{"id":714,"date":"2015-03-20T10:00:01","date_gmt":"2015-03-20T10:00:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/?p=714"},"modified":"2016-05-05T07:54:01","modified_gmt":"2016-05-05T07:54:01","slug":"realtytrac-us-foreclosure-activity-down-4-in-february-to-lowest-level-since-july-2006-despite-9-rise-in-reos","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/realtytrac-us-foreclosure-activity-down-4-in-february-to-lowest-level-since-july-2006-despite-9-rise-in-reos\/","title":{"rendered":"RealtyTrac – US foreclosure activity down 4% in February to lowest level since July 2006 despite 9% rise in REOs"},"content":{"rendered":"

Published on: Mar 20, 2015 @ 10:00<\/b><\/span> am<\/p>\n

RealtyTrac released its US Foreclosure Market Report
\nfor February 2015, which shows foreclosure filings \u2014
\ndefault notices, scheduled auctions and bank
\nrepossessions \u2014<\/h1>\n

were reported on 101,938 US properties
\nin February, a decrease of 4% from revised January
\nnumbers and down 9% from a year ago to the lowest level
\nsince July 2006. The report also shows a US foreclosure
\nrate of one in every 1,295 housing units with a
\nforeclosure filing in February.\u00a0 \u201cGiven that August
\n2006 was the peak of the housing bubble, this
\neight-and-a-half year low in foreclosure activity is a
\nsignificant milestone and a sign that nationwide
\nforeclosure activity is on track to return to historic
\nnorms this year \u2014 and is possibly even headed below
\nhistoric norms given the skinny-jeans-tight lending
\nstandards over the past five years,\u201d said Daren
\nBlomquist, vice president at RealtyTrac. \u201cIn markets
\nwhere foreclosures were processed more efficiently we
\nare seeing foreclosure numbers now below pre-crisis
\nlevels in some cases. Conversely, the cleanup of
\ndeferred distress is continuing in markets where a
\nlogjam of in-limbo foreclosures is still lingering from
\nthe housing crisis \u2014 as evidenced by rebounding
\nforeclosure activity in those markets.\u201d\u00a0 Despite the
\nnational decrease from a year ago, 24 states posted a
\nyear-over-year increase in overall foreclosure
\nactivity, including Massachusetts (up 53%; fifth
\nconsecutive month with an increase) and New York (up
\n19%; sixth consecutive month with an increase).<\/p>\n

Nationwide, 48,079 properties started the foreclosure
\nprocess for the first time in February, down 5% from
\nrevised January numbers and down 7% from a year ago.
\nDespite the national decrease in foreclosure starts, 22
\nstates posted year-over-year increases in foreclosure
\nstarts, including Nevada (up 153%; fourth consecutive
\nmonth with an increase), Massachusetts (up 116%; 11th
\nconsecutive month with an increase), and Texas (up 5%;
\nfive out of last six months with increase).
\nNationwide, 45,880 properties were scheduled for a
\nfuture foreclosure auction in February, down 13% from
\nrevised January numbers and down 4% from a year ago to
\nthe lowest level since July 2006.\u00a0 Despite the national
\ndecrease in scheduled foreclosure auctions \u2014 which can
\nact as the foreclosure start in some states \u2014 25 states
\nposted a year-over-year increase in scheduled
\nforeclosure auctions, including New York (up 146%;
\nninth consecutive month with an increase),
\nMassachusetts (up 88%; third consecutive month with an
\nincrease), New Jersey (up 38%; 15th consecutive month
\nwith an increase), and Washington (up 17%; five out of
\nlast seven months with an increase).\u00a0 Nationwide,
\n24,305 properties were repossessed by lenders via
\nforeclosure (REO) in February, up 9% from revised
\nJanuary numbers but down 20% from a year ago. February
\nwas the 27th consecutive month where REOs nationwide
\ndecreased on an annual basis.\u00a0 Despite the national
\ndecrease in REOs compared to a year ago, 15 states
\nposted year-over-year increases in REOs, including
\nMaryland (up 70%; fifth consecutive month with an
\nincrease), New York (up 24%; four out of last five
\nmonths with an increase), Ohio (up 23%; third
\nconsecutive month with an increase), and North Carolina
\n(up 18%; three out of last four months with an
\nincrease).<\/p>\n

