united states government accountability office …2010/05/14 · washington, dc 20548 gao-10-633r...

GAO-10-633R Nonprime Negative Equity

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

May 14, 2010 The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney Chair Joint Economic Committee House of Representatives The Honorable Charles E. Schumer Vice Chairman Joint Economic Committee United States Senate Subject: State-Level Information on Negative Home Equity and Loan Performance

in the Nonprime Mortgage Market The decline of home prices in many parts of the country has left millions of homeowners with negative home equity, meaning that their outstanding mortgage balances exceed the current value of their homes. As we reported to you previously, a substantial proportion of borrowers with active nonprime mortgages (including subprime and Alt-A loans) had negative equity in their homes as of June 30, 2009.1 For example, among the 16 metropolitan areas examined, we estimated that the percentage of nonprime borrowers with negative equity ranged from about 9 percent (Denver, Colorado) to more than 90 percent (Las Vegas, Nevada). Research indicates that negative home equity substantially increases the risk of mortgage delinquency, making it an important dimension of ongoing problems in the nonprime market. To provide insight into how negative equity and loan performance among nonprime borrowers have varied by location and over time, this report examines, at the state level, the estimated proportion of nonprime borrowers with active loans that were in a negative equity position and the proportion that were seriously delinquent on their loan payments from 2006 through the end of 2009.2 This report is part of our broader examination of the evolution and condition of the nonprime market segment.3 As agreed with your offices, in a subsequent report we will provide more detailed 1GAO, Loan Performance and Negative Home Equity in the Nonprime Mortgage Market, GAO-10-146R (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 16, 2009). 2We considered loans to be seriously delinquent if borrowers were 90 days or more late on their mortgage payments or in the foreclosure process. 3See GAO-10-146R and GAO, Characteristics and Performance of Nonprime Mortgages, GAO-09-848R (Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2009).

http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-10-146R




information on the performance of nonprime mortgages through the end of 2009, the influence of nonprime loan and borrower characteristics and economic conditions on the likelihood of mortgage default, and the features and limitations of primary sources of data on nonprime mortgage performance and borrower characteristics. To conduct our work, we used data from CoreLogic’s (formerly LoanPerformance) Asset-Backed Securities Database for nonprime loans originated from 2000 through 2007 and CoreLogic’s state-level Single Family Combined House Price Index (CoreLogic index). The CoreLogic database contains loan-level data on a large majority of nonagency securitized mortgages in subprime and Alt-A pools.4 For example, for the period January 2001 through July 2007 the CoreLogic database contains information covering, in dollar terms, an estimated 87 percent of securitized subprime loans and 98 percent of securitized Alt-A loans. Researchers have found that nonprime mortgages that were not securitized (i.e., mortgages that lenders held in their portfolios) may have less risky characteristics and better performance histories than those that were securitized. For purposes of our analysis, we defined a subprime loan as a loan in a subprime pool and an Alt-A loan as a loan in an Alt-A pool.5 We focused our analysis on first-lien purchase and refinance mortgages for one-to-four-family residential units. We included only loans that were active in a given quarter; loans that were inactive because they had been paid off or had completed the foreclosure process were excluded. The CoreLogic index, like other house price indexes, measures house price changes in a geographic area based on sales of the same properties at different points in time. The use of repeat transactions on the same homes helps to control for differences in the quality of the houses in the data. The CoreLogic index is based on all usable transactions from CoreLogic’s public record, servicing, and securities databases of single family attached and detached homes with all types of financing, including prime and nonprime loans.6

