Community

Email Notifications

Archives

Gentle January Foreclosure Increase

Although they were up 57 percent from January 2007 and 8 percent from December, the January foreclosure numbers released today by RealtyTrac  do not appear to represent the massive wave of foreclosures that is expected to hit sometime soon thanks to the rash of risky loans given to borrowers as late as just last year.

It's too early too tell if the relatively meek January numbers mean more distressed homeowners are staving off foreclosure thanks to increasingly pro-active lenders and government intervention, or if they just represent the first few raindrops of what will prove to be a violent thunderstorm.

And in either case, does that make the current market a good one in which to buy or invest in real estate? Or is it better to wait until the market falls further? Of course, the answer will vary from region to region, but provide supporting evidence from your area.

 

View full report with state-by-state data.

Posted: Tue, February 26 2008 2:01 AM by darenb

Comments

Octavion said:

Captain Foreclosure,

You've got a good point. Nearly 60 percent jump in foreclosure activity  is quite a significant increase.
# February 26, 2008 10:35 AM

darenb said:

Captain Foreclosure. I can see your point about calling a 57 percent increase slight. But my main point was that the 8 percent monthly increase was low compared to the last two January monthly percentage increases (2007 and 2006), both of which were double-digit.
# February 27, 2008 8:31 AM

darenb said:

Rocky,

Thanks for your comment. I apologize for the confusion about the January 2007 numbers. We actually revised the January U.S. total to 148,425 (see revised press release here), which results in a 57 percent year-over-year increase.

Also you can now find the full slate of December 2007 foreclosure numbers here.
# March 3, 2008 9:01 AM

Jagoan said:

that quote is skeptic. Kettle, Sorry for the coifusnon. I thought you were posting a quote from the 20s.I think skeptic's points are pretty right on. The reason why is because in the 1920s there was prob no govt intervention at all and no effort to contain systemic risks, complete opposite of what we have now   which i think was his point. So i dont see them as apples to apples.

# September 19, 2012 6:35 AM

Kayla said:

pSure thing Trish!  I saw some more expensive homes in that real etsate guide I got from you...like over $700K and such...but those homes came w/ acres of land!  Why can't the tri-state real etsate market be like Georgia's?!]]>

# September 21, 2012 9:34 PM

camopas said:

OwZNpr  <a href="wpixbavjmrzp.com/.../a>

# September 22, 2012 9:54 PM

qfickrf said:

G9sgS8 , [url=http://iahedfozxzpw.com/]iahedfozxzpw[/url], [link=http://fedlcckcudbr.com/]fedlcckcudbr[/link], http://qvdpjudaezmc.com/

# September 23, 2012 9:09 AM

ztfvnrh said:

4rMcrr  <a href="wotduffbwopq.com/.../a>

# September 23, 2012 9:03 PM

vkjvvhbapy said:

dz2gIR , [url=http://cqpvjeqfwheo.com/]cqpvjeqfwheo[/url], [link=http://xhdtywlyonod.com/]xhdtywlyonod[/link], http://ixrcrbebbyeh.com/

# September 25, 2012 3:45 PM
Leave a Comment

(required) 

(required) 

(optional)

(required)