Maryland foreclosure activity decreased 1% compared to
\na year ago in February, but the state still posted the
\nnation\u2019s highest foreclosure rate: one in every 564
\nhousing units with a foreclosure filing.\u00a0 Nevada
\nforeclosure activity in February increased 12% from a
\nyear ago driven primarily by a spike in foreclosure
\nstarts, and the state\u2019s foreclosure rate was second
\nhighest in the nation for the second month in a row.
\nOne in every 569 Nevada housing units had a foreclosure
\nfiling during the month.\u00a0 Florida posted the nation\u2019s
\nthird highest state foreclosure rate \u2014 one in every 570
\nhousing units with a foreclosure filing \u2014 despite a 35%
\ndecrease in foreclosure activity from a year ago.
\nOther states with foreclosure rates among the top 10
\nhighest nationwide in February were Indiana (one in
\nevery 871 housing units with a foreclosure filing),
\nIdaho (one in every 877 housing units), New Jersey (one
\nin every 895 housing units), Illinois (one in every 906
\nhousing units), Delaware (one in every 957 housing
\nunits), Ohio (one in every 1,000 housing units), and
\nNorth Carolina (one in every 1,088 housing units).<\/p>\n

Oil prices fall amid record inventories<\/h2>\n

Oil prices fell Thursday on expectations that
\nrecord-high crude inventories would continue to grow.
\nLight, sweet crude for April delivery settled down 70
\ncents, or 1.6%, to $43.96 a barrel on the New York
\nMercantile Exchange.\u00a0 Brent, the global benchmark, fell
\n$1.48, or 2.6%, to $54.43 a barrel on ICE Futures
\nEurope.\u00a0 A global glut of crude sent prices plummeting
\nin the second half of 2014, and analysts estimate the
\nmarket is currently oversupplied by between one million
\nand 1.5 million barrels a day.\u00a0 The oversupply has been
\nespecially concentrated in recent months in the US,
\nwhere stored supplies of crude have climbed for 10
\nstraight weeks and currently sit at their highest level
\nin about 80 years, according to the Energy Information
\nAdministration.\u00a0 Traders have grown concerned that
\ninventories could reach maximum capacity in some
\nregions, a situation that could cause further price
\ndrops if some buyers stop purchasing crude because they
\nhave nowhere to store it.\u00a0 Genscape Inc., a data
\nprovider, told its subscribers Thursday that Cushing
\nsupplies rose by 2.2 million barrels in the week ended
\nTuesday, according to a person familiar with the
\nreport.\u00a0 Oil prices had gained on Wednesday, breaking
\na six-session losing streak, on the back of a sharp
\ndecline in the dollar after the Federal Reserve
\nindicated it was in no hurry to raise interest rates.
\nBut the dollar was on the rise again on Thursday. Oil
\nis priced in dollars and becomes less attractive for
\nholders of foreign currencies as the dollar
\nappreciates.\u00a0 Gasoline futures fell 2.48 cents, or
\n1.4%, to $1.7743 a gallon, while diesel futures slipped
\n5.02 cents, or 2.8%, to $1.7223 a gallon.<\/p>\n

DataQuick – California February home sales<\/h2>\n

An estimated 25,585 new and existing houses and condos
\nsold in California in February 2015. That was up 1.0%
\nmonth over month from 25,325 sales in January 2015 and
\ndown 0.4% year over year from 25,680 sales in February
\n2014.\u00a0 February home sales have varied from a low of
\n20,513 sales in 2008 to a high of 48,409 sales in 2004.
\nThe February 2015 sales were the lowest for that month
\nsince 2008, and they were 18.7% lower than the February
\naverage of 31,454 sales since 1988, when CoreLogic
\nDataQuick data began.\u00a0 The median price paid for a home
\nin California in February 2015 was $378,000, up 0.5%
\nmonth over month from $376,000 in January 2015 and up
\n6.5% year over year from $355,000 in February 2014.
\nFebruary 2015 marked the 36th consecutive month in
\nwhich the state’s median sale price increased on a
\nyear-over-year basis. The peak year-over-year price
\ngain during that period was 29.2% in July 2013. Since
\nthen price gains have trended lower and since July 2014
\nthe year-over-year increases have been single-digit \u2013
\nbetween about 6% and 7% from October 2014 through
\nFebruary 2015.\u00a0 The February 2015 median sale price
\nwas 21.9% lower than California\u2019s peak median price of
\n$484,000, reached in March\/April\/May 2007.<\/p>\n

