ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 1
Mortgage
Monitor report
April 2024
ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 2
Contents
Overview – April 2024
Each month, the ICE Mortgage Monitor looks at a variety of issues related to the mortgage finance and housing
industries.
To begin, we recap high-level mortgage performance statistics reported in our most recent First Look
, tracking
improvement in both delinquencies and foreclosures through the end of February.
This month, we provide an update on recent interest rate fluctuations and their impact on home affordability. Next,
we dig into the data to help quantify the lingering effects of record-low mortgage rates during the COVID era; the
so-called “lock-in” effect weighing on owners’ decision whether to trade homes.
In producing the Mortgage Monitor, the ICE Data & Analytics division aggregates, analyzes and reports on the
most-recently available data from the company’s
vast mortgage and housing-related data assets. Information is
gathered from the McDash
and McDash Flash loan-level mortgage-performance data sets, Collateral Analytics
home price and sales trends data, eMBS agency securities data, Market Trends origination insights, the ICE
Home Price Index, and the company’s robust public records database covering 99.99% of the U.S. population.
For more information on gaining access to ICE data assets, please call 844-474-2537 or email
Mortgage.Monitor@bkfs.com
.
3 First Look
4 Mortgage performance and foreclosure metrics
9 Interest rates, affordability and the lock-in effect
15 Housing market update
21 Appendix
ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 3
The ICE First Look at mortgage performance provides a high-level overview compiled from the ICE McDash loan-
level database.
First Look at mortgage performance
Serious delinquencies fell to their lowest
level in three months, while foreclosure
starts, sales and inventory were all down on
both a monthly and annual basis
Overview of mortgage performance
-4 bps -27.7% +6.3%
Delinquency
rate
Delinquencies continued to
improve in February, as more
loans cured to current status
………………………..................
The number of loans 90+ days
past due decreased by -18%
year over year
Foreclosure
starts
February's 25K starts marked
the second fewest monthly
actions in the last year
………………………..................
The number of loans in active
foreclosure, as well as
completions of the process,
declined both MoM and YoY
Prepayment
activity
Single-month mortality rose 3
bps to 0.42%, a level not seen
since October
……………………….................
Prepays rose as January's
slight pullback in interest rates
provided a modest bump in
refinance incentive
ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 4
The ICE McDash loan-level database provides key performance metrics for a clearer picture of the mortgage
landscape. In this section we take an in-depth look at mortgage performance metrics for February, including a
breakdown of recent delinquency numbers, foreclosure statistics and prepayment trends.
Mortgage performance and foreclosure metrics
The national delinquency rate eased to 3.34% in February, an 11 basis point improvement over last year
Although the number of borrowers one payment behind rose modestly (+10K), more advanced delinquencies improved to
their lowest level in three months
Serious delinquencies – loans 90 or more days past due, but not yet in active foreclosure – fell to 459K, an 18% year-over-
year improvement
Although delinquency rates typically fall in March, this year’s Sunday month-end is expected to offset that seasonal trend
somewhat, as payments made on the last calendar day of the month will not be processed until April
0.0M
0.5M
1.0M
1.5M
2.0M
2.5M
3.0M
3.5M
4.0M
4.5M
Mortgage delinquencies by severity
30 days delinquent
60 days delinquent
90+ days delinquent Total delinquent
Source: ICE, McDash
Source: ICE, McDash
ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 5
0K
100K
200K
300K
400K
500K
600K
700K
800K
Cures to current by previous delinquency bucket
Cures from
30/60 days delinquent Cures from
90+ days delinquent
Total cures
0.0M
0.5M
1.0M
1.5M
2.0M
Loans rolling to a more delinquent status
Current to 30 days delinquent 30 to 60 days delinquent 60 to 90 days delinquent
Source: ICE, McDash
Source: ICE, McDash
Mortgage performance and foreclosure metrics
The population of borrowers who fell one payment behind rose 6.5% from January’s 8-month low, but remains close to the
12-month average
