ZIP Codes for Delinquency Index* ZIP Code
County; City
Index Value
38105
Shelby; Memphis
446
38106
Shelby; Memphis
387
37407
Hamilton; Chattanooga
387
38127
Shelby; Memphis
384
38109
Shelby; Memphis
368
*Excluding ZIP Codes with fewer than 100 loans*
Table 5
Top 5 Tennessee ZIP Codes for Delinquency Volume ZIP Code
County; City
38125
Shelby; Memphis
37042
Montgomery; Clarksville
38128
Shelby; Memphis
38127
Shelby; Memphis
37013
Davidson; Nashville
8
FORECLOSURE Figure 3
As was the case for delinquencies, foreclosures in Tennessee experienced a significant drop during Q2 of 2017. As Figure 3 above shows, foreclosure totals remained largely unchanged for most of 2016. Q2 2017 data reveals that the reductions in foreclosure have resumed across the state. Table 6 The 10 Counties with the Highest Foreclosure Index Values Q2 2017 Q1 2017 Increase or Decrease Grand County Foreclosure Index Foreclosure Index in Foreclosures? Division Value Value 1 Lake 294 382 Decreased West 2 Meigs 274 81 Increased East 3 Haywood 270 238 No Change West 4 Lauderdale 251 119 Increased West 5 Stewart 213 75 Increased Middle 6 Wayne 211 182 No Change Middle 7 Chester 207 102 Increased West 8 Hardeman 206 282 Decreased West 9 Decatur 178 120 Increased West 10 Shelby 174 175 Decreased West Note: State rate=100; Lake County’s value of 294 denotes a foreclosure rate 2.94 times that of the Tennessee overall rate. If a county’s foreclosure rate did not change from the previous quarter, but the Tennessee rate decreased, then that individual county’s Foreclosure Index Value increased (i.e. Haywood County).
In terms of volume, foreclosures are much lower than delinquencies, 3 resulting in more erratic percentage changes on a quarter-to-quarter basis.
3
For perspective, there are nearly 6.5 delinquent mortgages for every mortgage in foreclosure within Tennessee. It should be noted, however, that this delinquency total includes both loans in foreclosure and REO properties.
9
As Figure 4 illustrates, the majority of counties saw their foreclosure totals decrease, much like delinquency totals. The bulk of the statewide reduction in foreclosure, however, came from reductions in the state’s eight largest counties. This has generally been the trend for some time, with Q1 of 2017 being a notable exception, where seven out of the largest eight counties experienced increases in foreclosures. Meigs County, despite being one of the state’s smallest in terms of loan volume, experienced Tennessee’s largest county-level increase in foreclosure volume during Q2. Figure 4
Maps 6 through 9 display the county-level Foreclosure Index, broken down by Grand Division. To illustrate where the bulk of foreclosure volume occurs, irrespective of rates, Map 10 is included, showing ZIP codelevel foreclosure totals, which are concentrated in Shelby County largely due to its population.
10
11
Maps 9 & 10
12
Table 7
Top 5 Tennessee Counties for Foreclosure Volume 1
Shelby
2
Davidson
3
Hamilton
4
Knox
5
Montgomery Table 8
Top 5 Tennessee ZIP Codes for Foreclosure Index* ZIP Code
County; City
Index Value
37023
Stewart; Big Rock
Index Value=593
37142
Montgomery; Palmyra
Index Value=522
38367
McNairy; Ramer
Index Value=502
38374
Decatur/Henderson; Scott’s Hill
Index Value=461
37410
Hamilton; Chattanooga
Index Value=432
*Excluding ZIP Codes with fewer than 100 loans*
Table 9
Top 5 Tennessee ZIP Codes for Foreclosure Volume ZIP Code
County; City
37042
Montgomery; Clarksville
38125
Shelby; Memphis
38127
Shelby; Memphis
37013
Davidson; Nashville
38128
Shelby; Memphis
13
REAL ESTATE OWNED (REO) PROPERTIES During Q2 of 2017, Real Estate Owned (REO) properties in Tennessee increased over the previous quarter’s total, for the first time in nearly three years. As Figure 5 below shows, however, this increase was very minimal in the context of REO volume over the past several years. Figure 5
As shown in Figure 5, the pace of decline in Tennessee’s REO inventory has generally slowed down over the last twelve months, and the trajectory of REO inventory has not been as strongly seasonal as delinquency has been (where most declines have happened during the 1st quarter). With only a few exceptions, most countywide REO totals finished with very little quarterly change, as shown in Figure 6 on the following page. Table 10 The 10 Counties with Tennessee’s Highest REO Index Values County 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Wayne Cocke Campbell Houston Lewis Hancock Jackson Van Buren Lake Weakley
REO Index Value
Q1 2017 REO Index Value
Increase or Decrease in REOs?
