Foreclosure Trends
August 2017
Foreclosure Trends Q1 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: •
•
•
• •
For a second consecutive quarter, and only the third time since 2014, Tennessee’s quarterly foreclosure total represented an increase over the previous foreclosure total, and by extension, an increase in the statewide foreclosure rate for Q1 2017. The first quarter averages were elevated due to a sharp increase of foreclosures during the month of January, and during the following two months, foreclosures resumed month-over-month declines. Tennessee actually finished March 2017 with fewer mortgages in foreclosure than at any time in the previous seven years. Heavily populated urban counties experienced the sharpest increase in foreclosures, a departure from previous quarterly trends, where large urban counties tended to experience reductions in foreclosure inventory. Tennessee’s delinquency and REO rates both decreased during Q1 of 2017, which has been the trend for several years. 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 2011-12, Tennessee’s delinquency, REO, and foreclosure totals have steadily diminished. The third and fourth quarter of 2016 represented a departure from this trend, but the month-to-month progression during the first quarter of 2017 suggests that Tennessee has yet to reach its floor on delinquency, REO, and foreclosure totals. In fact, total REO properties decreased by nearly ten percent over the quarter. Of the state’s four largest counties, Shelby has the highest Index Values 1, while Hamilton County is at the state average in all three categories, and Davidson and Knox Counties have below-average levels of mortgage delinquency at all three stages. Tennessee’s Four Most Populous Counties, Compared (listed by Population) Delinquency Foreclosure County REO Index Index Index Shelby 174 175 147 Davidson 63 61 16 Knox 68 75 82 Hamilton 107 100 100
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 174, for example, signifies a delinquency rate 1.74 times the Tennessee overall delinquency rate. A value of 100 indicates a rate consistent with the state’s rate.
2
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 the 1st quarter of 2017, however, delinquency, REO, and foreclosure totals were much more static in places like Hardeman, Haywood, and Lauderdale Counties. While counties such as those listed in the chart below (selected for their high Index Values across all three stages of foreclosure) may appear severely distressed, the index indicates relative rates to the state and not always an increase. In the case of foreclosures and REOs, which occur with less frequency than delinquencies, quarterly values in small counties are volatile. Tennessee Counties with High Index Values in all Three Categories (Irrespective of Population) Delinquency REO County Foreclosure Index Index Index Hardeman 278 282 426 Lauderdale 252 119 219 Haywood 248 238 168 Lake 198 382 424 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. 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 In the first quarter of 2017, mortgage delinquencies in Tennessee decreased slightly, rebounding from an increase at the end of 2016, and finishing the month of March with fewer delinquencies than at any time in the past seven years (the time frame for which comparable data is available). As Figure 1 shows below, the months of January through March have been the best for mortgage performance over the last several years, generally showing steeper declines in delinquency than the other nine months of the year. Figure 1
Table 1 The 10 Counties with the Highest Delinquency Index Values
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
County
Delinquency Index Value
Q4 2016 Index Value
Increase or Decrease in Delinquencies?
Grand Division
Hardeman Lauderdale Haywood Lake Shelby Henderson Crockett Gibson Sequatchie Madison
278 252 248 198 174 168 160 158 154 150
279 257 247 210 172 168 166 160 149 147
Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease No Change Decrease
West West West West West West West West Middle West
Note: State delinquency rate=100. Hardeman County’s delinquency rate equals 2.78 times the Tennessee rate. A value of 100 indicates a rate consistent with the state’s rate.