Fewer borrowers sank further into delinquency in February, with the roll rate from 30 to 60 days past due falling -6.7% to a six-
month low, and rolls from 30 to 60 days late down -4.9% to their lowest point in four months
Cures from early-stage delinquency pulled back from last month’s high, though late-stage cures rose 14.4% to a six-month
peak
Rolls from 60 to 90 days delinquent have held below 110K every month since March 2021, averaging 90K per month
ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 6
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Origination Year
Delinquency rate by vintage
Delinquency rate Share of active mortgages
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Delinquency rate of mortgages originated 6 months ago
Conventional
FHA
VA
Source: ICE, McDash
Source: ICE, McDash
Mortgage performance and foreclosure metrics
Early-payment delinquencies remain elevated among recent originations, particularly FHA and VA loan products
Such delinquencies have edged upward in recent years but remain well below pre-Great Financial Crisis levels, while FHA
and conventional mortgages have both improved modestly year over year, with VA loans holding roughly flat
Though early-payment delinquencies on conventional mortgages remain low, performance of late-2023 FHA and VA
loans, originated when rates neared 8% and debt-to-income ratios reached series highs, remain worth watching
Overall, performance remains historically strong, as the large volume of loans originated in 2020/2021 locked in fixed
mortgage payments at low rates that have served to counter inflationary headwinds for these borrowers
In total, 39% of all currently active loans were originated in those two years and have delinquency rates 36% below the
market average, exerting a strong downward pull on the overall market
ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 7
Mortgage performance and foreclosure metrics
Active foreclosure inventory fell 7K (-3.7%) to 211K – a 23-month low – still 25% (-72K) below pre-pandemic levels and the
lowest it’s been since March 2022
Foreclosure starts decreased -27.7% in February to 25K – representing 5.3% of seriously delinquent inventory – the
second-lowest level in over a year
6K foreclosure sales were completed nationally in February, down -9.5% from the month prior and near the current cycle
low of 5.4K sales in December 2023
Serious delinquencies remain low, and with around 70% protected through forbearance, loss mitigation, or bankruptcy,
foreclosure starts remain almost 40% below pre-pandemic levels
0K
5K
10K
15K
20K
25K
0K
10K
20K
30K
40K
50K
60K
70K
Foreclosure starts and sales
FC starts (left) FC sales (completions, right)
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
0.0 M
0.5 M
1.0 M
1.5 M
2.0 M
2.5 M
Foreclosure inventory
Foreclosure inventory (left)
Foreclosure % (right)
Source: ICE, McDash
Source: ICE, McDash
ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 8
Mortgage performance and foreclosure metrics
Prepayment activity (SMM) rose 3 basis points (bps) in February to a level not seen since October as the pullback in rates
at the start of 2024 provided modest boosts in refinance incentive and homebuyer demand
Home sales and curtailments continue to drive the bulk of prepays, but refinance activity rose in February
In fact, refinance-related prepayments rose 14% in February, driving the largest such single-month mortality (SMM) rate in
17 months
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the 2023 vintage leads all others in prepayment speeds due to higher interest rates among such
loans, with activity among 2023 originations rising noticeably in recent months
Overall, the conditional prepayment rate (CPR) for the 2023 vintage is up 68% over the past three months – from 5.53% in
November to 9.33% in February – and warrants close observation, as even modest rate increases can have an oversized
impact on refinance incentive among such loans
Source: ICE, McDash
2018
2019
2020
2023
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
CPR
Prepayment speeds by vintage
<2013 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
2023
ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 9
This month we examine the relationship among interest rates, affordability and the so-called “lock-in” effect
caused by an unusually high percentage of mortgage holders sitting on rates significantly below current levels.
This information comes from ICE, the McDash
loan-level mortgage performance database and other public and
proprietary data sets.