Grand Division
730 507 501 475 468 446 413 413 408 375
607 422 454 589 308 451 426 424 424 542
Increased Increased Increased Decreased Increased No Change No Change No Change No Change Decreased
Middle East East Middle Middle East Middle Middle West West
Note: State REO rate=100; Wayne County’s value of 730 denotes an REO rate 7.30 times that of the Tennessee overall rate.
14
Unlike delinquency, the distribution of the REO Index is far less clustered around the state average of 100; with a maximum value reaching more than seven times the state average. 4 Furthermore, the highest value counties are primarily smaller, rural counties; the top ten counties shown above had an average of around 1,000 active mortgages and six REO properties. The relative infrequency of REOs 5 statewide meant that five REOs in a small county was a high rate of incidence. Shelby County, for example, is ranked 49th overall in REO rate, which may seem surprisingly low, given that Shelby County has 9 of the top 15 ZIP codes for REO totals. Figure 6
The top REO Index ZIP codes are far more scattered across the state’s smaller counties and Grand Divisions than the top ZIP codes in the Delinquency Index, which were by and large in Shelby County and the Nashville MSA (listed on page seven). Maps 11-14 show county-level REO Index values by grand division, and Map 15 is included to show the 45 Tennessee ZIP codes with the highest REO totals, which were The REO Index is prone to dispersion and extremes for two reasons: one, the relative infrequency of REOs in Tennessee, and two, the lack of home price appreciation in smaller, rural counties, which can increase REO incidence. In the first quarter of 2017, a delinquent loan was more than 21 times as frequent as an REO in Tennessee. This infrequency inevitably leads to huge swings in REO Index Values. Because REOs make up less than two tenths of a percent of Tennessee’s active loan total, a countywide increase from four to six REOs, for example, very well could vault it into the upper end of the REO Index. 5 CoreLogic estimates it has less overall coverage of REO properties at a national level than it does for delinquencies and foreclosures. Within the state of Tennessee, however, it is unclear to what extent an underestimation may be present. Existing coverage of REOs in Tennessee, however, show a decided reduction in REO inventory statewide, and an underestimation of the overall total would not change the high frequency of properties exiting REO status. 4
15
generally found in Tennessee’s most populous ZIP codes in metro areas. With REOs, however, more lowpopulation ZIP codes had top 15 REO totals, and zero ZIP codes in the entire Nashville MSA finished in the top 45 for ZIP code-level REO volume. Newport (37821) finished in the top 15 despite ranking 118th in active loan totals, as did La Follette (37766) and Madisonville (37354) despite a similar profile.
Maps 11 & 12
16
Map 13
17
Maps 14 & 15
18
Table 11
Top 5 Tennessee Counties for REO Volume 1
Shelby
2
Knox
3
Hamilton
4
Montgomery
5
Sullivan Table 12
Top 5 Tennessee ZIP Codes for REO Index* ZIP Code
County; City
Index Value
38316
Gibson; Bradford
Index Value=1524
37410
Hamilton; Chattanooga
Index Value=1026
38230
Weakley; Greenfield
Index Value=1007
37332
Rhea; Evensville
Index Value=789
37308
Hamilton/Meigs; Birchwood
Index Value=774
*Excluding ZIP Codes with fewer than 100 loans*
Table 13