Of the existing homes sold statewide in February 2015,
\n6.8% were properties that had been foreclosed on during
\nthe previous 12 months. That was up from a revised 6.7%
\nin January 2015 and down from 8.0% in February 2014.
\nStatewide foreclosure resales peaked at 58.8% in
\nFebruary 2009.\u00a0 Short sales made up an estimated 6.2%
\nof homes that resold in February 2015, down slightly
\nmonth over month from 6.7% in January 2015 and down
\nyear over year from 9.0% in February 2014. Short sales
\nare transactions in which the sale price fell short of
\nwhat was owed on the property.\u00a0 The typical monthly
\nmortgage payment for California homebuyers in February
\n2015 was $1,394, up from $1,379 in January 2015 and
\ndown from $1,405 in February 2014. Adjusted for
\ninflation, the February 2015 typical payment was 39.7%
\nbelow the typical payment in the spring of 1989, which
\nwas the peak of the prior real estate cycle. It was
\n51.1% below the current cycle’s peak in June 2006 and
\n51.2% above the January 2012 trough of the current
\ncycle.<\/p>\n

Mid-Atlantic manufacturing activity unexpectedly falls
\nGrowth in factory activity in the US mid-Atlantic
\nregion fell for a fourth straight month in March to its
\nlowest level in more than a year, a regional Federal
\nReserve survey showed on Thursday.\u00a0 The Philadelphia
\nFederal Reserve Bank said its business activity index
\nslipped to 5.0 this month, the lowest since February
\n2014, from February’s 5.2. Economists polled by Reuters
\nhad forecast an increase to 7.1.\u00a0 Any reading above
\nzero indicates expansion in the region’s manufacturing.
\nThe survey covers factories in eastern Pennsylvania,
\nsouthern New Jersey and Delaware.\u00a0 It is seen as one of
\nthe first monthly indicators of the health of US
\nmanufacturing leading up to the national report by the
\nInstitute for Supply Management.\u00a0 Just four months ago,
\nin November, the Philadelphia Fed gauge had notched its
\nhighest reading since December 1993, but has fallen
\neach month since then.<\/p>\n

CoreLogic – dollar volume of negative equity increased
\n$7 billion from Q3 to Q4 2014<\/h2>\n

According to the latest CoreLogic Equity Report,
\nreleased today, the nationwide negative equity share
\nincreased from 10.4% in Q3 2014 to 10.8% in Q4 2014,
\nand the number of underwater borrowers (or those in
\nnegative equity) increased from 5.2 million to 5.4
\nmillion. The total dollar amount of negative equity was
\nup $7 billion from Q3 2014, totaling $348.8 billion in
\nQ4 2014.\u00a0 Quarter over quarter, 29 states exhibited
\nincreases in the negative equity share through Q4 2014.
\nFigure 1 illustrates the 25 states with the largest
\npercentage-point change in the negative equity share
\nfrom the previous quarter. Illinois experienced the
\nlargest increase, up by 1.8 percentage points from Q3
\n2014 to Q4 2014, followed by Connecticut (+1.4%), New
\nJersey (+1.4%) and Ohio (+1.3%). Nevada had the largest
\ndecrease (-1.3%) from the previous quarter.\u00a0 At the
\nmetro level, Chicago had the highest total of
\nunderwater dollars as of Q4 2014 at $17 billion,
\nfollowed by New York at $16 billion and Los Angeles at
\n$10 billion. Of the 10 CBSAs shown in Figure 2, seven
\nhave negative equity shares above the national share of
\n10.8%.\u00a0 Also according to the latest CoreLogic
\nanalysis, mortgage default rates fell slightly in Q4
\n2014. Nationally, homes with positive equity had a
\ndefault rate of 0.5% and homes with negative equity had
\na default rate of 3.1%.<\/p>\n

Negative equity shares show stark differences when
\nbroken out by price tiers. Trends suggests that there
\nis a high concentration of negative equity mortgages in
\nthe low end of the housing market. Homes valued at less
\nthan $100,000, for example, had a negative equity share
\nof 22% in Q4 2014, which is more than twice the
\nnational share of 10.8%. Homes valued between $100,000
\nand $200,000 had the second highest negative equity
\nshare of 13.6%. On the other end of the scale, homes
\nvalued at more than $200,000 had only a 6.4% negative
\nequity share, but made up 56% of the negative equity
\ndollars nationwide.\u00a0 Quarter over quarter, the number
\nof properties that were owner-occupied and had less
\nthan 20-percent equity, thus considered under-equitied,
\nincreased by 4.1%, or 345,239 homes, to the current
\nlevel of 8.7 million properties in Q4 2014.
\nUnder-equitied non owner-occupied properties,
\nsimilarly, increased by 3.6%, or 45,501 homes, quarter
\nover quarter to the Q4 2014 level of 1.3 million homes.<\/p>\n

MBA – 2014 rankings of commercial\/multifamily mortgage
\nfirms\u2019 origination volumes<\/h2>\n