Of the 10 counties at the top of the Delinquency Index, nine saw their delinquency totals decrease in the first quarter. If these decreases in delinquencies were outpaced by those seen across Tennessee, however, then their Index Values were higher than the previous quarter. Shelby and Madison Counties, for example, saw delinquencies fall slightly—but the state’s overall delinquency rate fell faster than the delinquency rates of Shelby and Madison Counties, resulting in a slightly higher Delinquency Index Value than in the
4
previous quarter. For the sixth 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. The chart below allows for a visualization of Tennessee counties and their quarterly changes in delinquency totals relative to their size. Williamson County was the only large urban area to see delinquency totals increase, although, as mentioned above, it still has a very low rate of delinquency as a percentage of active mortgages. Overall, 64 counties experienced falling delinquency totals, while 15 experienced an increase (16 saw no change). 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
417
37407
Hamilton; Chattanooga
391
38127
Shelby; Memphis
384
38106
Shelby; Memphis
380
38109
Shelby; Memphis
370
*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
38141
Shelby; Memphis
8
FORECLOSURE Figure 3
While foreclosures in Tennessee declined during the months of February and March, the high total at the end of January led the first quarter average to show an increase of roughly four percent over the prior quarter. Much like delinquency totals, however, Tennessee actually finished the month of March with the lowest end-of-month foreclosure total since January 2015 (when THDA began using CoreLogic data). While the first quarters of 2016 and 2015 are shown in Figure 3 for comparison, Tennessee’s decline in foreclosure does not appear to have the same degree of seasonality as was the case for loan delinquencies. As the graph above shows, foreclosure totals remained largely unchanged for most of 2016. Foreclosure volume in the state is at about the same level as it was nine months ago. The relatively pronounced declines of February and March, however, indicate that Tennessee may have room to further reduce its foreclosure volume in the coming months. Table 6 The 10 Counties with the Highest Foreclosure Index Values County 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Lake Hardeman Haywood Clay Grainger Sequatchie Wayne Gibson Bledsoe Shelby
Foreclosure Index Value
Q4 2016 Foreclosure Index Value
Increase or Decrease in Foreclosures?
Grand Division
382 282 238 194 191 184 182 182 178 175
309 252 232 139 127 80 236 134 113 175
Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Decreased Increased Increased Increased
West West West Middle East Middle Middle West East West
Note: State rate=100; Lake County’s value of 382 denotes a foreclosure rate 3.82 times that of the Tennessee overall rate.
9
In terms of volume, foreclosures are much lower than delinquencies, 2 resulting in more erratic percentage changes on a quarter-to-quarter basis. While a majority of counties saw their quarterly average foreclosure total increase, it is important to remember that these increases likely subsided after the month of January. Nonetheless, it is the first quarter since THDA began reporting on CoreLogic’s foreclosure data where seven out of the state’s eight (excluding Rutherford County) largest counties saw increases in foreclosure inventory. In previous quarters, the overwhelming trend has been substantial declines in urban areas and incremental changes in more rural areas of the state. Figure 4
Relative to the size of a county’s mortgage market, proportionally larger increases in foreclosures occurred in Gibson, Bradley, and Sullivan Counties. 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. 2
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.
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
38374
Decatur/Henderson; Scott’s Hill
Index Value=640
37410
Hamilton; Chattanooga
Index Value=579
37145
Smith; Pleasant Shade
Index Value=449
38008
Hardeman; Bolivar
Index Value=446
37142
Montgomery; Palmyra
Index Value=437
*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
38128
Shelby; Memphis
38141
Shelby; Memphis
38127
Shelby; Memphis
13
REAL ESTATE OWNED (REO) PROPERTIES In the first quarter of 2017, Real Estate Owned (REO) properties in Tennessee declined by nearly ten percent from the previous quarter, which amounted to a nearly 40 percent decline from the first quarter of 2016. 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 Houston Weakley Campbell Hancock Hardeman Jackson Van Buren Lake Cocke
REO Index Value
Q4 2016 REO Index Value
Increase or Decrease in REOs?
Grand Division
607 589 542 454 451 426 426 424 424 422
415 485 576 330 425 369 394 98 0 287
Increased No Change* Decreased Increased No Change No Change No Change Increased Increased Increased
Middle Middle West East East West Middle Middle West East
Note: State REO rate=100; Wayne County’s value of 607 denotes an REO rate 6.07 times that of the Tennessee overall rate. *Houston County’s Q1 2017 average REO total was 0.33 higher than in Q4 2016; Houston County’s loan count is at the lower end of the distribution, so this slight bump was enough to increase REOs as a percentage of Houston County loans, at the same time the Tennessee REO rate went down by ten percent.
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 six times the state average. 3 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 4 statewide meant that five REOs in a small county was a high rate of incidence. Shelby County, for example, is ranked 54th 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 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. 4 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. 3
15
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 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 just two ZIP codes in the entire Nashville MSA finished in the top 45 for ZIP code-level REO volume. For the fourth straight quarter, Sevierville (ZIP code 37876) finished in the top 15 for REO volume, despite ranking 37th in active loan totals, while Newport (37821) finished in the top 15 despite ranking 118th in active loan totals.
