U.S Economy, Construction Industry, and Residential Market Crisis and Recovery, 2000-2019

By Jr. Ebenezer O. Aka

The book analyzes U.S economy, construction industry, and residential market crisis and recovery from 2000 to 2019. The motivation emanated from the need to document the unprecedented housing market crisis (and recovery) and its negative effects on the hitherto seeming formidable U.S economy. The expectation is that analysis of the data and findin

• Language: English
• Publisher: Palmetto Publishing
• Release date: Jul 14, 2022
• ISBN: 9798885908818

Jr. Ebenezer O. Aka

Dr. Ebenezer Osita Aka is Professor of Urban Studies and Planning at Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. He is the Director of Urban Studies Program; and was once the Interim Chair of Department of Political Science that includes, International Studies Program and Urban Studies Program at the College. His Bachelor of City and Regional Planning (BCRP, Cum Laude) and MA in Geography and Urban Planning (Magna Cum Laude) are from The University of Louisiana, Lafayette, Louisiana; Master of City and Regional Planning (MCRP) from Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey; and PH.D. in Urban and Regional Planning from Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.Dr. Aka is a member of Environmental Studies Group; Sustainability and Sustainable Energy Group; and Morehouse Research Institute (MRI) at the College. He is the author of two (2) books: Regional Disparities in Nigeria's Development: Lessons and Challenges for the 21st Century (University Press of America, 2000); World Regional and Cultural Footprints and Environmental Sustainability: Analysis of Socioeconomic Determinants (Hamilton Books: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017). He has been article reviewer for the Journal of Third World Studies; African Urban Quarterly; Urban Affairs Quarterly; and GeoJournal. He is also Associate Editor of The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, 2005-present; also Associate Editor of The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences.; as well as monographs, book chapters, and several articles and proceedings in various refereed and reputable journals, such as Cities: The International Journal of Urban Policy and Planning; Review of Urban and Regional Development Studies (RURDS); The Journal of Public Sector Management; Journal of Social Development in Africa; African Urban Quarterly-Journal of Comparative Urbanization and Planning in Africa; The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic & Social Sustainability; The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences; The National Social Science Journal (NSSJ); American International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences; and Human Ecology Review. Dr. Aka's Research Interests include: Housing and Community Development; Comparative Urbanization and Planning; Urban and Regional Development & Revitalization; Regional Disparities; Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Applications in Planning; Environmental Sustainability; Sustainable Development; and Biodiversity Conservation.

Book preview

Preface

T

he construction industry plays a significant role in the industrial development of any country, especially in generating employment and income. The industry is a major contributor to the US economy, as the gross domestic product (GDP) from construction averaging billions of dollars every year. Construction spending is an important source of information that gives clues about the overall economy. For example, the construction industry is a leading indicator and one of the first drivers of the economy to go into a recession when as the economy declines as well as the first to recover as the conditions improve. According to Economic Watch (2010), the construction industry includes the construction of houses, schools, office buildings, roads, bridges, airports, railways, irrigation systems, power systems, hospitals, townships, water supply systems, and drainage and sewerage systems. In this study, as the US economic cycle is analyzed from 2000 to 2019, the focus is on the housing industry and its market crisis and recovery.

The housing problem in the United States had been intractable and was compounded in the mid-2000s by the menace caused by mortgage lenders’ subprime loans and mortgage servicers’ dubious practices. The deceptive, destructive, and abusive subprime lending practices and the associated massive foreclosure activities were prevalent in many regions and cities in the country, including Atlanta's urban neighborhoods and counties. In most cases the foreclosures disproportionately affected minorities, who constituted a set of homeowners particularly ill-equipped, ill-prepared, and ill-suited to handle them. Of course, the sharp practices led to the housing bubbles of the mid-2000s that, when busted crashed the United States into a serious financial crisis. The slump in home building after the bubble was pricked constituted a major drag on the country's economic growth.

The hitherto formidable US capitalist economy notwithstanding, the laissez-faire philosophy of the housing industry in the 1990s and early 2000s created the crisis in the housing market, which cascaded the overall economy into the Great Recession of the mid-2000s. The specific market-correction policies and programs implemented by the government afterward resuscitated and restored the housing market and overall economy, which are currently humming forward in a high-pressure mode after recovery.

