Estimating the House Foreclosure Discount Corrected for Spatial Price Interdependence and Endogeneity of Marketing Time

Most previous empirical research estimates a greater than 20% discount associated with the sale of foreclosed properties. Under the assumption that the real estate market is somewhat efficient, such a large discount would be counterintuitive. We argue, and empirically show, that the estimated foreclosure coefficients in most of the previous research are upward biased because they do not control for variables such as the physical condition of the property and the relationship between marketing time and price. Accounting for these factors and correcting for two types of spatial price interdependence, our results show that estimates of foreclosure discount reported by previous studies are about one-third higher than the true discount caused by foreclosure per se.

[1]  H. Kelejian,et al.  A Generalized Spatial Two-Stage Least Squares Procedure for Estimating a Spatial Autoregressive Model with Autoregressive Disturbances , 1998 .

[2]  Abdullah Yavas,et al.  The Strategic Role of Listing Price in Marketing Real Estate: Theory and Evidence , 1995 .

[3]  L. Hansen.  Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method of Moments Estimators , 1982 .

[4]  R. Dubin.  Estimation of Regression Coefficients in the Presence of Spatially Autocorrelated Error Terms , 1988 .

[5]  Harry H. Kelejian,et al.  A Generalized Moments Estimator for the Autoregressive Parameter in a Spatial Model , 1999 .

[6]  G. Stacy Sirmans,et al.  The Composition of Hedonic Pricing Models , 2009 .

[7]  T. Springer.  Single-family housing transactions: Seller motivations, price, and marketing time , 1996 .

[8]  Ronald P. Barry,et al.  A method for spatial–temporal forecasting with an application to real estate prices , 2000 .

[9]  Ronald P. Barry,et al.  Quick Computation of Spatial Autoregressive Estimators , 2010 .

[10]  R. Kelley Pace,et al.  Generalizing the OLS and Grid Estimators , 1998 .

[11]  Harry H. Kelejian,et al.  Estimation of simultaneous systems of spatially interrelated cross sectional equations , 2004 .

[12]  Curtis R. Taylor.  Time-on-the-Market as a Sign of Quality , 1999 .

[13]  Fred A. Forgey,et al.  Effect of Foreclosure Status on Residential Selling Price , 2009 .

[14]  Marvin L. Wolverton,et al.  The Relationship between Foreclosure Status and Apartment Price , 2009 .

[15]  Bigger is not Better: Brokerage and Time on the Market , 1995 .

[16]  J. Knight,et al.  Listing Price, Time on Market, and Ultimate Selling Price: Causes and Effects of Listing Price Changes , 2002 .

[17]  Otis W. Gilley,et al.  Using the Spatial Configuration of the Data to Improve Estimation , 1997 .

[18]  Terry G. Seaks,et al.  Time on the Market: The Impact of Residential Brokerage. , 1996 .

[19]  Raymond B. Palmquist,et al.  Environmental Conditions, Reservation Prices, and Time on the Market for Housing , 2001 .

[20]  P. Anglin,et al.  The Trade-off Between the Selling Price of Residential Properties and Time-on-the-Market: The Impact of Price Setting , 2001 .

[21]  John D. Benjamin,et al.  The markets for housing and real estate broker services , 1991 .

[22]  P. Thistle,et al.  The Effect of Time-on-Market and Location on Search Costs and Anchoring: The Case of Single-Family Properties , 2007 .

[23]  H. R. Neill,et al.  Effect of Foreclosure Status on Residential Selling Price: Comment , 1997 .

[24]  A. Hall,et al.  A Consistent Method for the Selection of Relevant Instruments , 2003 .

[25]  Ronald P. Barry,et al.  Spatiotemporal Autoregressive Models of Neighborhood Effects , 1998 .

[26]  John D. Benjamin,et al.  Estimating Net Realizable Value for Distressed Real Estate , 1990 .

[27]  C. Sirmans,et al.  Estimating Bargaining Effects in Hedonic Models: Evidence from the Housing Market , 2003 .

[28]  Anthony Pennington-Cross,et al.  The Value of Foreclosed Property , 2004 .