Interest rates, affordability and the lock-in effect
According to the ICE US Conforming 30-year Fixed Mortgage Rate Lock Index, mortgage rates reached 6.93% on Mar. 18,
before easing 4 bps on Mar. 20, following the Fed press conference
While mortgage rates remain well below October’s highs, they are 44 bps higher than at this time last year – important to
note for those analyzing year-over-year changes in originations and housing market demand
Mortgage rates have climbed nearly 40 bps since starting February at 6.53%; the 10-year Treasury effective yield has risen
45 bps over the same period
The spread between the 30-year fixed mortgage rate and the 10-year Treasury yield fluctuated between 250 and 270 bps in
February, still down as much as 20 bps since early January and ~50 bps from August
Following the March FOMC meeting, CME FedWatch projected the Fed funds rate would be in the 4.50%-4.75% range by
year’s end, not falling to 4.00%-4.25% until April 2025 – a significant upward shift from February’s end of 2024 projection
Composite industry forecasts now have mortgage rates ending 2024 near 6.25% and closer to 5.8% by the end of 2025
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Interest rates ( %)
Spread (bps)
30-year mortgage to 10-year Treasury yield spread
Spread (bps, left) ICE 30-year FRM conf. rate lock index (right) ICE 10-year Treasury eff. yield (right)
Source: ICE
Data through March 21, 2024
ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 10
1:1
2:1
3:1
4:1
5:1
6:1
7:1
Ratio of median home price to median household income
33.8%
38.2%
34.4%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
National payment-to-income ratio*
Payment
-to-Income Ratio (Left Axis
) Freddie 30-Year Fixed Mortgage Rate (Right Axis)
Source: ICE Home
Price Index, Census
Bureau
Source: ICE Home
Price Index, FHLMC
PMMS, Census Bureau
March 2024 reading is
based on Mar. 21, 2024
FHLMC PMMS of
6.87%
Interest rates, affordability and the lock-in effect
*The national payment-to-income ratio is the share of median income needed to make the monthly principal and interest payment
on the purchase of the average-priced home using a 20% down 30-year fixed rate mortgage at the prevailing interest rate
As of Mar. 21, with mortgage rates at 6.87% according to the Freddie Mac PMMS, it required $2,325 to make the monthly
principal and interest (P&I) payment on the median-priced home, representing 34.4% of the median household income
That’s down $174 from October’s record high, but is effectively twice the payment (+96%) required in March 2021, when
rates were in the low 3% range
Every one of the nation’s 100 largest markets is less affordable today than its long-run average, although to varying
degrees on a geographic level
Affordability in the Midwest is only modestly worse, with payment-to-income ratios in markets such as Cleveland, Des
Moines, Toledo, Akron, Dayton and Detroit all within 1.5 percentage points (pp) of their long-run averages
On the other end of the spectrum, it takes at least 20 pp more of median income than ‘normal’ in markets like Miami (+21 pp),
Oxnard (+23 pp), San Jose (+25 pp), San Diego (+25 pp) and Los Angeles (+32 pp)
The median home price as of March was 5.5 times the median household income and, while an improvement from the record
5.9 times income in June 2022, it’s the second highest multiple for any March on record dating back to the mid-1970s
ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 11
Source: ICE, MBA, FHLMC (PMMS)
Interest rates, affordability and the lock-in effect
Purchase applications have held at a consistent 40-41% deficit compared to their 2018-2019 same-week averages as
mortgage rates pushed above 6.8%
Purchase application volumes continue to trend alongside 30-year rates, reacting negatively to rate increases and
recovering slowly during declines
When mortgage rates held in a similar window in July 2023, purchase application deficits stood at -37%, 3pp less severe
than what we’re seeing now
In addition to high interest rates, a shortage of homes for sale is also suppressing application volumes, as the lock-in effect
of low rates on existing loans keeps many would-be sellers sidelined
ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 12
Interest rates, affordability and the lock-in effect
-$400
-$200
$0
+$200
+$400
+$600
+$800
+$1,000
+$1,200
+$1,400
+$1,600
Average change in mortgage payment ($) needed to move
To move across the street To trade up to nicer home
(+25%)
if rates fell to 6% if rates fell to 5
%
Source: ICE, McDash
Loan level analysis of borrowers currently in 30-year fixed rate mortgages; assumes relocations costs of 6% on the sale of their existing home
with the remaining equity being rolled over to the new home purchase with borrower taking out a new 30-year mortgage for the remaining
balance at the prevailing 30-year rate. ‘Trade up’ analysis assumes borrowers are purchasing a home valued 25% higher than the current
market to market value of their existing home.