This book, The US Economy, Construction Industry, and Residential Market Crisis and Recovery, 2000–2019: Lessons from the State of Georgia and the Atlanta Metropolis, deals with the analysis of the US economy, construction industry, and residential market crisis and recovery from 2000 to 2019. The motivation emanated from the need to document the unprecedented housing-market crisis (and recovery) and its negative effects on the hitherto seemingly formidable US economy. The significance of the study includes the fact that whatever lessons are learned about what caused the housing crisis and ensuing economic meltdown, the recovery policies and programs, and how to guard against the crises happening in the future undoubtedly make the study a worthwhile effort. The study should likely help students of housing and economic development as well as policy makers at national, regional, and local levels by equipping them with adequate knowledge of what led to the housing bubbles of the mid-2000s, which overheated the economy; the policy instruments used to mitigate the economic and housing-market problems when the bubbles busted; and the necessary proactive measures needed to protect the housing-industry market and economy. Each chapter of the book includes an introduction, the purpose of the study, a theoretical framework for the study, the study area, research methodology, the hypothesis for the research, an analysis of the proximate variables, policy recommendations, and conclusions.

The book begins with an introduction that includes reasons for choosing the Atlanta metropolitan area for special reference. The introduction also includes the purpose of the study, the focus of the study, the theoretical framework for the study, the methodology for the study, the significance of the study, and some definitions, descriptions, and explanation of terms in the US economy, housing-market crisis, and recovery.

Chapter two deals with construction and the residential sector in the era of the boom-bust economy in the United States, with special reference to the state of Georgia and the Atlanta metropolis from 2000 to 2015. It analyzes the role construction and the residential sector play in the US economy, especially during the business cycle from 2000 to 2015. The focus is on how the construction and residential sectors influenced the leading and lagging economic indicators that likely caused and the bull and bear markets during this period. The crucial question is, has this sector helped in any way to create the Goldilocks economy, or the healthy-state economy currently witnessed in the country since 2012? What have been governments’ (federal, state, and local) responses for market corrections during the business cycle? What were the implications of the responses for economic-growth-and-development planning? Several proximate variables are analyzed to answer the crucial questions. Some policy suggestions, recommendations, and possible solutions are proffered for a healthy US economy.

Chapter three deals with the foreclosure disparities in the metropolitan Atlanta counties’ housing market from 2000 to 2010 and implications for policies and planning. It also deals with the reasons for choosing the Atlanta metropolitan area for special reference. The chapter identifies factors responsible for home foreclosure filings in the metro Atlanta counties’ housing market from 2000 to 2010. It deals with how the foreclosure factors and foreclosure filings affected different counties and ethnic groups in the Atlanta metropolitan area. The impacts of home foreclosures on mortgage lenders, counties, communities, neighborhoods, households, consumers, and different ethnic groups are explored and explained. Policy recommendations are proffered on how to mitigate and stem the foreclosure menace with the incorporation of neighborhood stabilization measures.

Chapter four deals with the resurgent foreclosures in the metropolitan Atlanta counties’ housing market from 2000 to 2010 and the lessons and challenges for public policy. It identifies the proximate factors responsible for the resurgence or spike in home foreclosure filings in the United States and metro Atlanta counties during the study period. The impacts of home-foreclosure spikes on mortgage lenders, communities, neighborhoods, households, consumers, and different ethnic groups are explored and explained. Some policy recommendations and solutions are also proffered.

Chapter five deals with recent US federal policies on the home foreclosure crisis and their potential mixed impacts on borrowers and the economy. It presents the congressional policies put in place to mitigate the prevailing but damaging foreclosure crisis. It analyzes those policies from relevant documents to identify their mixed impacts (costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages) on borrowers and the economy at large. It proffers some recommendations for a sustainable housing industry and vibrant economy.

Chapter six deals with the metro Atlanta housing industry recovery from 2010 to 2013 and asks, Is this a temporary perturbation or long-term trend? At this time many Americans saw the US economy as either a half-full or half-empty glass. Based upon the housing indicators at the time, was the rearview mirror indicator reflecting the US economy either picking up or slowing down? Was the housing industry recovery short term (a perturbation or aberration, or rather, was this a long-term trend? The chapter analyzes housing industry activities, especially in metro Atlanta, Georgia, from 2010 through 2013, to ascertain whether the prevailing housing recovery was pointing toward a long-term trend.

