Foreclosure stats and updates for 2/13/08

DataQuick reported the foreclosure numbers today. Hat tip to Matt Padilla for the numbers.

My guesstimate numbers, from Friday, were pretty close. It seems my math is coming in low for the NODs, but it is still within a 10% error margin. I will experiment with a new calculation for this month, and see if it comes closer to the real numbers. Also, my number for foreclosures will always be higher than DQ’s numbers, because I include the homes that are bought by someone, other than the bank, at the auction.

One quibble I have, is Matt stated “To be sure, foreclosures account for a small percentage of total housing stock in O.C., which has increased by tens of thousands of homes since the last downturn of the 1990s.” This is not true when you do the math. The owner occupied (keep in mind, DQ’s foreclosure numbers are for owner occupied housing) housing stock at the end of 1996 was 560,753, and in 2007 it was 614,815. The record foreclosure month was October 1996, with 674, and now the record is 802.

That is…

1 foreclosure for every 832 homes in 1996.

1 foreclosure for every 767 homes in 2008.

Any way you look at it, it is bad, it is really, really bad.

And, for the first five days in February there has been 580 NODs recorded (116 per day), 229 NTSs recorded (45.8 per day), and 189 trustee deeds recorded (37.8 per day). Keep in mind, February has 19 business days compared to January’s 21 business days. So, while the monthly numbers may not be higher, or the same, they are still increasing.


Today, 40 homes went back to the bank at the Santa Ana court house, and 2 sold. Here are the 5 homes in Irvine that went back to the bank…

51 Momento for $1.52mil.

70 Oak Tree Ln. for $565k.

2253 martin street #114, for $350k.

115 remington #327, for $304k.

305 Streamwood, for $258k.

And… the big news of the day, (insert awgee snickering here), Slade’s home went back to the bank for $1,282,500. It looks like the zestimate of $3.15mil is a bit high. I guess Jo’s singing career is not going so well. And, for those who think we at IHB are completely heartless, and kill a puppy for every home sale, I sincerely hope his kid it doing well. Just remember… don’t buy stuff you can’t afford. You never know what life will throw at you.


Oh… and, Brian Martinez, of the OCR, did a blog post on the WTF house of Irvine. I wonder if he knew, that IrvineRenter did a post on it already? It would have been nice to be mentioned for breaking the story first.

19 thoughts on “Foreclosure stats and updates for 2/13/08

  1. IrvineRenter

    Have you been keeping track of all these numbers, and can you create a graph?

    Can you get numbers specifically for Irvine?

    These foreclosures are certainly going to depress prices.

  2. 12xuser

    God, the comments under that WTF house article are jaw-dropping. Lots of people saying it’s about time that someone started tearing down those rundown old houses. The houses in that neighborhood are half-million dollar houses that were built in 1965. Ancient, crumbling housing stock? Only in California.

  3. lee in irvine

    I don’t post much in here, but I read everyday. Please keep up the great work.

    This real estate collapse is worse than most of us anticipated, and can best be described in one universal word … SEX. That’s right, it feels that good to be so right.


  4. No_Such_Reality

    Graphrix, out of curiousity. For the five homes that went back to the bank, what were the opening bid that nobody made?

    Is the amount you listed the opening amount or are the banks still doing the high opening bid and then taking it back at a price recognised lower?

  5. graphrix

    I have been keeping track of the overall foreclosure numbers, but nothing specifically on Irvine. I have a graph of the OC foreclosure numbers on a quarterly basis, that I plan to publish soon, and I am working on one, that adjusts for housing stock.

  6. graphrix

    Thanks Lee. I have always appreciated your comments here, and on Lansner’s blog.

    It does feel good to be right, and it feels even better, when a year ago, I wasn’t pessimistic enough.

  7. No_Such_Reality

    Vase, when I look at San Diego, I see goofy stuff. For example, the opening bid will be something like $375,972. $375,972.01 would take it, but if nobody bids $375,972.01, then the bank takes it back and records the transaction at something weird like $298,875.

    That’s the question I’m asking. Is the price in the blog posting the required bid price to take it at the steps or the bank take back price.

  8. graphrix

    The numbers I posted were the minimum bid amounts, and what the bank took them back for. As for the NTS amount, and the minimum bid, there was a difference. For Oak Tree it had a NTS of $750k, and Streamwood had a NTS of $287k. I don’t know what the banks are recording the price as, but I am sure it is funky.

