Skip to main content

The Foreclosure Crisis for Older Adults: Part I - The Problem

This morning was AARP's Solutions Forum: "The Foreclosure Crisis - Ending the Nightmare for Older Americans," at the Columbus Club in Union Station.  Panelists discussed the conclusions and implications of the recently released report, "Nightmare on Main Street: Older Americans and the Mortgage Market Crisis."  While AARP released "A First Look: Older Adults and the Mortgage Crisis" in 2008 (the first study to look at age differences in the growing foreclosure crisis) this new report is the first one that looks at the progression of the foreclosure crisis for older adults.

Debra Whitman, AARP Policy EVP discusses her reactions to the report in this AP video: 

A few findings from Lori Trawinski's new study grabbed my attention:
  • For 50+ homeowners, the foreclosure rate grew over 8 times between 2007 and 2011, and the rate in 2010-11 is several times higher than the rate for those under 50 in 2007-2008. Both rates rose over the timeframe - in 2011, the 50+ foreclosure rate was 2.9%, and the under 50 foreclosure rate was 3.5% of all loans. Put another way, if 50+ America was a single neighborhood of 35 homes, one of them would be foreclosed on - the stability that we assume for older adults isn't there.
  • For homeowners aged  75+ and 50-64, the "serious" delinquency rate is higher than for those aged 65-74.  One way to interpret: the general crisis among underwater homeowners of working age who have lost work or have reduced incomes, and are unable to sell their homes for more than they owe on their mortgages expands to those age 64, and the higher rates are evidence of this.  While those who are 65+ are usually retired and traditionally have paid off mortgages, that has changed recently, and more now own with mortgages - they are the next at-risk group (see  my report Housing Older Adults: Impacts of the Recession for more on this shift) but aren't at that highest risk-level yet.  For those 75+, they are dealing with higher costs (as are other age groups), but their length of time living on a fixed income and the increased risk of a costly health incident or change in needs as they age are likely contributors to their higher foreclosure rate - remember that foreclosures can occur when it is impossible to sell the home for what is owed and some negative income change (or higher expenses) eliminates other options and forces a change in residence.

  • The 50+ Latino foreclosure rate is slightly higher than the 50+ African American rate and roughly twice the rate for 50+ white homeowners, and sub-prime loan delinquencies are over five times higher than prime loan delinquencies for the 50+.  Sub-prime loans impact the older population as they do younger households - the "poor performance" of these loans and the higher percentages of people in these racial/ethnic groups with these loans naturally leads to more foreclosures. As Trawinsky says, "the poor performance of subprime loans regardless of income level... reinforces the belief that the design of these loans makes them unsustainable in the long term."

    I share that belief, and it is clear that the policy goal of  raising the homeownership level and closing the racial homeownership gap in the last couple of decades was fundamentally flawed: we did not focus on rates of "sustainable homeownership."  Raising the rate temporarily has now led to stripping wealth from many who could not maintain homeownership over the long term.
While Trawinski's report  focused on the national level, state data should be coming soon. (State data from our previous 2008 study is available as part of State Housing Profiles 2011.) This level of anaalysis  important, as foreclosures and delinquencies are not national phenomena, but are based on regional or local real estate markets. While prices have stabilized in many parts of the country, they are still dropping in certain pockets - particularly those that saw large gains in homeownership in the years before the crisis began.

For more on solutions, see part II, where I focus on the forum's panel discussion.


Popular posts from this blog

Rethinking the Value of Diversity after the End of Race-Based Admissions Decisions

The recent Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College has sparked great discourse in the week since the decision, and in particular, fear amongst those who worry about losing a key tool to fight the legacy of discrimination and the continuing disadvantages that impact people of color in the US. In its decision, the Court’s majority ruled that admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. While a range of others, including Justices Jackson and Sotomayor, have laid out dissents and critiques of the decision, I have seen little discussion of the path forward for those who seek to ensure that more people from families and communities that have been impacted by racial prejudice over the nation’s history can benefit from a college education in the future.    You will read a different perspective here, building from experiences at four different univ

What Is a Livable Community, and How Do We Measure One?

Today, I kicked off AARP Public Policy Institute 's Livability Index project with a blog and two papers on new project webpage: bi.tly/LivIndex .  The PPI blog, " What Is a Livable Community, and How Do We Measure One? " introduces the project to the world. You may have wondered why I haven't been writing as much lately, and this project is what has been keeping me busy recently. In a way, this has been keeping me busy for years.

The "Boom" in Golden Girls-Style Shared Housing: Where’s the Beef?

NBC, Touchstone Television and their partners should be proud– it has been 22 years since the final episode aired, yet the influence of The Golden Girls   means that every year reporters ask about the boom in “Golden Girls Housing .”  This form of shared housing receives a great amount of attention, but we'll miss the big picture if we look for big numbers. For the last few years, I have looked at data from the Current Population Survey  (analyzed by the AARP Public Policy Institute ) to count households that are all female (or all male) with at least one non-related housemate or roommate, no spouses, and no one under 50 in the home. This is the classic “Golden Girls” formula.   The result has become familiar: a very small portion of the population lives in a “golden” situation, around one percent.  The small numbers of people in those situations means that it’s hard to figure out whether it has become more popular.  Though the percentage appears to be holding steady, th