Home • PRRES Inc. Journal • Read the Journal

Time on the Market and Sale Price of Non-Performing Loan Assets

Author/s: Fong-Yao Chen, Jen-Hsu Liang, Nelson Chan

Date Published: 1/01/2013

Published in: Volume 19 - 2013 Issue 2 (pages 187 - 197)

Abstract

The correlation between time on the market (TOM) and offer price or transaction price has been analyzed in a number of studies. Unlike previous studies, this paper focuses on atypical property (non-performing assets (NPAs)) and adopts a two-stage least squares regression (2SLS) model to test whether value enhancement strategies would enhance the disposal price in Kaohsiung city. The empirical results show that investors can’t profit just from increasing the time on the market (TOM). Investors have to adopt an enhancement strategy to increase NPA value as well. This is the important finding from the comparison of auction and value enhancement strategy in this paper. The Taiwanese experience reported in this paper shows that value increment can be achieved via the combination of longer TOM and value enhancement strategy.

Download Full Article

Download the Full Article PDF

14445921.2013.11104380.pdf 14445921.2013.11104380.pdf (287kB)

Keywords

Non-Performing Assets - Non-Performing Loans - Property Management - Taiwan - Time on the Market

References

  • Allen, MT, Faircloth, S and Rutherford, RC 2005, ‘The impact of range pricing on marketing time and transaction price: a better mousetrap for the existing home market?’, The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Vol. 31 , No. 1 , pp. 71-82.
  • Asabere, PK and Huffman, FE 1993, ‘Price concessions, time on the market and the actual sale price of homes’, The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Vol. 6 , No. 2 , pp. 167-74.
  • Carroll, TM, Clauretie, TM and Neill, HR 1997, ‘ Effect of foreclosure status on residential selling price: comment’, Journal of Real Estate Research, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 95–102.
  • Clauretie, TM and Daneshvary, N 2009, ‘Estimating the house foreclosure discount corrected for spatial price interdependence and endogeneity of marketing time’, Real Estate Economics, Vol. 37 , No. 1 , pp. 43-67.
  • Colwell, PF and Munneke, HJ 1997, ‘The structure of urban land prices’, Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 41 , No. 3 , pp. 321-36.
  • Daneshvary, N, Clauretie, TM and Kader, A 2011, ‘ Short-term own-price and spillover effects of distressed residential properties: the case of a housing crash’, Journal of Real Estate Research, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp.179-207.
  • Forgey, FA, Rutherford, RC and VanBuskirk, ML 1994, ‘Effect of foreclosure status on residential selling price’, Journal of Real Estate Research, Vol. 9 , No. 3 , pp. 313-18.
  • Haag, JT, Rutherford, RC and Thomson, TA 2000, ‘Real estate agent remarks: help or hype?’, Journal of Real Estate Research, Vol. 20 , No. 1 , pp. 205-15.
  • Haurin, D 1988, ‘The duration of marketing time of residential housing’, Real Estate Economics, Vol. 16 , No. 4 , pp. 396-410.
  • Haurin, D, Haurin, J, Nadauld, T and Sanders, A 2010, ‘List prices, sale prices and marketing time: an application to US housing markets’, Real Estate Economics, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp.659-85.
  • Inaltekin, H, Jarrow, RA, Saglam, M and Y?ld?r?m, Y 2011, ‘Housing prices and the optimal timeon-the-market decision’, Finance Research Letters, Vol. 8, pp. 171–79.
  • Johnson, KH, Benefield, JD and Wiley, JA 2009, ‘Architectural review boards and their impact on property price and time-on-market’, Journal of Housing Research, Vol. 18 , No. 1 , pp. 1-18.
  • Kang, HB and Gardner, MJ 1989, ‘Selling price and marketing time in the residential real estate market’, Journal of Real Estate Research, Vol. 4 , No. 1 , pp. 21-35.
  • Lee, CC and Chang, CO 1996, ‘List price, transaction price and duration of the real estate market in Taiwan’, Academia Economic Papers, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp.591-616.
  • McGreal, S, Adair, A, Brown, L and Webb, JR 2009, ‘Pricing and time on the market for residential properties in a major UK city’, Journal of Real Estate Research, Vol. 31 , No. 2 , pp. 209-33.
  • Miller, NG 1978, ‘Time on the market and selling price’, Real Estate Economics, Vol. 6 , No. 2 , pp. 164-174.
  • Pennington-Cross, A 2006, ‘The value of foreclosed property’, Journal of Real Estate Research, Vol. 28 , No. 2 , pp. 193-214.
  • Pryce, G and Gibb, K 2006, ‘Submarket dynamics of time to sale’, Real Estate Economics, Vol. 34 , No. 3 , pp. 377-415.
  • Read, C 1988, ‘Price strategies for idiosyncratic goods - the case of housing’, Real Estate Economics, Vol. 16 , No. 4 , pp. 379-95.
  • Rutherford, RC, Springer, TM and Yavas, A 2001, ‘The impacts of contract type on broker performance’, Real Estate Economics, Vol. 29 , No. 3 , pp. 389-409.
  • Söderberg, B 2002. ‘A note on the hedonic model specification for income properties’, in Wang, K and Wolverton, M. L. (Eds.) Real estate valuation theory, Springer, New York.
  • Shilling, JD, Benjamin, JD and Sirmans, C 1990, ‘Estimating net realizable value for distressed real estate’, Journal of Real Estate Research, Vol. 5 , No. 1 , pp. 129-40.
  • Sirmans, SG, Macpherson, DA and Zietz, EN 2005, ‘The composition of hedonic pricing models’, Journal of Real Estate Literature, Vol. 13 , No. 1 , pp. 1-44.
  • Springer, TM 1996, ‘Single family housing transactions: seller motivations, price, and marketing time’, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 237–54.
  • Trippi, RR 1977, ‘Estimating the relationship between price and time to sale for investment property’, Management Science, Vol. 23 , No. 8 , pp. 838-42.
  • Vanderford, SE, Mimura, Y and Sweaney, AL 2005, ‘A hedonic price comparison of manufactured and site-built homes in the non-MSA US’, Journal of Real Estate Research, Vol. 27 , No. 1 , pp. 83-104.
  • William, HG and Marvin, WL 1996, ‘The relationship between foreclosure status and apartment price’, Journal of Real Estate Research, Vol. 12 , No. 1 , pp. 101-09.
  • Zhu, ZZ 2006, ‘Overview on the non-performing loans and asset management companies market’, Monthly of Hua Nan Financial Holdings, Vol. 37, pp.9-22.