4Nonagency mortgage-backed securities (MBS), also known as private-label MBS, are backed by nonconforming conventional mortgages securitized primarily by investment banks. Nonconforming mortgages are those that do not meet the purchase requirements of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac because they are too large or do not meet their underwriting criteria. About 75 percent of subprime and Alt-A mortgages originated from 2001 through 2007 were securitized. 5The CoreLogic database has a loan-level indicator for loan class (i.e., subprime or Alt-A), but it is not well populated. Therefore, we used the pool-level classification. According to mortgage researchers, some of the loans in subprime pools may not be subprime loans, and some of the loans in Alt-A pools may not be Alt-A loans. 6Single family attached and detached homes include condominiums, townhouses, and cooperatives. Newly constructed homes are necessarily excluded from the index because they have not been sold repeatedly. The CoreLogic index uses a value-weighted regression model that gives greater weight to price trends for more expensive homes than other homes. To limit the influence of atypical changes in the value of individual homes, the CoreLogic index also excludes certain transactions, such as nonarms length sales, those with outlier prices, closely spaced sales that may represent investor churning or “flipping,” and sales with unusually high appreciation rates that likely indicate significant property improvements.


To estimate the proportion of nonprime borrowers with active loans that had negative equity, we used the CoreLogic index to adjust the appraised value of each home at loan origination to an estimated value at the end of each quarter from March 2006 through December 2009, the most recent quarterly data that we could analyze within the time frames of our review. We then subtracted the unpaid mortgage balance from the estimated house value as of each quarter to estimate the borrower’s home equity. We divided the number of nonprime borrowers with negative home equity by the total number of active nonprime loans in each quarter to determine the proportion with negative equity (negative equity rate).7 Due to data limitations, our analysis did not account for nonprime borrowers with second liens or multiple mortgaged properties.8 Additionally, the CoreLogic index that we used represents price trends at the state level. Depending on the degree to which homes financed with nonprime loans were concentrated in areas with house price trends that differed from statewide trends, our estimates could overstate or understate the number of nonprime borrowers with negative equity. To determine the proportion of nonprime borrowers that were seriously delinquent on their mortgage payments, we divided the number of nonprime loans that were more than 90 days past due or were in the foreclosure process by the total number of active nonprime loans in each quarter (serious delinquency rate). In addition, we analyzed the extent to which changes in estimated negative equity rates were associated with changes in serious delinquency rates from the first quarter of 2006 through the end of 2009. Specifically, we measured the statistical correlation between percentage point changes in the estimated proportion of nonprime borrowers with negative equity in each state and the proportion of nonprime borrowers that were seriously delinquent in each state.9 We assessed the reliability of the data used in this report by reviewing documentation on the process CoreLogic uses to collect and ensure the reliability and integrity of the data and by conducting reasonableness checks on data elements to identify any missing, erroneous, or outlying data. We also interviewed CoreLogic representatives to discuss the interpretation of various data fields. We concluded that the data we used were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We conducted this engagement in Washington, D.C., and Chicago, Illinois, from March 2010 through May 2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards

7Our analysis focused on whether or not a nonprime borrower was in a negative equity position. We did not estimate the extent to which a nonprime borrower’s outstanding loan balance exceeded the estimated value of the home, a factor that could affect the probability of serious delinquency for a given loan. 8To the extent that nonprime borrowers had second liens, our analysis may understate the extent of negative home equity. To the extent that some nonprime borrowers had more than one mortgaged property, our results may overstate the actual number of individual nonprime borrowers with negative home equity. 9Correlation is the degree to which two variables’ movements are associated. Our analysis used a statistical measure of association—the Pearson’s correlation coefficient—which ranges in value from negative 1 to positive 1, with negative 1 indicating a perfect negative correlation, 0 an absence of correlation, and positive 1 a perfect positive correlation.


require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. Summary

For most states and the District of Columbia, the estimated percentage of nonprime borrowers with active loans that were in a negative equity position increased from 2006 through mid-2008 and then remained fairly stable through the end of 2009. Growth in negative equity rates during that period varied widely among the states. Negative equity rates rose by at least 30 percentage points in 7 states, by 10 to 29.9 percentage points in 17 states, and by 5 to 9.9 percentage points in 9 states. Eighteen states’ negative equity rates grew by less than 5 percentage points, including 3 states where the percentage of nonprime borrowers with negative equity increased negligibly.