Chapter seven deals with the reality of the national housing market recovery and specifically the case of the Atlanta metropolis from 2010 to 2015. It confirms without equivocation and ambiguity the reality of the housing market recovery, especially in metro Atlanta, by analyzing some socioeconomic determinants or variables. The determinants include, among others, the historical annual inflation rate; the historical annual interest rate; the gross domestic product (GDP); per capita (personal) income; population growth; civilian labor force status; the employment rate; the unemployment rate; the home price index; the homeownership rate, by ethnicity; the homeowner vacancy rate; the rental vacancy rate; annual building permits (building starts); annual foreclosure filings (included completed foreclosures); and per-number-of-homes foreclosure rates.

Chapter eight deals with the US housing market's post-2015 recovery realities and predictions. It presents US housing market realities in the post-2015 recoveries, as well as predictions for the future market based on the prevailing economic situation and performance. The question is whether the prevailing high-pressure economy (courtesy of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta) should be allowed to continue in a supercharged labor market, especially from 2017, which could spark inflation and inflate the financial bubbles as noted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. This situation requires that the Fed should meticulously watch the Phillips curve for appropriate trade-off policy choices between the rate of unemployment and rate of inflation. Several proximate variables are analyzed to support the prevailing housing realities in the country since 2015 and to help predict future housing-market performance in an ever-changing US economy.

Chapter nine deals with a summary of the US housing-industry crisis and recovery.

Two chapters in this book have been published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. They are chapters three and six, published in International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences and American International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences respectively. They granted permission for nonexclusive world rights in all languages. I am grateful for their permission.

Chapter One

Introduction

T

he second half of the 2000s witnessed foreclosure plagues that were widespread nationwide. The plagues were triggered by increases in foreclosure activities, foreclosure rates, and foreclosure filings. Notably home foreclosures were costly to lenders, borrowers, and communities, especially minority communities and neighborhoods. In fact, African American and Latino borrowers were particularly hit hard and were a set of homeowners very ill-suited to handle the foreclosure menace. Foreclosures created a smaller base of property taxes and less spending by individuals, which caused a drop in sales revenues. During this period building permits and housing starts by states and cities slowed down considerably and drastically dragged down revenues. The above phenomena were because of the slowdown in spending on building materials and furnishings as well as decline in financial markets. Consequently, the real-estate business went into a deep depression and lost its allure of the past decades. As witnessed by many Americans, a great deal of disparities and differences existed among regions, states, and metropolitan areas in home foreclosure impacts.

Reasons for Choosing the Atlanta Metropolitan Area for Special Reference

According to Realty Trac's US Foreclosure Market Report in 2010, the state of Georgia maintained the sixth- to eighth-highest state foreclosure rate since 2007 Realty Trac 2009). The Atlanta metropolitan area had the seventeenth-highest foreclosure rate among US metropolitan areas (Realty Trac 2009). Using the data reported by the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), researchers found that the number of subprime loans (deceptive, teaser, and liar loans) that originated in Atlanta increased over 500 percent by 1999 (HUD 2000). According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution series published in 1988, Atlanta lenders in 1986 originated six times more home-purchase loans per owner-occupied housing unit in predominantly White neighborhoods as in Black neighborhoods (HUD 2000; Wyly and Holloway 1999). HMDA data of lenders that primarily originate subprime loans further revealed that subprime loans were three times more likely in low-income neighborhoods in Atlanta than in upper-income neighborhoods; subprime loans were almost five times more likely in Black neighborhoods than in White neighborhoods; and homeowners in moderate-income Black neighborhoods in Atlanta were almost twice as likely as homeowners in low-income White neighborhoods to have subprime loans (HUD 2000; Immergluck and Wiles 1999).