Top 5 Tennessee ZIP Codes for REO Volume ZIP Code
County; City
38109
Shelby; Memphis
38128
Shelby; Memphis
38116
Shelby; Memphis
38127
Shelby; Memphis
38125
Shelby; Memphis
19
Appendix A: Tennessee’s 95 Counties, Alphabetical Statewide Ranking (1 through 95) County Name Anderson Bedford Benton Bledsoe Blount Bradley Campbell Cannon Carroll Carter Cheatham Chester Claiborne Clay Cocke Coffee Crockett Cumberland Davidson Decatur DeKalb Dickson Dyer Fayette Fentress Franklin Gibson Giles Grainger Greene Grundy Hamblen Hamilton Hancock Hardeman Hardin Hawkins Haywood
Delinquency Foreclosure
61 32 50 48 78 33 14 44 30 56 67 43 45 92 10 75 15 74 88 63 66 51 26 69 79 84 9 29 46 53 13 42 52 5 2 81 38 3
51 69 44 31 77 30 49 87 46 57 40 7 37 70 11 61 78 34 84 9 75 52 29 58 81 59 14 21 50 22 64 24 54 88 8 90 28 3
2nd Quarter 2017
Index Values
REO
Delinquency
Foreclosure
REO
42 68 23 28 72 57 3 39 25 26 83 77 22 93 2 56 84 36 89 78 40 62 24 50 74 54 13 63 31 32 27 41 64 6 12 45 37 52
100 126 111 113 77 125 148 117 128 104 96 117 116 44 153 82 146 83 63 98 97 110 133 94 75 72 154 131 115 109 150 118 109 187 252 73 119 242
98 75 111 127 71 128 101 55 105 92 114 207 119 75 174 86 70 125 60 178 71 98 128 92 66 88 161 142 100 139 85 137 97 54 206 43 131 270
167 90 251 233 82 119 501 184 244 244 54 72 252 0 507 128 54 190 14 70 177 104 246 142 78 134 333 104 225 208 235 176 103 446 336 159 190 140
Appendix A: Tennessee’s 95 Counties, Alphabetical Statewide Ranking (1 through 95) County Name Henderson Henry Hickman Houston Humphreys Jackson Jefferson Johnson Knox Lake Lauderdale Lawrence Lewis Lincoln Loudon Macon Madison Marion Marshall Maury McMinn McNairy Meigs Monroe Montgomery Moore Morgan Obion Overton Perry Pickett Polk Putnam Rhea Roane Robertson Rutherford Scott
Delinquency Foreclosure
7 72 20 54 57 36 71 73 83 4 1 60 55 68 77 47 17 23 64 90 25 21 24 41 37 89 39 58 59 94 93 35 86 8 28 62 80 31
56 38 62 86 67 55 23 47 74 1 4 71 92 82 72 36 26 13 63 91 42 25 2 53 12 94 66 83 39 73 95 85 41 19 32 79 76 16
2nd Quarter 2017
Index Values
REO
Delinquency
Foreclosure
REO
55 20 11 4 47 7 75 17 67 9 35 70 5 33 51 66 65 19 82 86 43 48 46 15 71 73 92 69 29 94 95 79 80 21 16 76 90 30
160 88 142 108 104 122 92 84 72 207 256 102 107 95 78 114 145 139 97 56 133 141 137 118 121 61 119 103 103 32 36 123 69 159 132 99 73 127
93 119 86 57 77 93 137 103 73 294 251 74 31 65 74 121 132 163 86 36 112 134 274 98 163 0 79 65 114 73 0 58 113 145 126 69 71 152
129 273 351 475 156 413 77 284 93 408 193 88 468 206 140 95 96 273 57 36 164 154 157 316 83 78 0 90 232 0 0 69 59 254 288 72 13 230
Appendix A: Tennessee’s 95 Counties, Alphabetical Statewide Ranking (1 through 95) County Name Sequatchie Sevier Shelby Smith Stewart Sullivan Sumner Tipton Trousdale Unicoi Union Van Buren Warren Washington Wayne Weakley White Williamson Wilson
Delinquency Foreclosure
16 82 6 76 49 70 85 11 34 65 19 22 18 87 27 12 40 95 91
18 65 10 43 5 27 80 33 15 48 17 68 35 45 6 60 20 93 89
2nd Quarter 2017
Index Values
REO
Delinquency
Foreclosure
REO
38 60 49 81 59 44 87 53 85 18 34 8 14 61 1 10 58 91 88
146 73 172 80 111 94 69 152 124 97 143 141 143 67 133 150 119 22 52
147 81 174 111 213 131 69 125 155 101 150 75 122 110 211 87 144 20 50
187 106 145 58 107 164 30 138 53 281 197 413 329 105 730 375 117 2 26
Appendix B: County Level Index Values by Loan Count Greater than 100,000 Active Loans 1 County Name
1 Shelby
Delinquency Index 2
Foreclosure Index
REO Index