For all states and the District of Columbia, the percentage of nonprime borrowers that were seriously delinquent—90 days or more late in payments or in the foreclosure process—increased from the first quarter of 2006 through the end of 2009, with growth ranging from 5.3 percentage points in Louisiana to 43.3 percentage points in Florida. Additionally, across all states and the District of Columbia, our measures for increases in estimated negative equity and serious delinquency rates exhibited a positive statistical correlation. Consistent with this observation, 6 of the 10 states that experienced the largest percentage point increases in negative equity rates also were among the 10 states with the largest percentage point increases in serious delinquency rates. However, the remaining 4 states ranked from 12th to 26th in their increases in serious delinquency rates. Background

The nonprime mortgage market has two segments:

• Subprime. Generally serves borrowers with blemished or limited credit

histories, and the loans feature higher interest rates and fees than prime loans. • Alt-A. Generally serves borrowers whose credit histories are close to prime,

but the loans have one or more high-risk features, such as limited documentation of income or assets or the option of making monthly payments that are lower than would be required for a fully amortizing loan.

Active mortgages can fall into any one of several payment categories:

• Current. The borrower is meeting scheduled payments. • Delinquent. The borrower has missed one or more scheduled payments.


• Default. The borrower is 90 days or more delinquent.10 At this point,

foreclosure proceedings against the borrower become a strong possibility. • In the foreclosure process. The borrower has been delinquent for more than

90 days, and the lender has elected to foreclose in what is an often lengthy process with several possible outcomes. For instance, the borrower may sell the property or the lender may repossess the home.

In this report, we describe borrowers whose mortgages are in default or in the foreclosure process as “seriously delinquent.” Typically, home equity—that is, the difference between the value of a property and the amount still owed on the mortgage—increases over time as the mortgage balance is paid down and home values appreciate. However, if the home value falls below the mortgage balance, the borrower will be in a position of negative equity. Borrowers with nonprime loans may be particularly vulnerable to negative equity because they typically make small down payments and thus have less equity at the outset than a typical prime borrower. Also, some nonprime borrowers have loans with payment options that allow them to defer payment of accrued interest, thereby increasing the outstanding loan balance and decreasing equity. In general, lower levels of home equity (as a percentage of home value) are associated with relatively poorer loan performance. Homeowners with negative equity may find it difficult to sell or refinance the property to avoid foreclosure. They may also have incentives to stop making mortgage payments to minimize their financial losses. Across States, Negative Home Equity Generally Increased from 2006 through

Mid-2008 before Leveling Off, While Serious Delinquency Rates Continued to

Grow through the End of 2009

Estimated Rates of Negative Equity Generally Increased through Mid-2008 and Then Remained Relatively Stable The estimated percentage of nonprime borrowers in a negative equity position generally increased from 2006 through mid-2008, with negative equity rates holding more steady through the end of 2009.11 Across all states and the District of Columbia, the estimated percentage of nonprime borrowers with negative equity increased from 13 percent in the first quarter of 2006 to 35 percent in the first quarter of 2008, and

10There is no uniform definition of default across the lending industry. For purposes of this report, we use the definition provided. 11Our quarterly estimates of negative equity include only borrowers whose loans were active at the end of each quarter.


then remained between 36 and 37 percent through the end of 2009 (see fig. 1).12 The number of nonprime borrowers in a negative equity position increased from about 940,000 in the first quarter of 2006 to about 2.52 million at the end of 2007, and then declined to about 1.86 million by the end of 2009.13 The percentage of nonprime borrowers with negative equity remained relatively stable while the number with negative equity decreased because the total number of active nonprime loans also decreased from mid-2007 through the end of 2009, as mortgages were prepaid or completed foreclosure. Figure 1: Estimated Number and Percentage of Nonprime Borrowers with Negative Home Equity from March 31, 2006, through December 31, 2009 Number of borrowers in millions Percentage

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Q4Q3Q2Q1Q4Q3Q2Q1Q4Q3Q2Q1Q4Q3Q2Q1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Source: GAO analysis of CoreLogic loan data and CoreLogic's state-level house price index.