In Atlanta there are more minorities (African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, etc.) in urban counties in absolute terms, although minority growth rates, in relative terms, are higher in suburban counties. Of all metro areas in the country, Atlanta metro, which boasts almost half of the state of Georgia's overall population, had one of the nation's highest numerical gains in population from 2001 to 2007. Thus, there was the possibility of overindulging in home construction (i.e., overbuilding) that might have contributed to the home bubble, burst, and foreclosure surge of the late 2000s (Lockhart 2008). Therefore, it became pertinent to study the dynamics of the Atlanta metro area housing-industry markets that mimicked the national housing market to effectively deal with national home-foreclosure problems, which also disproportionately impacted more minority and low-income communities, neighborhoods, households, and consumers

The Purpose of the Study

This is a premier explanatory study on the aftermath of the Great Recession in the US economy brought about by the housing market crisis of the mid-2000s. The study analyzes, explains, and documents the state of the US economy, construction industry, and residential-market crisis and recovery from 2000 to 2019. The motivation emanated from the need to document the unprecedented housing market crisis (and recovery) and its negative effects on the hitherto seemingly formidable US economy. The expectation is that analysis of data and findings should yield some policy recommendations and suggestions on how to ameliorate the impacts of a weak economy and housing crisis on regions, cities, neighborhoods, groups, and individuals. The question is, what factors were responsible for the housing crisis, economic meltdown, and recoveries? What type of economic and housing policies should guarantee a Goldilocks economy in the United States? The Goldilocks economy is an economy that is just right, when growth is not too hot, causing inflation, nor too cold, creating a recession. Ideally it has a GDP growth rate of between 2 and 3 percent, the targets inflation set by the Federal Reserve (Fed) is 2 percent (Amadeo 2017). Thus, the study proffered some recommendations and solutions that are likely to help the economy and real-estate market to maintain an overall positive and protracted trend. The policy goal for corrective measures should be how to create enough demand to keep the economy humming at a healthy pace.

Focus of the Study

The focus of the study is the United States (US) and its economic and housing market performances during the study period, from 2000 to 2019, with special reference to the state of Georgia and the Atlanta metropolis.

The lessons from the Atlanta metropolitan area focus on the core twenty Atlanta metropolitan counties in the state of Georgia, which include: Barrow, Bartow, Carrol, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding, and Walton counties. The urban counties, with reference to the city of Atlanta, are Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, and Gwinnett. See below the map of the twenty-county metropolitan Atlanta.

For the congressional policies put in place to mitigate the damaging foreclosure crisis as well as the analysis of those policies to identify their costs and benefits (mixed impacts) on borrowers and the economy at large, the relevant documents studied include: the Legal National Mortgage Settlement (consent settlement), Servicing Reform Bill, Dodd-Frank Act or Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and Robert Menendez-Barbara Boxer Bill.

Significance of the Study

The significance of the study includes the fact that whatever lessons were learned about what caused the housing crisis and ensuing economic meltdown, the recovery policies, and programs, and how to guard against the crises happening in the future undoubtedly make the study a worthwhile effort. The study should likely help students of housing and economic development as well as policy makers at the national, regional, and local levels by equipping them with adequate knowledge of what led to the housing bubbles of the mid-2000s that overheated the economy, the policy instruments used to mitigate the economic and housing market problems when the bubbles busted, and the necessary proactive measures needed to protect the housing-industry market and economy.

Theoretical Framework for the Study

The hitherto formidable US capitalist economy notwithstanding, the laissez-faire philosophy of the housing industry in the 1990s and early 2000s created a crisis in the housing market, which cascaded the overall economy into the Great Recession of the mid-2000s. The specific market-correction policies and programs by the government afterward resuscitated and restored the housing market and overall economy, which are currently humming forward in a high-pressure mode after recovery.

In most capitalist environments, the pursuit of the economic well-being of nations, regions, and citizens over time is based on two broad theories of economic development, which include the pure-market or laissez-faire economic development model and the mixed-market economic-development model (Kuznets 1955; Myrdal 1957; Hirshman 1958; Williamson 1965; Hicks 1959; Muller 1993; Weimer and Vining 1999; Aka 2000; Koven and Lyons 2010).