172
174
145
Percent Change in Population from 2010 to 2015 3
Median Homeowner Household Income 4
2016 Median Home Sales Price 5
Percent Change in Population from 2010 to 2015
Median Homeowner Household Income
2016 Median Home Sales Price
Median Homeowner Household Income
2016 Median Home Sales Price
1.63%
$65,665
$187,500
Between 50,000 and 100,000 Active Loans County Name
2 Davidson 3 Knox
Delinquency Index
Foreclosure Index
REO Index
63 72
60 73
14 93
7.44% 4.86%
$66,621 $64,311
$248,250 $180,101
Between 20,000 and 50,000 Active Loans
4 5 6 7 8
1
County Name
Delinquency Index
Foreclosure Index
REO Index
Hamilton Rutherford Williamson Montgomery Sumner
109 73 22 121 69
97 71 20 163 69
103 13 2 83 30
Percent Change in Population from 2010 to 2015
5.82% 12.79% 14.46% 13.68% 9.02%
$64,498 $70,096 $107,630 $62,174 $67,820
$190,000 $199,000 $419,000 $174,500 $232,400
Data on active mortgage totals is provided by CoreLogic, as is the data for Delinquency, Foreclosure, and REO indices. Index values, as explained in the report, reference a county’s delinquency, foreclosure, and REO rate relative to the Tennessee overall rate. Shelby County’s Delinquency Index value of 174, for example, denotes a countywide delinquency rate that is 1.74 times the Tennessee delinquency rate. 3 U.S. Census Bureau ACS 5-year estimates of countywide population from 2006-2010 were compared to the 2011-2015 5-year estimates. 4 U.S. Census Bureau. For more, visit https://thda.org/research-planning/county-level-data-1. 5 2016 home sales prices provided from the Tennessee Comptroller’s Office. For more, visit https://thda.org/research-planning/home-sales-price-by-county. 2
Appendix B: County Level Index Values by Loan Count Between 10,000 and 20,000 Active Loans
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
County Name
Delinquency Index
Foreclosure Index
REO Index
Wilson Maury Blount Sevier Bradley Sullivan Washington
52 56 77 73 125 94 67
50 36 71 81 128 131 110
26 36 82 106 119 164 105
Percent Change in Population from 2010 to 2015
Median Homeowner Household Income
11.76% 6.40% 3.34% 6.98% 5.01% 0.60% 4.63%
$70,829 $59,994 $57,629 $51,729 $55,561 $50,359 $54,046
Percent Change in Population from 2010 to 2015
Median Homeowner Household Income
2016 Median Home Sales Price
$254,950 $189,900 $179,900 $173,000 $156,000 $134,000 $163,200
Between 5,000 and 10,000 Active Loans
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
County Name
Delinquency Index
Foreclosure Index
REO Index
Madison Robertson Anderson Putnam Loudon Tipton Hamblen Cumberland Fayette Cheatham
145 99 100 69 78 152 118 83 94 96
132 69 98 113 74 125 137 125 92 114
96 72 167 59 140 138 176 190 142 54
0.83% 4.78% 1.58% 4.59% 6.64% 3.33% 1.85% 4.51% 3.62% 1.58%
$56,585 $61,096 $54,180 $50,547 $60,555 $64,336 $47,409 $43,280 $64,762 $60,842
2016 Median Home Sales Price
$130,000 $183,922 $139,950 $148,500 $223,500 $150,000 $132,950 $148,000 $205,000 $180,000
Appendix B: County Level Index Values by Loan Count Between 2,000 and 5,000 Active Loans
County Name
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Dickson Greene Roane Coffee Gibson McMinn Jefferson Bedford Monroe Franklin Hawkins Lincoln Dyer Warren Marshall Lawrence Rhea Campbell Carter Henry Giles
Delinquency Index
Foreclosure Index
REO Index
110 109 132 82 154 133 92 126 118 72 119 95 133 143 97 102 159 148 104 88 131
98 139 126 86 161 112 137 75 98 88 131 65 128 122 86 74 145 101 92 119 142