2006

Estimated number of borrowers

Estimated percentage

2007 2008 2009

Note: The analysis includes nonprime loans originated from 2000 through 2007, so the number of active nonprime loans increased from about 7 million in the first quarter of 2006 to nearly 8.4 million in the second quarter of 2007. As loans became inactive as a result of prepayment and completed foreclosures, the number of active nonprime loans decreased to about 5.1 million by the end of 2009. The decrease in the number of active loans accounts for the stable percentage of nonprime borrowers with negative equity even as the number decreased.

12Using a different house price index, we previously estimated that 25 percent of borrowers who obtained nonprime mortgages from 2000 through 2007 and whose loans were active as of June 30, 2009, had negative equity as of that date (see GAO-10-146R). That estimate used the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s (FHFA) All-Transactions Index for 384 metropolitan areas covering approximately 84 percent of the U.S. population. The FHFA index does not include data for homes with certain types of financing, including subprime mortgages. We noted that our estimates using the FHFA index likely understated the extent of negative equity among nonprime borrowers. The CoreLogic state-level house price index, by contrast, includes all types of financing and transactions outside of metropolitan areas. 13At the end of 2009, 66 percent of the borrowers with negative equity had mortgages on homes in Arizona, California, Florida, and Nevada, the four states with the largest percentage point increases in negative equity rates.



The extent to which estimated negative equity rates increased varied widely among the states. Seven states had an increase of at least 30 percentage points from the first quarter of 2006 through the end of 2009 (see fig. 2). The largest increases occurred in Arizona and Florida, each of which saw negative equity rates rise by 44 percentage points (from 24 percent to 68 percent in Arizona and from 28 percent to 72 percent in Florida). Eighteen states had an increase of less than 5 percentage points during the period—including North Dakota, South Dakota, and Oklahoma, which had negligible increases of less than 1 percentage point. Across all states, the median increase was about 9 percentage points, represented by South Carolina (rising from 1.6 percent to 10.4 percent).14 In general, the states’ negative equity rates grew through the second quarter of 2008 and then held relatively steady through the end of 2009.15 For example, California’s negative equity rate increased by 4.2 percentage points per quarter from the first quarter of 2006 through the second quarter of 2008 (rising from 23.5 to 60.9 percent), and then grew just slightly (0.06 percentage points per quarter) to end 2009 at 61.3 percent. See Enclosure I for quarterly information on the estimated number and percentage of nonprime borrowers with negative equity in each state from 2006 through 2009.

14That is, South Carolina ranked in the middle (26th) among the 50 states and the District of Columbia in the increase in negative equity rates. 15Some states experienced a modest decrease in their negative equity rates from the second quarter of 2008 through the end of 2009. For example, Hawaii’s rate decreased by 0.4 percentage points, Kentucky’s decreased by 0.2 percentage points, and Mississippi’s decreased by 0.9 percentage points.


Figure 2: Percentage Point Change in the Estimated Percentage of Nonprime Borrowers with Negative Home Equity by State, March 31, 2006, through December 31, 2009

Source: GAO analysis of CoreLogic loan data and CoreLogic's state-level house price index; MapInfo (map).

>0 to 4.9 percentage points

5.0 to 9.9 percentage points



30.0 or more percentage points

Note: Our quarterly estimates of negative equity include only nonprime borrowers whose loans were active at the end of each quarter.

Serious Delinquency Rates Rose from 2006 through 2009, and Some States with the Most Growth in Negative Equity Rates Were Among Those with the Most Growth in Serious Delinquency Rates From 2006 through 2009, serious delinquency rates among nonprime borrowers increased in all states and the District of Columbia. Across the states, the serious delinquency rate—the percentage of nonprime borrowers with active loans that were at least 90 days delinquent or in foreclosure—increased throughout the period, from 4 percent (280,000 loans) in the first quarter of 2006 to 28 percent (1.4 million loans) at the end of 2009. Among the states, the growth in serious delinquency rates ranged from 5 percentage points (Louisiana) to 43 percentage points (Florida). Michigan’s increase of 17.1 percentage points represented the median change. Enclosure I includes quarterly information on serious delinquencies in each state from 2006 through 2009.