In a pure-market or laissez-faire model of economic development, according to Adam Smith's book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), an invisible hand directs free and unfettered markets toward the goal of maximizing wealth in the society (Muller 1993; Koven and Lyons 2010). The critics of the pure laissez-faire theory of development cite the need for public (government) intervention in the market to address problems that fall in the category of market failure. Free-market economy has inherent contradictions that manifest themselves in economic crises, disparities, inequalities, and problems, which at times severely and disproportionately affect regions, cities, neighborhoods, ethnic groups, and income groups, especially if left to the equilibrating forces of the market. The issue of divergence and contradictions is always apparent and exaggerated rather than reduced if left to the invisible hands of market mechanism to redress (Kuznets 1955; Hirshman 1958; Williamson 1965; Aka 2000; Koven and Lyons 2010). Market failure, which calls for market corrections, occurs when the pursuit of private interests leads to an unacceptable distribution of society's goods and services (Weimer and Vining 1999, 74). Market failure includes the impacts of negative externalities, monopolies, information asymmetries, and collective goods and services excludability, and they are commonly recognized areas in which pure market principles may not be most beneficial (Koven and Lyons 2010, 32).

This study theorized that if convergence should be possible and contradictions ameliorated in a free-market economy like the United States, deliberate and consistent countervailing measures by the government should be taken to redress the problems (Myrdal 1957; Hicks 1959; Aka 2000; Koven and Lyons 2010). Thus, a mixed-market economy has grown out of government activism in response to some instances of failure of the pure laissez-faire market as well as the wish to stimulate economic competition and development. Several questions are posited (Koven and Lyons 2010, 29–30) about the role government should play in economic development and planning, such as: Does government help sustain growth, or does it inhibit vibrant economies? When or how government should intervene in the private sector, or should government intervene at all? What should be the proper target or appropriate focus of government intervention? Who should the government assist? Should it assist producers of goods, services, and profits, or should it assist consumers? Is it necessary to help declining communities and lower-income groups and minorities, or is public assistance better targeted to those who have the greatest ability to succeed? Will a rising economy help all to achieve their economic goals? Should government programs strive to be as neutral as possible, giving no group special benefits and forcing everyone to compete under the same rules? What is the role of government in protecting citizens from unintended consequences of economic development? These and related questions are addressed in this book, The U.S Economy, Construction Industry, and Residential Market Crisis and Recovery, 2000–2019: Lessons from the State of Georgia and the Atlanta Metropolis, about the US economy and its housing-industry market.

Although housing is not a collective good that is nonexcludable, the costs of its exclusion to some underprivileged and vulnerable groups by mortgage originators, servicers, and securitizers calls for government intervention. The costs of exclusion include residential discrimination and segregation, urban blight, and dilapidated structures of those who could not afford adequate housing, high rates of home foreclosures, and economic recession at worst. The government intervenes in the economy to control the impacts of negative externalities on society, such as unsightliness of dilapidated houses of the poor, low-income, and minorities in well-kept neighborhoods. An externality is an impact on someone who did not consent to the impact through participation in voluntary exchange (Koven and Lyons 2010, 34). To avoid private firms unfairly transferring the cost of negative externalities to others, there are various public remedies, which include the use of fines, the subsidization of abatement expenditures, legal systems put in place to sue for damages through class-action lawsuits on behalf of injured individuals, and adequate regulations. Regulations should prevent mortgage originators, servicers, and securitizers that monopolize housing market from being manipulative and abusive to individuals, consumers, low-income and minority groups, and neighborhoods. In fact, the absence of adequate regulations on the finance industry was blamed for most of the steep recession that began after the mid-2000s. Pure market is not always the best answer to information asymmetries or imperfect information between producers and servicers of mortgages and the consumers who do not have equal access to information and may be unaware of the risks and therefore cannot properly assess their options. The above problems disproportionately affect low-income and minority groups, who are ill-suited and ill-prepared to deal with the crises in housing and the overall economy. Remedies by the government include the stimulation of markets through either supply-side or demand-side economic development strategies. The supply-side strategy assists producers and the market, then rewards the efficient producers and believes that benefits to producers and suppliers will eventually benefit (trickle down to) all others in the economy as well. The demand-side focus targets consumers, and the aim is to increase economic activity by encouraging greater consumption of goods and services, especially by low-income and minority groups (Koven and Lyons 2010, 38).

The above issues are relevant in the discussion of the US free-market economy and its housing-industry market problems during the study period. Since the housing market is cyclical and seasonal in a boom-bust economy, the problems that should emanate during the phases of bear market or bull market should require deliberate countervailing policies of the government for market corrections. Both bear and bull markets could lead to contradictions, disparities, inequalities, and other problems, which if not deliberately attended to may lead to economic downturn and recessions.