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
38230
Weakley; Greenfield
Index Value=1576
37724
Claiborne; Cumberland Gap
Index Value=1185
38316
Gibson; Bradford
Index Value=1175
37658
Carter; Hampton
Index Value=976
37308
Hamilton/Meigs; Birchwood
Index Value=874
*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
38127
Shelby; Memphis
38116
Shelby; Memphis
37042
Montgomery; Clarksville
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
63 38 45 30 77 36 14 55 37 49 65 32 43 84 25 73 7 76 90 71 62 50 19 51 86 80 8 28 29 60 23 47 54 34 1 75 41 3
59 34 15 9 69 49 28 95 19 36 73 55 83 4 45 61 56 62 80 42 91 46 17 33 88 39 8 47 5 51 58 20 60 26 2 75 66 3
1st Quarter 2017
Index Values
REO
Delinquency
Foreclosure
REO
53 70 22 40 66 69 4 57 58 39 79 78 11 91 10 55 73 48 88 92 26 59 41 52 15 63 35 46 24 28 38 43 67 5 6 29 34 44
98 121 115 128 76 124 141 107 122 111 96 126 116 70 135 88 160 79 63 91 99 110 138 109 69 75 158 131 129 102 136 112 107 126 278 80 116 248
100 123 147 178 76 112 133 19 145 122 71 102 58 194 115 98 102 89 61 120 36 114 146 124 47 121 182 114 191 110 101 144 100 135 282 67 81 238
149 92 289 178 100 94 454 125 125 180 70 73 404 0 422 141 85 161 16 0 242 123 177 150 315 105 200 165 247 242 191 169 100 451 426 238 200 168
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
6 69 12 20 44 39 56 74 87 4 2 66 68 70 79 67 10 24 61 91 21 27 16 59 40 81 31 58 72 93 95 33 89 13 17 53 78 48
16 22 37 12 76 48 38 52 71 1 43 74 18 65 64 63 32 27 53 89 35 13 67 68 11 87 90 84 54 92 94 85 72 23 14 50 79 44
1st Quarter 2017
Index Values
REO
Delinquency
Foreclosure
REO
61 25 23 2 12 7 71 31 76 9 33 65 17 37 72 77 64 18 83 84 45 42 27 32 74 14 51 60 36 94 93 95 80 62 20 81 89 13
168 94 144 138 115 119 106 82 68 198 252 95 95 93 75 95 150 136 100 57 137 132 139 103 119 74 127 106 89 48 20 126 64 142 139 108 76 111
146 140 122 161 66 112 121 108 75 382 119 69 145 85 87 89 127 135 108 46 122 150 81 80 170 47 45 52 103 31 21 49 73 138 149 111 61 117
118 245 259 589 397 426 91 229 82 424 219 100 308 192 87 74 101 303 48 45 167 171 242 227 83 315 151 119 193 0 0 0 70 110 292 68 14 391
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
9 83 5 82 57 64 85 11 18 46 22 52 15 88 42 26 35 94 92
6 78 10 21 70 30 82 40 31 24 41 77 25 57 7 81 29 93 86
1st Quarter 2017
Index Values
REO
Delinquency
Foreclosure
REO
21 56 54 87 75 47 86 68 49 30 50 8 16 82 1 3 19 90 85
154 71 174 72 106 98 70 149 138 112 137 109 140 68 116 135 126 22 53
184 63 175 142 75 129 59 121 129 138 120 64 137 102 182 60 129 22 47
290 138 147 20 83 161 37 99 161 229 155 424 311 52 607 542 299 8 38
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
174
175
147
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 68
61 75
16 82
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
107 76 22 119 70
100 61 22 170 59
100 14 8 83 37
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 Blount Maury Sevier Sullivan Bradley Washington
53 76 57 71 98 124 68
47 76 46 63 129 112 102
38 100 45 138 161 94 52
Percent Change in Population from 2010 to 2015
Median Homeowner Household Income
11.76% 3.34% 6.40% 6.98% 0.60% 5.01% 4.63%
$70,829 $57,629 $59,994 $51,729 $50,359 $55,561 $54,046
Percent Change in Population from 2010 to 2015
Median Homeowner Household Income
2016 Median Home Sales Price
$254,950 $179,900 $189,900 $173,000 $134,000 $156,000 $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
150 108 98 64 75 149 112 79 109 96
127 111 100 73 87 121 144 89 124 71
101 68 149 70 87 99 169 161 150 70
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 47 48
Dickson Greene Roane Coffee Gibson McMinn Jefferson Bedford Monroe Franklin Hawkins Lincoln Dyer Marshall Warren Lawrence Rhea Campbell Carter Henry Giles White Marion