Across all states and the District of Columbia, our measures for increases in estimated negative equity and serious delinquency rates exhibited a positive statistical correlation.16 Consistent with this observation, 6 of the 10 states with the largest percentage point increases in negative equity rates from 2006 through 2009 also were among the 10 states with the largest percentage point increases in serious delinquency rates over that same period.17 For example, Arizona experienced the largest increase in negative equity rate (rising by 44.3 percentage points over the 4-year period) and the fifth largest increase in serious delinquency rate (rising 28.7 percentage points) (see fig. 3). However, the remaining 4 states ranked from 12th to 26th in their increases in serious delinquency rates.18

Figure 3: Estimated Percentage of Nonprime Borrowers with Negative Home Equity and Seriously Delinquent in Arizona, March 31, 2006, through December 31, 2009

Negative equity

Serious delinquency

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Percentage


2006 2007 2008 2009

In addition, 5 of the 10 states with the smallest growth in negative equity rates also were among the 10 with the smallest growth in serious delinquency rates.19 North Dakota, for instance, had virtually no increase in its negative equity rate from 2006 through 2009 (0.2 percentage points) and the fourth smallest increase in serious 16Specifically, the correlation coefficient between our measures for increases in negative equity rates and serious delinquency rates was 0.72. (The correlation coefficient is a statistical measure of association, with a value of 1 indicating a perfect positive correlation.) 17The six states were Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, and Nevada. 18The four states were Idaho, Michigan, Rhode Island, and Virginia. 19The five states were Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.


delinquency rate (10.5 percentage points) (see fig. 4). However, the remaining 5 states (including the District of Columbia) ranked from 11th to 41st in their increases in serious delinquency rates.20

Figure 4: Estimated Percentage of Nonprime Borrowers with Negative Home Equity and Seriously Delinquent in North Dakota, March 31, 2006, through December 31, 2009

Negative equity

Serious delinquency

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Percentage


2006 2007 2008 2009

Research has shown that negative equity is one of several factors that affect loan performance. As previously noted, in a forthcoming report, we will examine the influence of a broader range of factors—including loan and borrower characteristics and economic conditions—on the likelihood of mortgage default. __________________________________________________________________________ As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to interested congressional parties and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

20The five were the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, and Montana.


http://www.gao.gov/

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8678 or [email protected]. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. In addition to the individual named above, Steve Westley (Assistant Director), William Bates, Jan Bauer, Julianne Dieterich, DuEwa Kamara, John McGrail, Marc Molino, Bob Pollard, and Jennifer Schwartz made key contributions to this report.

William B. Shear Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment Enclosure


Enclosure I: Estimated Negative Equity and Serious Delinquency Rates by

State and Quarter from 2006 through 2009

Figure 5 contains the results of our analysis of the extent to which borrowers with active nonprime mortgages were estimated to be in a negative equity position or were seriously delinquent on their payments—that is, they were 90 days or more late on payments or were in the foreclosure process. The analysis uses CoreLogic’s loan-level data and the CoreLogic state-level house price index and covers nonprime mortgages originated from 2000 through 2007. Due to data limitations, we could not identify borrowers with multiple mortgaged properties. For purposes of this analysis, we treat the number of borrowers and the number of loans as equal. To the extent that some nonprime borrowers had more than one mortgaged property, our results may overstate the number of individual nonprime borrowers with negative equity. For additional information on the methodology for this analysis, see pages 2 and 3.


Figure 5: Nonprime Borrowers with Negative Equity and Seriously Delinquent Loans by State and Quarter, 2006 through 2009


66,043

69,426

72,756

75,749

78,174

78,222

74,314

70,271

66,014

62,150

58,877

56,183

53,510

51,228

49,156

47,390

253

591

1,026

1,433

1,868

2,361

2,433

2,444

2,443

2,423

2,416

2,393

2,325

2,259

2,156

2,047

4,409

4,496

4,917

5,468

5,122

5,581

6,367

7,120

7,046

7,050

7,313

8,074

8,161

8,609

9,052

9,441

6.7

6.5

6.8

7.2

6.6

7.1

8.6

10.1

10.7

11.3

12.4

14.4

15.3

16.8

18.4

19.9

%0.4

0.9

1.4

1.9

2.4

3.0

3.3

3.5

3.7

3.9

4.1

4.3

4.3

4.4

4.4

4.3

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

Number of borrowers Percentage of borrowers

With activeloans

With negativeequity(estimated)