The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) today released
\nits annual ranking of commercial\/multifamily mortgage
\nfirms by origination volume. The MBA study is the only
\none of its kind to present a comprehensive set of
\nlistings of 127 different commercial\/multifamily
\nmortgage originators, their 2014 volumes and the
\ndifferent roles they play.\u00a0 The report, Commercial Real
\nEstate\/Multifamily Finance Firms – Annual Origination
\nVolumes, presents origination volumes in more than 140
\ncategories, including by role, by investor group, by
\nproperty type, by financing structure type, and by the
\nlocation of the originating office.\u00a0 The top ten
\ncommercial\/multifamily mortgage originators in 2014
\nwere: Wells Fargo; J.P. Morgan Chase & Company; Eastdil
\nSecured; HFF, L.P.; Meridian Capital Group, LLC;
\nKeyBank; CBRE Capital Markets, Inc.; Deutsche Bank
\nSecurities Inc.; PNC Real Estate; and Bank of America
\nMerrill Lynch.\u00a0 The report lists total originations
\nacross eleven different investor groups. Ten different
\ncompanies were the top originator for at least one of
\nthe different groups. The top three originators overall
\nand by each investor group are listed below:<\/p>\n

Total Origination Volumes- Wells Fargo, J.P. Morgan
\nChase & Company and Eastdil Secured;<\/p>\n

–\u00a0 Commercial Mortgage-backed Securities (CMBS)-
\nDeutsche Bank Securities Inc., Eastdil Secured and J.P.
\nMorgan Chase & Company;<\/p>\n

–\u00a0 Commercial Bank Portfolios- J.P. Morgan Chase &
\nCompany, PNC Real Estate, and Meridian Capital Group,
\nLLC;<\/p>\n

–\u00a0 Life Insurance Company Portfolios- MetLife Real
\nEstate Investors, HFF, L.P., and Prudential Mortgage
\nCapital Company;<\/p>\n

–\u00a0 Fannie Mae- Walker & Dunlop, Wells Fargo, and
\nBerkadia;<\/p>\n

–\u00a0 Freddie Mac- CBRE Capital Markets, Inc., Berkadia,
\nand Walker & Dunlop;<\/p>\n

–\u00a0 FHA\/Ginnie Mae: Red Mortgage Capital, LLC,
\nGreystone, and Berkadia;<\/p>\n

–\u00a0 Pension Funds- TIAA-CREF, Cornerstone Real Estate
\nAdvisers, and CBRE Capital Markets, Inc.;<\/p>\n

–\u00a0 Credit Companies- CBRE Capital Markets, HFF, L.P.,
\nand Marcus & Millichap Capital Corporation;<\/p>\n

–\u00a0 REITS, Mortgage REITS, and Investment Funds-
\nKeyBank, Eastdil Secured, and NorthStar Realty Finance;<\/p>\n

–\u00a0 Specialty Finance Firms- JLL, Mesa West Capital,
\nLLC, and Meridian Capital<\/p>\n

–\u00a0 “Other Investors”- Wells Fargo, HFF, L.P., and
\nMorgan Stanley.<\/p>\n

By dollar volume, the top five originators for third
\nparties in 2014 were Eastdil Secured; HFF, L.P.;
\nMeridian Capital Group, LLC; CBRE Capital Markets; and
\nDeutsche Bank Securities Inc.<\/p>\n

–\u00a0 The top five lenders in 2014 were Wells Fargo, J.P.
\nMorgan Chase & Company, KeyBank, Deutsche Bank
\nSecurities Inc., and Bank of America Merrill Lynch.<\/p>\n

DataQuick – Bay Area February home sales decline;
\nsmaller gain for median sale price<\/p>\n

CoreLogic released its February 2015 San Francisco Bay
\nArea housing market report. The number of homes sold
\nwas slightly lower than in January and was the lowest
\nfor the month of February in seven years. The median
\nprice paid for a home also fell slightly from January
\nand the gain from a year earlier was the smallest since
\nthe median sale price began rising on a year-over-year
\nbasis nearly three years ago.\u00a0 A total of 4,376 new and
\nexisting houses and condos sold in the nine-county Bay
\nArea in February 2015. That was down 1.1% month over
\nmonth from 4,423 sales in January 2015 and down 10.9%
\nyear over year from 4,911 sales in February 2014,
\naccording to CoreLogic DataQuick data.\u00a0 February 2015
\nsales were the lowest for that month since February
\n2008, when 3,989 homes sold. The peak for February home
\nsales was in 2002, when 8,901 homes sold. The February
\n2015 sales tally was 28.6% below the historical
\nFebruary average of 6,129 sales.\u00a0 The median price paid
\nfor a home in the Bay Area was $565,000 in February
\n2015. That was down 1.2% month over month from $572,000
\nin January 2014 and up 4.6% year over year from
\n$540,000 in February 2014.<\/p>\n