Delinquency Index
Foreclosure Index
REO Index
110 102 139 88 158 137 106 121 103 75 116 93 138 100 140 95 142 141 111 94 131 126 136
114 110 149 98 182 122 121 123 80 121 81 85 146 108 137 69 138 133 122 140 114 129 135
123 242 292 141 200 167 91 92 227 105 200 192 177 48 311 100 110 454 180 245 165 299 303
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% 4.20% 1.20% 2.20% 3.78% -1.10% -1.33% 0.71% -2.06% 3.11% 0.65%
Median Homeowner Household Income
$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 $51,409 $46,589 $46,318 $47,281 $39,123 $40,463 $43,928 $49,683 $40,913 $48,540
2016 Median Home Sales Price
$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 $135,000 $100,000 $103,500 $135,500 $125,000 $119,900 $98,575 $112,000 $106,000 $123,500
Appendix B: County Level Index Values by Loan Count 49 Cocke 50 Hardin 51 Obion
135 80 106
115 67 52
422 238 119
-0.43% -0.37% -2.43%
$40,600 $39,439 $49,371
$110,000 $120,000 $89,500
Percent Change in Population from 2010 to 2015
Median Homeowner Household Income
2016 Median Home Sales Price
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 69 70
County Name
Delinquency Index
Foreclosure Index
REO Index
Henderson Weakley McNairy Carroll Claiborne Hickman Hardeman Grainger Smith Humphreys Lauderdale DeKalb Overton Union Polk Haywood Chester Macon Fentress
168 135 132 122 116 144 278 129 72 115 252 99 89 137 126 248 126 95 69
146 60 150 145 58 122 282 191 142 66 119 36 103 120 49 238 102 89 47
118 542 171 125 404 259 426 247 20 397 219 242 193 155 0 168 73 74 315
1.80% -0.41% 1.33% -1.02% -0.48% -0.91% -5.07% 1.41% 0.53% -0.96% -1.15% 2.53% 1.48% 0.04% -0.02% -4.01% 3.16% 3.77% 0.87%
$45,648 $46,171 $36,173 $43,046 $42,183 $43,475 $37,950 $39,497 $53,697 $49,298 $41,207 $46,057 $41,359 $42,529 $43,129 $44,177 $50,625 $41,261 $34,535
$110,000 $89,000 $80,000 $68,800 $123,000 $119,650 $94,000 $140,000 $122,050 $110,000 $79,900 $124,950 $120,000 $139,450 $121,950 $103,000 $115,500 $107,250 $107,500
Appendix B: County Level Index Values by Loan Count 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 92 93
County Name
Delinquency Index
Foreclosure Index
REO Index
Meigs Stewart Crockett Unicoi Benton Cannon Sequatchie Johnson Decatur Morgan Scott Lewis Grundy Wayne Jackson Houston Trousdale Bledsoe Pickett Moore Perry Van Buren Clay
139 106 160 112 115 107 154 82 91 127 111 95 136 116 119 138 138 128 20 74 48 109 70
81 75 102 138 147 19 184 108 120 45 117 145 101 182 112 161 129 178 21 47 31 64 194
242 83 85 229 289 125 290 229 0 151 391 308 191 607 426 589 161 178 0 315 0 424 0
Percent Change in Population from 2010 to 2015
1.17% 1.17% 0.52% -1.03% -1.18% 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% 1.69% -1.37%
Median Homeowner Household Income
$38,814 $47,886 $42,500 $39,581 $38,590 $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 $44,280 $34,918
2016 Median Home Sales Price
$135,750 $119,000 $83,600 $125,000 $90,000 $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 $114,750 $82,000
Appendix B: County Level Index Values by Loan Count 94 Lake 95 Hancock
198 126
382 135
424 451
-1.79% -2.06%
$44,042 $31,779
$51,000 $87,500
Foreclosure Trends Q1 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: •
•
•
• •