Seriouslydelinquent

With negative equity(estimated)

Seriously delinquentAlabama

7,388

7,970

8,485

8,965

9,295

9,433

8,927

8,340

7,716

7,133

6,698

6,383

6,015

5,710

5,426

5,184

26

58

105

146

230

306

332

343

342

315

297

292

282

267

257

245

189

211

261

274

311

377

452

462

533

599

573

573

686

771

820

814

2.6

2.6

3.1

3.1

3.3

4.0

5.1

5.5

6.9

8.4

8.6

9.0

11.4

13.5

15.1

15.7

%0.4

0.7

1.2

1.6

2.5

3.2

3.7

4.1

4.4

4.4

4.4

4.6

4.7

4.7

4.7

4.7

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

Alaska

Figure continued on next page



250,669

263,808

278,330

290,056

304,221

313,893

301,036

285,604

268,869

251,238

234,256

219,628

205,511

191,908

179,696

169,016

60,434

81,307

104,068

124,323

145,515

167,351

171,296

172,180

170,713

165,159

157,036

148,678

140,407

131,626

123,239

115,576

2,329

2,661

4,039

6,358

8,272

11,429

17,281

25,876

31,438

35,217

38,675

45,771

49,669

49,616

49,883

50,139

0.9

1.0

1.5

2.2

2.7

3.6

5.7

9.1

11.7

14.0

16.5

20.8

24.2

25.9

27.8

29.7

%24.1

30.8

37.4

42.9

47.8

53.3

56.9

60.3

63.5

65.7

67.0

67.7

68.3

68.6

68.6

68.4

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009


With activeloans


Seriouslydelinquent


Seriously delinquentArizona

26,943

28,141

29,159

30,221

31,244

32,000

30,501

28,950

27,295

25,798

24,532

23,476

22,498

21,581

20,792

20,095

207

418

657

899

1,141

1,365

1,405

1,415

1,411

1,384

1,360

1,327

1,273

1,219

1,164

1,126

1,494

1,560

1,778

1,996

2,005

2,224

2,612

2,980

2,911

2,915

3,097

3,237

3,274

3,321

3,546

3,738

5.5

5.5

6.1

6.6

6.4

7.0

8.6

10.3

10.7

11.3

12.6

13.8

14.6

15.4

17.1

18.6

%0.8

1.5

2.3

3.0

3.7

4.3

4.6

4.9

5.2

5.4

5.5

5.7

5.7

5.6

5.6

5.6

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

Arkansas




1,393,739

1,436,446

1,497,959

1,557,729

1,618,116

1,660,868

1,602,499

1,527,338

1,439,545

1,345,041

1,258,514

1,197,317

1,139,357

1,076,878

1,024,339

976,522

327,653

418,205

525,337

629,943

730,228

835,340

860,913

866,385

859,456

819,290

769,797

734,364

702,661

664,010

630,152

598,342

17,551

23,109

34,584

51,901

66,909

90,456

129,363

179,176

214,118

227,611

231,392

263,312

295,535

301,484

308,240

309,926

1.3

1.6

2.3

3.3

4.1

5.4

8.1

11.7

14.9

16.9

18.4

22

25.9

28.0

30.1

31.7

%23.5

29.1

35.1

40.4

45.1

50.3

53.7

56.7

59.7

60.9

61.2

61.3

61.7

61.7

61.5

61.3

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009


With activeloans


Seriouslydelinquent


Seriously delinquentCalifornia

190,855

196,712

201,457

206,397

209,060

207,172

196,009

183,880

172,297

162,451

153,535

146,052

139,274

132,319

126,302

120,889

2,151

2,959

4,307

5,659

6,868

8,499

8,914

9,058

8,850

8,458

8,074

7,772

7,366

6,744

6,418

6,156

8,051

8,277

9,511

11,556

12,239

12,640

13,683

15,250

15,669

16,157

15,353

15,970

17,119

18,134

18,955

19,308

4.2

4.2

4.7

5.6

5.9

6.1

7.0

8.3