The region’s median sale price has risen year over year
\nfor 35 straight months, beginning in April 2012. During
\nthe 25 months between June 2012 and June 2014, those
\ngains were double-digit, reaching as high as 33.5%. The
\nannual gains were either single-digit or low
\ndouble-digit between July 2014 and October 2014, and
\nsince November 2014 the year-over-year increases in the
\nmedian sale price have been single-digit. The February
\n2015 median sale price\u2019s 4.6% year-over-year gain
\ncompared with February 2014 marked the smallest annual
\nincrease for any month since the median price began
\nrising year over year in April 2012. In comparison, the
\nFebruary 2014 median sale price rose 33.3% from
\nFebruary 2013.\u00a0 The Bay Area median sale price peaked
\nat $665,000 in June and July 2007 and dropped to a
\npost-boom low of $290,000 in March 2009.\u00a0 \u201cFebruary is
\nalways a bit odd from a numbers standpoint. March
\nshould provide a better view of emerging trends this
\nyear,\u201d said Andrew LePage, CoreLogic DataQuick data
\nanalyst. \u201cThat said, it is easy to see that supply is
\nstill constrained. It\u2019s also clear the mortgage market
\nremains off-kilter. Home loans are readily available
\nfor those who have good credit, a W-2 income and who
\nare applying for a government-backed mortgage. But it
\ncan still be challenging for others, such as the
\nself-employed and retired, even for those with a high
\nincome or significant assets, or both.\u201d<\/p>\n

Other February 2015 Bay Area housing market highlights
\ninclude the following:<\/p>\n

–\u00a0 Adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs), an indicator of
\nmortgage availability, accounted for 20.5% of the Bay
\nArea\u2019s home purchase loans in January, down from a
\nrevised 22.0% in December 2014, and down from 25.1% in
\nJanuary 2014. ARMs hit a low of 3.0% of purchase loans
\nin January 2009 and reached a post-housing-bust peak of
\n27.8% in April 2014. Since 2000, ARMs have accounted
\nfor about 46% of all Bay Area purchase loans.<\/p>\n

–\u00a0 Foreclosure resales accounted for 4.5% of all
\nresales in February, up from a revised 4.4% in January
\n2015 and down from 5.0% in February 2014. Foreclosure
\nresales in the Bay Area peaked at 52.0% in February
\n2009, while the monthly average over the past 17 years
\nis about 10%. Foreclosure resales are purchased homes
\nthat have been previously foreclosed upon in the prior
\n12 months.<\/p>\n

–\u00a0 Short sales accounted for an estimated 4.8% of Bay
\nArea resales in February, down from a revised 5.2% in
\nJanuary 2015 and down from 6.3% in February 2014. Short
\nsales are transactions in which the sale price fell
\nshort of what was owed on the property.<\/p>\n

–\u00a0 Absentee buyers \u2013 mostly investors \u2013 purchased 24.8%
\nof all Bay Area homes sold in February, up from a
\nrevised 23.8% in January 2015 and up from 23.8% in
\nFebruary 2014. The peak absentee share was 28.7% in
\nFebruary 2013, and the monthly average since 2000, when
\nCoreLogic DataQuick absentee data began, is about 17%.<\/p>\n

–\u00a0 Cash buyers accounted for 26.7% of home sales in
\nFebruary, up from a revised 23.6% in January 2015 and
\ndown from 28.4% in February 2014. The peak was 32.3% in
\nFebruary 2013, and the monthly average since 1988 is
\nabout 14%.<\/p>\n

–\u00a0 The typical monthly mortgage payment for Bay Area
\nhome buyers in February 2015 was $2,083. Adjusted for
\ninflation, that payment was 26.9% below the typical
\npayment in spring 1989, the peak of the prior real
\nestate cycle. It was 46.0% below the current cycle’s
\npeak in July 2007 and 65.5% above the February 2012
\nbottom of the current cycle.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Published on: Mar 20, 2015 @ 10:00 am RealtyTrac released its US Foreclosure Market Report for February 2015, which shows foreclosure filings \u2014 default notices, scheduled auctions and bank repossessions \u2014 were reported on 101,938 US properties in February, a decrease of 4% from revised January numbers and down 9% from a year ago to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[39],"tags":[126,139,128,132,130,131,127,138,53,136,137,134,133,80,125,129,135],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/714"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=714"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/714\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":801,"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/714\/revisions\/801"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=714"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=714"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=714"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}