For a second consecutive quarter, and only the third time since 2014, Tennessee’s quarterly foreclosure total represented an increase over the previous foreclosure total, and by extension, an increase in the statewide foreclosure rate for Q1 2017. The first quarter averages were elevated due to a sharp increase of foreclosures during the month of January, and during the following two months, foreclosures resumed month-over-month declines. Tennessee actually finished March 2017 with fewer mortgages in foreclosure than at any time in the previous seven years. Heavily populated urban counties experienced the sharpest increase in foreclosures, a departure from previous quarterly trends, where large urban counties tended to experience reductions in foreclosure inventory. Tennessee’s delinquency and REO rates both decreased during Q1 of 2017, which has been the trend for several years. 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 2011-12, Tennessee’s delinquency, REO, and foreclosure totals have steadily diminished. The third and fourth quarter of 2016 represented a departure from this trend, but the month-to-month progression during the first quarter of 2017 suggests that Tennessee has yet to reach its floor on delinquency, REO, and foreclosure totals. In fact, total REO properties decreased by nearly ten percent over the quarter. Of the state’s four largest counties, Shelby has the highest Index Values 1, while Hamilton County is at the state average in all three categories, and Davidson and Knox Counties have below-average levels of mortgage delinquency at all three stages. Tennessee’s Four Most Populous Counties, Compared (listed by Population) Delinquency Foreclosure County REO Index Index Index Shelby 174 175 147 Davidson 63 61 16 Knox 68 75 82 Hamilton 107 100 100
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 174, for example, signifies a delinquency rate 1.74 times the Tennessee overall delinquency rate. A value of 100 indicates a rate consistent with the state’s rate.
2
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 the 1st quarter of 2017, however, delinquency, REO, and foreclosure totals were much more static in places like Hardeman, Haywood, and Lauderdale Counties. While counties such as those listed in the chart below (selected for their high Index Values across all three stages of foreclosure) may appear severely distressed, the index indicates relative rates to the state and not always an increase. In the case of foreclosures and REOs, which occur with less frequency than delinquencies, quarterly values in small counties are volatile. Tennessee Counties with High Index Values in all Three Categories (Irrespective of Population) Delinquency REO County Foreclosure Index Index Index Hardeman 278 282 426 Lauderdale 252 119 219 Haywood 248 238 168 Lake 198 382 424 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. 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 In the first quarter of 2017, mortgage delinquencies in Tennessee decreased slightly, rebounding from an increase at the end of 2016, and finishing the month of March with fewer delinquencies than at any time in the past seven years (the time frame for which comparable data is available). As Figure 1 shows below, the months of January through March have been the best for mortgage performance over the last several years, generally showing steeper declines in delinquency than the other nine months of the year. Figure 1
Table 1 The 10 Counties with the Highest Delinquency Index Values
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
County
Delinquency Index Value
Q4 2016 Index Value
Increase or Decrease in Delinquencies?
Grand Division
Hardeman Lauderdale Haywood Lake Shelby Henderson Crockett Gibson Sequatchie Madison
278 252 248 198 174 168 160 158 154 150
279 257 247 210 172 168 166 160 149 147
Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease No Change Decrease
West West West West West West West West Middle West
Note: State delinquency rate=100. Hardeman County’s delinquency rate equals 2.78 times the Tennessee rate. A value of 100 indicates a rate consistent with the state’s rate.