Today’s homeowners face a trifecta of elevated rates, sky-high home prices and record equity, making the existing payment
on their home incredibly attractive
That being the case, it’s worthwhile to try and quantify just how locked in these homeowners are but looking at how much it
would cost to give up their current rate to simply move across the street, or upgrade to a 25% more expensive home
From January 2000 to January 2022, before the Fed’s latest tightening cycle, giving up one's existing mortgage to purchase
a home of equivalent value across the street would have been a relatively break-even endeavor for the homeowner
The homeowner would lose a bit of equity to relocation fees, but also recoup some of that cost with a lower interest rate and
the recasting of their mortgage back out to a full 30-year term
Historically, in this hypothetical even swap, a homeowner could expect to reduce their mortgage payment by a modest
$25/mo. (-2%)
Performing the same loan level analysis on today’s mortgage holders – and factoring in current prevailing 30-year rates –
that same move across the street today would require a $500 (+38%) jump in the average monthly mortgage payment
The numbers become even more staggering when seen against the skyrocketing monthly cost of trading up to a bigger or
better home
ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 13
Interest rates, affordability and the lock-in effect
From January 2000 through January 2022, the average mortgage holder trading up to a home worth 25% more would have
had a monthly P&I payment increase of 39% (+$400)
Today, that same trade would more than double the average monthly payment (+103% or +1,384/mo.), highlighting the real-
world pressures keeping current mortgage holders locked into their current homes and loans
Lower interest rates would provide some moderate relief
If rates fell from to 6%, the monthly payment increase to trade up to a 25% more expensive home would ease from +103% to
+88% – a modest but welcome improvement
At 5%, it would require a +68% larger payment, still much higher than the long-run average of +39%, but perhaps enough to
motivate someone with a compelling need or desire to upgrade
-40%
-20%
0%
+20%
+40%
+60%
+80%
+100%
+120%
Average change in mortgage payment (%) needed to move
To move across the street
To trade up to nicer home (+25%)
if rates fell to 6% if rates fell to 5%
Source: ICE, McDash
Loan level analysis of borrowers currently in 30-year fixed rate mortgages; assumes relocations costs of 6% on the sale of their existing home
with the remaining equity being rolled over to the new home purchase with borrower taking out a new 30-year mortgage for the remaining
balance at the prevailing 30-year rate. ‘Trade up’ analysis assumes borrowers are purchasing a home valued 25% higher than the current
market to market value of their existing home.
ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 14
The cost to give up one’s existing mortgage and buy a 25% more expensive home varies significantly across geographies,
requiring payment increases ranging from 72% on the low end in Buffalo to more than 140% in Los Angeles and San Jose
Homeowners in these more expensive markets would be giving up low rates on much larger unpaid balances – an effect
compounded by the fact that such borrowers also tend to have lower mortgage rates on their existing homes
This is due in part to the fact that the breakeven point on a refinance transaction is typically lower for higher-balance
borrowers, which means they tend to refinance earlier and more frequently when rates fall
Because of this, the lock-in effect on inventories may be strongest in more expensive California metros such as San Jose,
Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco – markets that also face challenges in terms of new construction
25% is a good rule of thumb for middle-market trade-ups, but ICE’s Home Price Index shows a much larger payment
increase is needed to move out of the bottom or into the top tier, helping to constrain entry-level and trade-up inventory
35%
23%
27%
61%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Tier 1 (Bottom 20%) to
Tier 2 (20th-40th Percentile)
Tier 2 (20th-40th Percentile) to
Tier 3 (40th-60th Percentile)
Tier 3 (40th-60th Percentile) to
Tier 4 (60th-80th Percentile)
Tier 4 (60th-80th Percentile) to
Tier 5 (80th-100th Percentile)
Average change in home value between price tiers
3.5%
3.8%
4.0%
4.3%
4.5%
4.8%
5.0%
+0%
+25%
+50%
+75%
+100%
+125%
+150%
Buffalo, NY
Miami, FL
Cleveland, OH
Oklahoma City, OK
Memphis, TN
San Antonio, TX
New Orleans, LA
Houston, TX
Indianapolis, IN
Cincinnati, OH
Birmingham, AL
Louisville, KY
Chicago, IL
Virginia Beach, VA
Pittsburgh, PA
Dallas, TX
Columbus, OH
St. Louis, MO
Hartford, CT
Minneapolis, MN
Kansas City, MO
Philadelphia, PA
Phoenix
, AZ
Baltimore, MD
Richmond,
VA
Las Vegas,
NV
Orlando, FL
Jacksonville, FL
Milwaukee, WI
Detroit
, MI
Austin, TX
Atlanta, GA
Tampa, FL
All Other
Washington, DC
Nashville,
TN
Raleigh, NC
Charlotte, NC
New York, NY
Portland, OR
Sacramento, CA
Providence
, RI
Denver,
CO
Riverside, CA
Salt Lake City
, UT
Seattle, WA
Boston, MA
San Francisco, CA
San Diego, CA
Los Angeles, CA
San Jose, CA
Percentage change in monthly payment needed for average
mortgage holder to upgrade to a 25% more expensive home
Change in monthly P
&I payment needed
(%) Average interest rate among current mortgage holders (right axis)
Source: ICE, ICE Home
Price Index
Change in value between price
tiers is the average different
between price tiers at the CBSA
level across the more than 900
CBSAs covered by the ICE
Home Price Index
Source: ICE, McDash
Interest rates, affordability and the lock-in effect
Loan level analysis of borrowers currently in 30-year fixed rate mortgages; assumes relocations costs of 6% on the sale of their existing home
with the remaining equity being rolled over to the new home purchase with borrower taking out a new 30-year mortgage for the remaining
balance at the prevailing 30-year rate. ‘Trade up’ analysis assumes borrowers are purchasing a home valued 25% higher than the current
market to market value of their existing home.
ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 15
With home affordability continuing to impact demand and transaction speeds, here we take a closer look at the
inventory of homes for sale, sales volumes, and home prices across the U.S. This information has been compiled
from the ICE Home Price Index and Collateral Analytics database.
Housing market update
National
San Antonio, TX
Orlando, FL
Aus tin, TX
Hartford, CT
Boise City, ID
Los Angeles, CA
San Diego, CA
San Francis co, CA
New Orleans, LA
Providence, RI
-90%
-75%
-60%
-45%
-30%
-15%
0%
15%
30%
Deficit of homes listed for sale
(% change from 2017-2019 same month average
)
-37%
-31%
-24%
-21%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
+10%
+20%
Deficit of new real estate listings
% Difference from
2017-2019 same month average
Source: ICE,
Realtor.com
Source: ICE,
Realtor.com
The national inventory deficit held flat in February at 40% below the same-month pre-pandemic average
While slightly worse than the 36% shortage at the start of 2024, it’s the shallowest deficit for any February since 2020,
which translates to more inventory for prospective homebuyers
Indeed, February saw inventory rise in 60 of the 100 largest U.S. markets, and 65% have more homes for sale today than
at this point last year.