  9. no_vaseline

    I bet it’s an accounting/legal issue of do they/do they not count the not accruing interest.

    No two banks are going to figure this number the same way because everyone has a different protocall on what the default number is.

  10. No_Such_Reality

    Thanks Graph, at least those are going in the right direction now. Opening bid below NTS amount.

  11. Matt

    Nice analysis, I saw you also commented on my blog. But who says DataQuick only tracks owner-occupied units? They filter for pure rentals like duplexes and beyond, but if someone owns a house or condo and rents it out and that unit goes into foreclosure, DataQuick will include that in its summary.


  12. graphrix

    Here is the response I posted on the mortgage blog.


    Good point. But, really… how many SFRs/condos are rental units in 2008, compared to 1996? Even if there was any significant difference, wouldn’t DQ’s database be able to red flag those with a mailing address different than the address of the home?

    Then, according to an article a while back, by Gittlesohn, on property taxes, the percentage of bills has averaged 80% of the housing stock, which is consistent, like the 60% owner occupied rate of census data. So, even if I took that number, although the owner occ number from the census is more in line with DQs, it would be skewed by the units DQ excludes. All in all, it is a small margin, and using the entire housing stock is not fair number to use. A larger apartment 100 unit building would get 1 NOD, not 100. But, for statistics sake here are the raw housing stock ratios for the record months…

    In 1996 it was 1 foreclosure for 1387 homes.

    In 2008 it was 1 foreclosure for 1278 homes.

    Different numbers, but the same point… last month was worse compared to then, when adjusting for housing stock. FYI, housing stock has only increased by a little less than 100k units since 96.

    I am not trying to be a jerk, but when the statement of “To be sure, foreclosures account for a small percentage of total housing stock in O.C., which has increased by tens of thousands of homes since the last downturn of the 1990s.” Is just not a fact supported by the data. You know I respect you, and you know I have ripped hack reporters apart, like Gretchen of the NY Times. You are a much better reporter than she will ever be. I mean, you ask Tanta questions, that shows you know how to find the facts.

    And, one last thing… you know I pull my guesstimate numbers directly from county records, and my margin of error is less than 10% with DQs, month after month, for the last year plus. So, that would mean the 2+ units are a small factor, when DQ excludes them, and since the owner occ rate has consistently been 60% of housing stock, the margin of error for rental SFRs/condos must be a small margin of error.

    BTW, I appreciate you posting at IHB. I would hope you would post more often, as you, and other OCR reporters would be a welcome addition. We are not your competition. We are an unedited blog, that can say whatever we want, and make predictions and add opinions however we want, and we have been right, but we will admit when we are wrong. That, and we do not get paid to do it, we do it because we enjoy it.

  13. cyberpunk

    Absolutely keep it up! When I plan do end up buying, I will take all these foreclosure stats to the buyer and tell them to drop their asking price by 50k or face eternity in RE purgatory! LOL

  14. IE_Priced_Out

    Since I live in the IE, the Press printed this today “….Also the median home price in San Bernardino County slipped below $300,000 to $298,000, representing more than a 21 percent drop from an all-time peak of $380,000 reached in November 2006. The median home price in Riverside County fell to $331,500, or more than 23 percent below a $432,000 record high in December 2006…. ”

    IR, how much longer will it take for houses to be below 200k in Riverside… thats all we can afford (55k median yearly income in Riverside county)??

  15. AV Paperboy

    Question for Graph –

    In your original excellent post about Slade’s property you mentioned the NOD was filed on 4/30/07, however it didn’t go back to the bank until yesterday? That means he lived there for over a year without making payments? Yikes!

  16. k.o.


    Thanks for the post! And it was a great bit of information on one of those reality tv people – especially ones that seem to be complete tools. That was my schadenfreude fix for the day.

  17. William Mitchell

    The WTF story broke itself: every passing motorist remembers it. When you posted, I (we all?) immediately said, “Oh, the place by Wholesome Choice.”

    My guess is that place was not originally intended as an investment. Maybe built as a spec house for someone who backed out, or for a relative before business went sour, etc. There’s no way someone with their experience would think this was smart.

Comments are closed.