Of the 10 counties at the top of the Delinquency Index, nine saw their delinquency totals decrease in the first quarter. If these decreases in delinquencies were outpaced by those seen across Tennessee, however, then their Index Values were higher than the previous quarter. Shelby and Madison Counties, for example, saw delinquencies fall slightly—but the state’s overall delinquency rate fell faster than the delinquency rates of Shelby and Madison Counties, resulting in a slightly higher Delinquency Index Value than in the
4
previous quarter. For the sixth 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. The chart below allows for a visualization of Tennessee counties and their quarterly changes in delinquency totals relative to their size. Williamson County was the only large urban area to see delinquency totals increase, although, as mentioned above, it still has a very low rate of delinquency as a percentage of active mortgages. Overall, 64 counties experienced falling delinquency totals, while 15 experienced an increase (16 saw no change). 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
417
37407
Hamilton; Chattanooga
391
38127
Shelby; Memphis
384
38106
Shelby; Memphis
380
38109
Shelby; Memphis
370
*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
38141
Shelby; Memphis
8
FORECLOSURE Figure 3
While foreclosures in Tennessee declined during the months of February and March, the high total at the end of January led the first quarter average to show an increase of roughly four percent over the prior quarter. Much like delinquency totals, however, Tennessee actually finished the month of March with the lowest end-of-month foreclosure total since January 2015 (when THDA began using CoreLogic data). While the first quarters of 2016 and 2015 are shown in Figure 3 for comparison, Tennessee’s decline in foreclosure does not appear to have the same degree of seasonality as was the case for loan delinquencies. As the graph above shows, foreclosure totals remained largely unchanged for most of 2016. Foreclosure volume in the state is at about the same level as it was nine months ago. The relatively pronounced declines of February and March, however, indicate that Tennessee may have room to further reduce its foreclosure volume in the coming months. Table 6 The 10 Counties with the Highest Foreclosure Index Values County 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Lake Hardeman Haywood Clay Grainger Sequatchie Wayne Gibson Bledsoe Shelby
Foreclosure Index Value
Q4 2016 Foreclosure Index Value
Increase or Decrease in Foreclosures?
Grand Division
382 282 238 194 191 184 182 182 178 175
309 252 232 139 127 80 236 134 113 175
Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Increased Decreased Increased Increased Increased
West West West Middle East Middle Middle West East West
Note: State rate=100; Lake County’s value of 382 denotes a foreclosure rate 3.82 times that of the Tennessee overall rate.
9
In terms of volume, foreclosures are much lower than delinquencies, 2 resulting in more erratic percentage changes on a quarter-to-quarter basis. While a majority of counties saw their quarterly average foreclosure total increase, it is important to remember that these increases likely subsided after the month of January. Nonetheless, it is the first quarter since THDA began reporting on CoreLogic’s foreclosure data where seven out of the state’s eight (excluding Rutherford County) largest counties saw increases in foreclosure inventory. In previous quarters, the overwhelming trend has been substantial declines in urban areas and incremental changes in more rural areas of the state. Figure 4
Relative to the size of a county’s mortgage market, proportionally larger increases in foreclosures occurred in Gibson, Bradley, and Sullivan Counties. 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. 2
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.
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
38374
Decatur/Henderson; Scott’s Hill
Index Value=640
37410
Hamilton; Chattanooga
Index Value=579
37145
Smith; Pleasant Shade
Index Value=449
38008
Hardeman; Bolivar
Index Value=446
37142
Montgomery; Palmyra
Index Value=437
*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
38128
Shelby; Memphis
38141
Shelby; Memphis
38127
Shelby; Memphis
13
REAL ESTATE OWNED (REO) PROPERTIES In the first quarter of 2017, Real Estate Owned (REO) properties in Tennessee declined by nearly ten percent from the previous quarter, which amounted to a nearly 40 percent decline from the first quarter of 2016. 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 Houston Weakley Campbell Hancock Hardeman Jackson Van Buren Lake Cocke
REO Index Value
Q4 2016 REO Index Value
Increase or Decrease in REOs?
Grand Division
607 589 542 454 451 426 426 424 424 422
415 485 576 330 425 369 394 98 0 287
Increased No Change* Decreased Increased No Change No Change No Change Increased Increased Increased
Middle Middle West East East West Middle Middle West East
Note: State REO rate=100; Wayne County’s value of 607 denotes an REO rate 6.07 times that of the Tennessee overall rate. *Houston County’s Q1 2017 average REO total was 0.33 higher than in Q4 2016; Houston County’s loan count is at the lower end of the distribution, so this slight bump was enough to increase REOs as a percentage of Houston County loans, at the same time the Tennessee REO rate went down by ten percent.
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 six times the state average. 3 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 4 statewide meant that five REOs in a small county was a high rate of incidence. Shelby County, for example, is ranked 54th 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 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. 4 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. 3
15
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 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 just two ZIP codes in the entire Nashville MSA finished in the top 45 for ZIP code-level REO volume. For the fourth straight quarter, Sevierville (ZIP code 37876) finished in the top 15 for REO volume, despite ranking 37th in active loan totals, while Newport (37821) finished in the top 15 despite ranking 118th in active loan totals.