104 208 288 128 333 164 77 90 316 134 190 206 246 329 57 88 254 501 244 273 104
Percent Change in Population from 2010 to 2015
3.61% 0.59% -1.84% 2.11% 1.14% 0.83% 3.74% 4.11% 2.90% 0.20% 0.06% 2.02% -0.31% 1.20% 4.20% 2.20% 3.78% -1.10% -1.33% 0.71% -2.06%
Median Homeowner Household Income
2016 Median Home Sales Price
$51,494 $41,925 $50,953 $51,022 $46,113 $47,073 $50,746 $51,775 $41,606 $50,158 $43,185 $47,495 $56,048 $46,589 $51,409 $46,318 $47,281 $39,123 $40,463 $43,928 $49,683
$159,900 $117,000 $145,500 $132,500 $115,500 $125,500 $140,000 $131,900 $139,900 $135,000 $127,750 $112,000 $113,300 $100,000 $135,000 $103,500 $135,500 $125,000 $119,900 $98,575 $112,000
Appendix B: County Level Index Values by Loan Count 47 48 49 50 51
White Marion Obion Cocke Hardin
119 139 103 153 73
144 163 65 174 43
117 273 90 507 159
3.11% 0.65% -2.43% -0.43% -0.37%
$40,913 $48,540 $49,371 $40,600 $39,439
$106,000 $123,500 $89,500 $110,000 $120,000
Between 1,000 and 2,000 Active Loans
52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68
County Name
Delinquency Index
Foreclosure Index
REO Index
Henderson Weakley Carroll McNairy Claiborne Hickman Hardeman Grainger Smith Lauderdale Humphreys DeKalb Overton Union Polk Haywood Chester
160 150 128 141 116 142 252 115 80 256 104 97 103 143 123 242 117
93 87 105 134 119 86 206 100 111 251 77 71 114 150 58 270 207
129 375 244 154 252 351 336 225 58 193 156 177 232 197 69 140 72
Percent Change in Population from 2010 to 2015
1.80% -0.41% -1.02% 1.33% -0.48% -0.91% -5.07% 1.41% 0.53% -1.15% -0.96% 2.53% 1.48% 0.04% -0.02% -4.01% 3.16%
Median Homeowner Household Income
$45,648 $46,171 $43,046 $36,173 $42,183 $43,475 $37,950 $39,497 $53,697 $41,207 $49,298 $46,057 $41,359 $42,529 $43,129 $44,177 $50,625
2016 Median Home Sales Price
$110,000 $89,000 $68,800 $80,000 $123,000 $119,650 $94,000 $140,000 $122,050 $79,900 $110,000 $124,950 $120,000 $139,450 $121,950 $103,000 $115,500
Appendix B: County Level Index Values by Loan Count 69 Macon 114 70 Fentress 75 Fewer than 1,000 Active Loans
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91
121 66
95 78
3.77% 0.87%
$41,261 $34,535
$107,250 $107,500
Percent Change in Population from 2010 to 2015
Median Homeowner Household Income
2016 Median Home Sales Price
County Name
Delinquency Index
Foreclosure Index
REO Index
Meigs Stewart Crockett Benton Unicoi Cannon Sequatchie Johnson Decatur Morgan Scott Lewis Grundy Wayne Jackson Houston Trousdale Bledsoe Pickett Moore Perry
137 111 146 111 97 117 146 84 98 119 127 107 150 133 122 108 124 113 36 61 32
274 213 70 111 101 55 147 103 178 79 152 31 85 211 93 57 155 127 0 0 73
157 107 54 251 281 184 187 284 70 0 230 468 235 730 413 475 53 233 0 78 0
1.17% 1.17% 0.52% -1.18% -1.03% 1.14% 5.63% -0.95% -0.26% 0.60% -0.58% -0.49% -2.77% -0.70% 0.04% 0.05% 1.72% 5.72% 0.49% 1.36% 1.11%
$38,814 $47,886 $42,500 $38,590 $39,581 $49,031 $50,711 $36,747 $43,113 $44,018 $34,439 $41,378 $32,567 $36,840 $36,017 $44,837 $54,205 $42,306 $44,972 $49,863 $35,920
$135,750 $119,000 $83,600 $90,000 $125,000 $140,000 $140,000 $140,000 $81,375 $97,886 $84,750 $105,000 $96,750 $74,100 $85,000 $96,000 $143,500 $96,000 $110,000 $165,500 $71,621
Appendix B: County Level Index Values by Loan Count 92 93 94 95
Van Buren Clay Lake Hancock
141 44 207 187
75 75 294 54
413 0 408 446
1.69% -1.37% -1.79% -2.06%
$44,280 $34,918 $44,042 $31,779
$114,750 $82,000 $51,000 $87,500