Connecticut markets (Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven) and Providence, R.I., continue to see the deepest deficits (-70%
or more), while only San Antonio, Austin, and Dallas, plus Lakeland, Fla., had inventory surpluses
New Orleans, San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego all reported deepening deficits
Following a 24% deficit in new listings in January, February’s -21% is an improvement, but still well below pre-pandemic
levels
ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 16
65% of markets had more inventory for sale in February than they did at the same time last year
Some of the largest increases were in Florida, with Cape Coral and North Port each erasing deficits of almost 50%
Inventory in Lakeland, Orlando, Tampa, Jacksonville, and Miami have all increased significantly in the past 12 months
San Antonio, Dallas, New Orleans, Denver, Omaha, Houston, Portland, Memphis and Birmingham have also experienced
notable improvement
California markets are among the minority with worsening deficits this year, although the declines have been modest in
most cases
Boise has been an outlier overall, seeing inventory fall sharply over the past 12 months after moving into surplus territory
in late 2022
Housing market update
* Percent change from 2017-2019 same month average
Source: ICE, Realtor.com
Change in inventory deficit/surplus from same time last year
ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 17
New construction has a larger role to play in addressing inventory challenges in today’s market
Single-family residential (SFR) construction permits reached a seasonally adjusted annualized rate (SAAR) of 1.03M in
February – a level last seen in May 2022
SFR starts reached a SAAR of 1.13M in February, up 12% month over month and 35% year over year
At a SAAR of 1.07M, SFR completions bounced 20% between January and February, while the number of SFR units
under construction stayed flat at 683K on a seasonally-adjusted basis
SFRs accounted for 41% of total residential construction in February, up from a low of less than 40% in October 2023 but
down from a high of nearly 51% two years ago
0.0M
0.2M
0.4M
0.6M
0.8M
1.0M
1.2M
1.4M
1.6M
1.8M
2.0M
New private housing under construction by type
SFR Constr. (NSA) 2-4 Units Constr. (NSA)
5+ Units Constr. (NSA) Total Constr. (NSA)
0.0M
0.3M
0.6M
0.9M
1.2M
1.5M
1.8M
2.1M
New private SFR housing by stage of construction
(Seasonally adjusted – starts, permits, completions annualized)
SFR Under Construction
(SA
) SFR Permit Unstarted (SA) SFR Permits (SAAR)
SFR Starts (SAAR) SFR Completed (SAAR)
Source: ICE; U.S. Census
Bureau; U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban
Development (HUD); St. Louis
Federal Reserve Bank (FRED)
Source: ICE; U.S. Census
Bureau; U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban
Development (HUD); St. Louis
Federal Reserve Bank (FRED)
Housing market update
ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 18
Home sales have rebounded modestly over the last two months, after closing out 2023 at an 11-year low
February home sales hit their highest adjusted level since March 2023, driven by lower interest rates in late Q4 and early
Q1
With sales rising, and inventory falling slightly since December, months of supply edged lower to 3.2 months in February,
continuing to provide a floor to home prices
That’s the leanest months-of-supply metric we’ve seen in five months, but better than the 2.8 months of supply at the
same time last year, which led to above-average price growth in spring 2023
Housing market update
Source: ICE, Collateral Analytics
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Months of inventory
Home sales (Indexed: jan 2005 = 100)
Home sales and months of remaining inventory
Seasonally adjusted
- single family residences and condos
Home sales
Months of inventory
(right axis)
ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 19
Though annual home price growth edged slightly lower in February to +5.7% from an upwardly revised +5.8% in January,
seasonally adjusted month-over-month gains moved higher
Adjusted home prices rose by +0.43% in February, noticeably higher than the +0.33% revised single-month gain in
January and equivalent to a +5.3% SAAR
Seasonally adjusted annualized growth had fallen below 1% as recently as October, when 30-year rates near 8% pushed
home affordability to a 39-year low
While still expected to modestly decelerate over the next few months, sales activity on falling rates in January and
February suggests annual home price growth could remain firmer than anticipated
The lock-in phenomenon continues to impact inventory more strongly in the spring months, with the housing market falling
into a pattern of super-seasonality in recent years as prices hold firmer in the spring and weaken in the fall and winter –
even when accounting for traditional seasonal patterns
-0.6%
-0.3%
0.0%
+0.3%
+0.6%
+0.9%
+1.2%
+1.5%
+1.8%
Jan '23 Feb '23 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan '24 Feb '24