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
38230
Weakley; Greenfield
Index Value=1576
37724
Claiborne; Cumberland Gap
Index Value=1185
38316
Gibson; Bradford
Index Value=1175
37658
Carter; Hampton
Index Value=976
37308
Hamilton/Meigs; Birchwood
Index Value=874
*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
38127
Shelby; Memphis
38116
Shelby; Memphis
37042
Montgomery; Clarksville
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
63 38 45 30 77 36 14 55 37 49 65 32 43 84 25 73 7 76 90 71 62 50 19 51 86 80 8 28 29 60 23 47 54 34 1 75 41 3
59 34 15 9 69 49 28 95 19 36 73 55 83 4 45 61 56 62 80 42 91 46 17 33 88 39 8 47 5 51 58 20 60 26 2 75 66 3
1st Quarter 2017
Index Values
REO
Delinquency
Foreclosure
REO
53 70 22 40 66 69 4 57 58 39 79 78 11 91 10 55 73 48 88 92 26 59 41 52 15 63 35 46 24 28 38 43 67 5 6 29 34 44
98 121 115 128 76 124 141 107 122 111 96 126 116 70 135 88 160 79 63 91 99 110 138 109 69 75 158 131 129 102 136 112 107 126 278 80 116 248
100 123 147 178 76 112 133 19 145 122 71 102 58 194 115 98 102 89 61 120 36 114 146 124 47 121 182 114 191 110 101 144 100 135 282 67 81 238
149 92 289 178 100 94 454 125 125 180 70 73 404 0 422 141 85 161 16 0 242 123 177 150 315 105 200 165 247 242 191 169 100 451 426 238 200 168
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
6 69 12 20 44 39 56 74 87 4 2 66 68 70 79 67 10 24 61 91 21 27 16 59 40 81 31 58 72 93 95 33 89 13 17 53 78 48
16 22 37 12 76 48 38 52 71 1 43 74 18 65 64 63 32 27 53 89 35 13 67 68 11 87 90 84 54 92 94 85 72 23 14 50 79 44
1st Quarter 2017
Index Values
REO
Delinquency
Foreclosure
REO
61 25 23 2 12 7 71 31 76 9 33 65 17 37 72 77 64 18 83 84 45 42 27 32 74 14 51 60 36 94 93 95 80 62 20 81 89 13
168 94 144 138 115 119 106 82 68 198 252 95 95 93 75 95 150 136 100 57 137 132 139 103 119 74 127 106 89 48 20 126 64 142 139 108 76 111
146 140 122 161 66 112 121 108 75 382 119 69 145 85 87 89 127 135 108 46 122 150 81 80 170 47 45 52 103 31 21 49 73 138 149 111 61 117
118 245 259 589 397 426 91 229 82 424 219 100 308 192 87 74 101 303 48 45 167 171 242 227 83 315 151 119 193 0 0 0 70 110 292 68 14 391
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
9 83 5 82 57 64 85 11 18 46 22 52 15 88 42 26 35 94 92
6 78 10 21 70 30 82 40 31 24 41 77 25 57 7 81 29 93 86
1st Quarter 2017
Index Values
REO
Delinquency
Foreclosure
REO
21 56 54 87 75 47 86 68 49 30 50 8 16 82 1 3 19 90 85
154 71 174 72 106 98 70 149 138 112 137 109 140 68 116 135 126 22 53
184 63 175 142 75 129 59 121 129 138 120 64 137 102 182 60 129 22 47
290 138 147 20 83 161 37 99 161 229 155 424 311 52 607 542 299 8 38
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
174
175
147
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 68
61 75
16 82
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
107 76 22 119 70
100 61 22 170 59
100 14 8 83 37
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 Blount Maury Sevier Sullivan Bradley Washington
53 76 57 71 98 124 68
47 76 46 63 129 112 102
38 100 45 138 161 94 52
Percent Change in Population from 2010 to 2015
Median Homeowner Household Income
11.76% 3.34% 6.40% 6.98% 0.60% 5.01% 4.63%
$70,829 $57,629 $59,994 $51,729 $50,359 $55,561 $54,046
Percent Change in Population from 2010 to 2015
Median Homeowner Household Income
2016 Median Home Sales Price
$254,950 $179,900 $189,900 $173,000 $134,000 $156,000 $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
150 108 98 64 75 149 112 79 109 96