A bull market in a business cycle could lead to irrational behaviors by the investors to overbid asset (e.g., stocks, bonds, gold, and other commodities such as housing) prices which are likely to lead to asset bubble. In a free-market economy like the United States, if there are no deliberate market corrections, the bubble will inevitably burst, crashing the prices and overall economy. In the United States, housing is an asset that often rises in price and value over time. For over a period from the 1990s to the mid-2000s, when prices rose very high, mortgage originators and servicers believed that the prices would always go up, then went into a state of irrational exuberance, bidding prices way above the underlying values. The process created a housing bubble in the mid-2000s, and without proper and adequate regulations in place, the bubble burst and crashed the prices, which sent the overall economy into a tailspin and ultimately led to the Great Recession. The bear market is when the investor or consumer confidence collapses because of the bursting of the asset bubble, and prices continue to fall over an extended period; they believe prices will continue to fall, and when prices fall 20 percent or more, the asset class inevitably descends into a bear market, which may lead to an economic recession (Amadeo 2017).

For economic-growth-and-development-planning purposes, the economists, development experts, and policy makers often look up to the construction industry, including its residential component, for clues about the overall economy. The industry is one of the first to go into a recession when the economy declines and, likewise, the first to recover as conditions improve (Associated General Contractors of America 2016). As mentioned earlier, construction is a major contributor to the US economy, especially its value, spending, and employment, including also the residential values associated with housing permits and starts that constitute the housing market. They all affect the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) in one way or the other.

The housing and financial crises and economic recession during the study period started in 2007. The national economy entered a recession in 2008 and a depression in 2009, which was also the height of global economic trauma and financial panic. The crises were brought about by the housing bubble and burst at the middle of the 2000s, precipitated by the unsustainable lending abuses by mortgage servicers that severely hurt homeowners, investors, taxpayers, low-income and minority groups, and the overall economy. By 2010 the economy had started to recover due to the corrective measures put in place by the governments and has continued to do so ever since as reflected by the gross domestic product, construction and residential sector, and housing market.

Methodology for the Study

The research is both explanatory and longitudinal in approach. Several proximate and recursive socioeconomic variables are analyzed to support the debate that the construction and residential sector has a great deal of positive and negative effects or influence on the economic or business cycle in the United States. Such socioeconomic variables include, among others, population and demographic trends in the areas; private consumption expenditures; government consumption expenditures; gross domestic product (GDP); per capita income; GDP from construction; net exports; net inventories; interest rates; annual inflation rates; consumer confidence; housing permits and, by implication, housing starts; home prices; construction value, spending, and employment; residential value; gross private domestic investment; fixed investment; residential fixed investment; nonresidential fixed investment; and private and public constructions. It was hypothesized that the construction and residential sector influenced both leading and lagging economic indicators in the US economy, which caused the bull and bear markets during the study period. This sector mimicked the overall economy during the boom-bust periods from 2000 to 2015.

Secondary data were collected from the US Census Bureau; Bureau of Economic Analysis; US Department of Commerce; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); American Community Survey; American Housing Survey; Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index; US Bureau of Economic Analysis; New York Federal Reserve; St. Louis Federal Reserve; and US Bureau of Labor Statistics. The data were analyzed using simple descriptive statistics, such as totals, averages, ratios, and percentages.

To determine the occurrence of housing foreclosures and their effects on mortgage lenders, counties, communities, neighborhoods, households, and consumers during the study period, there were both longitudinal and cross-sectional analyses on the variables of annual foreclosure filings, homeownership rates, mortgage interest rates, subprime mortgages, population growth rates, building permits, employment/unemployment rates, mortgage securitization, and race.

There was the use of quantitative and qualitative data from secondary data sources such as the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), the US Census Bureau, the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA), the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), RealtyTrac's US Foreclosure Market Reports, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL), CBS's 60 Minutes documentation, journal articles, and other internet sources. Simple descriptive statistics are also used in data analysis, such as frequency distributions, totals, averages, percentages, charts, maps, and graphs.

Since the mid-2010s, the US economy has been in the expansion phase of the business cycle, with the attendant bull market reflecting investors and consumers’ attitudes and responses to the prevailing favorable economic and political conditions. The gross domestic product (GDP) has been growing as well as the asset class, such as stocks, bonds, gold, and