1-month change in home prices
(ICE Home Price Index, NSA)
25-year average (1998-2022) Current year (2023-24)
+5.7%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
+5%
+10%
+15%
+20%
+25%
+30%
Annual Home Price Growth Rate
ICE Home Price Index
(HPI)
1-Month Change, Annualized (SAAR) 1-Month Home Price Change (SA) Annual Home Price Growth Rate (NSA)
Source: ICE Home Price Index (HPI)
Housing market update
Source: ICE Home Price Index (HPI)
ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 20
Housing market update
1-month home price growth (seasonally adjusted)
Source: ICE Home Price Index (HPI)
February 2024
Columbus (+1.09%) and Cincinnati, Ohio (+0.87%) saw the largest single month adjusted gains in February, followed by
Las Vegas (+0.86%), Virginia Beach, (+0.83%), Hartford (+0.83%), and Cleveland (+0.82%)
Birmingham (-0.17%) and Tampa (-0.01%) were the only markets where prices fell on an adjusted basis, with Raleigh
(+0.01%) Austin (+0.14%), Portland, Ore. (+0.17%), and San Francisco (+0.17%) experiencing the smallest increases
Price growth across Florida was muted, with growth rates in all nine of the state’s largest markets below the national
average, and smaller markets like North Port and Cape Coral easing slightly in February
Price gains accelerated in 42 of the 50 largest markets in February, led by Columbus and Cincinnati with Las Vegas and
Denver picking up steam as well
Six of the eight markets where home price growth slowed are in California (Riverside, Sacramento, Los Angeles, San
Diego, San Francisco and San Jose), somewhat surprising given that inventory deficits have grown in many of these
metros
California remains split, with half of markets – including San Jose (+0.72%), San Diego (+0.68%) and Stockton (+0.53%) –
experiencing above-average growth, and half below; San Francisco, at +0.17%, was somewhere in the middle
Arrows indicate whether the seasonally adjusted annualized
rate is higher (▲) or lower (▼) than the annual growth rate
ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 21
Appendix
Summary statistics
Feb. 29, 2024
Non-current loans by state
ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 22
Appendix
Loan counts and average days delinquent
Feb. 29, 2024
Loan counts and average days delinquent – recent months
ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 23
Appendix
0M
1M
2M
3M
4M
5M
Active forbearance plans
FHA/VA Fannie/Freddie Other Total
0 K
20 K
40 K
60 K
80 K
100 K
120 K
Week Ending
New forbearance-plan starts by investor
FHA / VA GSE Portfolio / PLS
ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 24
Source: ICE, McDash Flash
Data as of Mar. 12, 2024
Source: ICE, McDash Flash
Data as of Mar. 12, 2024
Appendix
Removed/expired – performing
4,130K
46%
Removed/expired –
delinquent – active loss mit
216K
3%
Removed/expired –
delinquent
462K
5%
Removed/expired –
active foreclosure
98K
1%
Distressed Liquidation
109K
1%
Paid off
3,558K
40%
Active forbearance –
original term
154K
2%
Active forbearance –
term extended
172K
2%
Current status of COVID
-19
related forbearances
8.9 million
forbearances
0K
50K
100K
150K
200K
250K
300K
30 Days DQ 60 Days DQ 90 Days DQ 120+ Days DQ
Breakdown of loans that remain delinquent following
forbearance-plan exit
(Excluding loans in active loss mitigation or foreclosure)
Already DQ Entering Pandemic Became DQ During Pandemic
ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 25
Source: ICE, McDash Flash
March 2024 data through the
12th of the month
Source: ICE, McDash Flash
March 2024 data through the
12th of the month
Appendix
0K
100K
200K
300K
400K
500K
600K
700K
800K
2020-04
2020-05
2020-06
2020-07
2020-08
2020-09
2020-10
2020-11
2020-12
2021-01
2021-02
2021-03
2021-04
2021-05
2021-06
2021-07
2021-08
2021-09
2021-10
2021-11
2021-12
2022-01
2022-02
2022-03
2022-04
2022-05
2022-06
2022-07
2022-08
2022-09
2022-10
2022-11
2022-12
2023-01
2023-02
2023-03
2023-04
2023-05
2023-06
2023-07
2023-08
2023-09
2023-10
2023-11
2023-12
2024-01
2024-02
2024-03
Plan Exit Month
Current status of loans that left COVID-19 forbearance plans
Performing Paid Off Active Loss Mit Delinquent Active Foreclosure Distressed Liquidation
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2020-04
2020-05
2020-06
2020-07
2020-08
2020-09
2020-10
2020-11
2020-12
2021-01
2021-02
2021-03
2021-04
2021-05
2021-06
2021-07
2021-08
2021-09
2021-10
2021-11
2021-12
2022-01
2022-02
2022-03
2022-04
2022-05
2022-06
2022-07
2022-08
2022-09
2022-10
2022-11
2022-12
2023-01
2023-02
2023-03
2023-04
2023-05
2023-06
2023-07
2023-08
2023-09
2023-10
2023-11
2023-12
2024-01
2024-02
2024-03
Plan Exit Month
Current status of loans that left COVID-19 forbearance plans
Performing Paid Off Active Loss Mit Delinquent Active Foreclosure Distressed Liquidation
ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 26
Definitions
Total active count
All active loans as of month-
end, including loans in any state of delinquency
or foreclosure. Post-sale loans and loans in REO are excluded from the
total active count.