127 111 100 73 87 121 144 89 124 71
101 68 149 70 87 99 169 161 150 70
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 47 48
Dickson Greene Roane Coffee Gibson McMinn Jefferson Bedford Monroe Franklin Hawkins Lincoln Dyer Marshall Warren Lawrence Rhea Campbell Carter Henry Giles White Marion
Delinquency Index
Foreclosure Index
REO Index
110 102 139 88 158 137 106 121 103 75 116 93 138 100 140 95 142 141 111 94 131 126 136
114 110 149 98 182 122 121 123 80 121 81 85 146 108 137 69 138 133 122 140 114 129 135
123 242 292 141 200 167 91 92 227 105 200 192 177 48 311 100 110 454 180 245 165 299 303
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% 4.20% 1.20% 2.20% 3.78% -1.10% -1.33% 0.71% -2.06% 3.11% 0.65%
Median Homeowner Household Income
$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 $51,409 $46,589 $46,318 $47,281 $39,123 $40,463 $43,928 $49,683 $40,913 $48,540
2016 Median Home Sales Price
$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 $135,000 $100,000 $103,500 $135,500 $125,000 $119,900 $98,575 $112,000 $106,000 $123,500
Appendix B: County Level Index Values by Loan Count 49 Cocke 50 Hardin 51 Obion
135 80 106
115 67 52
422 238 119
-0.43% -0.37% -2.43%
$40,600 $39,439 $49,371
$110,000 $120,000 $89,500
Percent Change in Population from 2010 to 2015
Median Homeowner Household Income
2016 Median Home Sales Price
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 69 70
County Name
Delinquency Index
Foreclosure Index
REO Index
Henderson Weakley McNairy Carroll Claiborne Hickman Hardeman Grainger Smith Humphreys Lauderdale DeKalb Overton Union Polk Haywood Chester Macon Fentress
168 135 132 122 116 144 278 129 72 115 252 99 89 137 126 248 126 95 69
146 60 150 145 58 122 282 191 142 66 119 36 103 120 49 238 102 89 47
118 542 171 125 404 259 426 247 20 397 219 242 193 155 0 168 73 74 315
1.80% -0.41% 1.33% -1.02% -0.48% -0.91% -5.07% 1.41% 0.53% -0.96% -1.15% 2.53% 1.48% 0.04% -0.02% -4.01% 3.16% 3.77% 0.87%
$45,648 $46,171 $36,173 $43,046 $42,183 $43,475 $37,950 $39,497 $53,697 $49,298 $41,207 $46,057 $41,359 $42,529 $43,129 $44,177 $50,625 $41,261 $34,535
$110,000 $89,000 $80,000 $68,800 $123,000 $119,650 $94,000 $140,000 $122,050 $110,000 $79,900 $124,950 $120,000 $139,450 $121,950 $103,000 $115,500 $107,250 $107,500
Appendix B: County Level Index Values by Loan Count 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 92 93
County Name
Delinquency Index
Foreclosure Index
REO Index
Meigs Stewart Crockett Unicoi Benton Cannon Sequatchie Johnson Decatur Morgan Scott Lewis Grundy Wayne Jackson Houston Trousdale Bledsoe Pickett Moore Perry Van Buren Clay
139 106 160 112 115 107 154 82 91 127 111 95 136 116 119 138 138 128 20 74 48 109 70
81 75 102 138 147 19 184 108 120 45 117 145 101 182 112 161 129 178 21 47 31 64 194
242 83 85 229 289 125 290 229 0 151 391 308 191 607 426 589 161 178 0 315 0 424 0
Percent Change in Population from 2010 to 2015
1.17% 1.17% 0.52% -1.03% -1.18% 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% 1.69% -1.37%
Median Homeowner Household Income
$38,814 $47,886 $42,500 $39,581 $38,590 $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 $44,280 $34,918
2016 Median Home Sales Price
$135,750 $119,000 $83,600 $125,000 $90,000 $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 $114,750 $82,000
Appendix B: County Level Index Values by Loan Count 94 Lake 95 Hancock
198 126
382 135
424 451
-1.79% -2.06%
$44,042 $31,779
$51,000 $87,500