Delinquency
statuses
(30, 60, 90+, etc.)
All delinquency statuses are calculated using the MBA methodology based
on the payment due date provided by the servicer. Loans in foreclosure are
reported separately and are not included in the MBA days delinquent.
90-day defaults
Loans that were less than 90 days delinquent in the prior month and were
90 days delinquent, but not in foreclosure, in the current month.
Foreclosure
inventory
The servicer has referred the loan to an attorney for foreclosure. Loans
remain in foreclosure inventory from referral to sale.
Foreclosure starts
Any active loan that was not in foreclosure in the prior month that moves
into foreclosure inventory in the current month.
Non-current Loans in any stage of delinquency or foreclosure.
Foreclosure sale /
new REO
Any loan that was in foreclosure in the prior month that moves into post-
sale status or is flagged as a foreclosure liquidation.
REO
The loan is in post-sale foreclosure status. Listing status is not a
consideration; this includes all properties on and off the market.
Deterioration ratio
The ratio of the percentage of loans deteriorating in delinquency status vs.
those improving.
Extrapolation methodology: Mortgage statistics are scaled to estimate the total
market performance based on coverage within the McDash database.
ice.com ICE | Mortgage Monitor report 27
Disclosures
You can reach us by email at
mortgage.monitor@
ice.com
The information contained in this paper - including text, graphics, links or other items - are provided “as is” and “as available.” Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. its subsidiaries and affiliates (“ICE”)
and third party providers do not warrant the accuracy, adequacy, timeliness, or completeness of this information, and expressly disclaims liability for errors, omissions or other defects, or delays
or interruptions in this information. ICE does not verify any data and disclaims any obligation to do so. The information provided in this paper is also liable to change at short notice. You should
not rely on any information contained in this paper without first checking with us that it is correct and up to date.
No warranty of any kind, implied, express or statutory, is given in conjunction with the information. The reliance on any information contained in this paper is done at your own risk and discretion
and you alone will be responsible for any damage or loss to you, including but not limited to loss of data or loss or damage to any property or loss of data or loss of revenue that results from the
use and reliance on such information.
In no event will ICE or its third party providers be liable for any damages, including without limitation direct or indirect, special, incidental, punitive, or consequential damages, losses or expenses
arising out of or relating to your use of this information. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
The content provided in this paper is not to be construed as a recommendation or offer to buy or sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any security, financial product or instrument, or to
participate in any particular trading strategy. ICE does not make any recommendations regarding the merit of any company, security or other financial product or investment identified in this
paper, nor does it make any recommendation regarding the purchase or sale of any such company, security, financial product or investment that may be described or referred to in this paper,
nor endorse or sponsor any company identified in this paper. Prior to the execution of a purchase or sale of any security or investment, you are advised to consult with your banker, financial
advisor or other relevant professionals (e.g. legal, tax and/or accounting counsel). Neither ICE nor its third party providers shall be liable for any investment decisions based upon or results
obtained from the content provided in this paper. Nothing contained on this paper is intended to be, nor shall it be construed to be, legal, tax, accounting or investment advice.
View the full Mortgage Monitor disclosures with the link above.
Mortgage Monitor disclosures