9.1

9.9

10.0

10.9

12.3

13.7

15.0

16.0

%1.1

1.5

2.1

2.7

3.3

4.1

4.5

4.9

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.3

5.3

5.1

5.1

5.1

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

Colorado




78,883

80,912

83,505

85,530

87,695

89,238

85,334

80,821

76,450

72,430

69,087

66,520

64,240

61,873

59,704

57,749

5,428

7,466

9,909

12,055

13,956

16,287

16,877

17,060

16,973

16,705

16,574

16,421

16,120

15,511

15,087

14,728

2,859

3,125

3,843

4,769

5,147

5,950

7,319

8,645

9,516

9,842

10,546

11,963

13,073

13,947

15,204

16,363

3.6

3.9

4.6

5.6

5.9

6.7

8.6

10.7

12.4

13.6

15.3

18.0

20.4

22.5

25.5

28.3

%6.9

9.2

11.9

14.1

15.9

18.3

19.8

21.1

22.2

23.1

24.0

24.7

25.1

25.1

25.3

25.5

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009


With activeloans


Seriouslydelinquent


Seriously delinquentConnecticut

18,349

19,117

20,232

21,056

21,927

22,499

21,437

20,256

19,086

18,057

17,251

16,569

15,964

15,378

14,870

14,450

195

336

558

785

1,041

1,390

1,454

1,488

1,481

1,464

1,452

1,433

1,402

1,356

1,302

1,267

700

754

902

1,090

1,184

1,397

1,719

2,073

2,251

2,434

2,622

2,965

3,143

3,360

3,628

3,829

3.8

3.9

4.5

5.2

5.4

6.2

8.0

10.2

11.8

13.5

15.2

17.9

19.7

21.8

24.4

26.5

%1.1

1.8

2.8

3.7

4.7

6.2

6.8

7.3

7.8

8.1

8.4

8.6

8.8

8.8

8.8

8.8

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

Delaware




13,556

14,279

15,186

15,975

16,521

16,847

16,044

15,184

14,379

13,616

12,995

12,505

12,018

11,525

11,040

10,698

82

130

208

254

321

414

441

450

446

432

417

407

387

360

346

339

199

231

327

503

595

724

943

1,180

1,347

1,459

1,612

1,837

1,987

2,052

2,109

2,211

1.5

1.6

2.2

3.1

3.6

4.3

5.9

7.8

9.4

10.7

12.4

14.7

16.5

17.8

19.1

20.7

%0.6

0.9

1.4

1.6

1.9

2.5

2.7

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.2

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.1

3.2

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009


With activeloans


Seriouslydelinquent


Seriously delinquent

District ofColumbia

674,480

718,506

771,416

816,521

858,558

889,755

861,511

828,517

793,343

758,163

726,083

697,365

668,623

641,838

615,464

590,632

189,875

253,744

325,472

391,736

455,416

519,200

531,149

533,978

530,627

520,674

507,176

492,655

476,629

460,255

442,367

424,319

16,087

17,116

21,839

31,410

41,534

59,833

89,123

128,129

158,712

183,040

205,769

233,105

250,640

258,295

265,387

269,721

2.4

2.4

2.8

3.8

4.8

6.7

10.3

15.5

20.0

24.1

28.3

33.4

37.5

40.2

43.1

45.7

%28.2

35.3

42.2

48.0

53.0

58.4

61.7

64.5

66.9

68.7

69.9

70.6

71.3

71.7

71.9

71.8

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

Florida




248,154

260,866

274,104

285,691

293,092

294,337

279,569

262,943

246,510

232,692

221,129

211,277

202,014

193,825

186,390

179,534

16,058

20,209

26,534

32,266

38,606

45,092

46,461

46,870

46,407

45,464

44,532

43,675

42,172

40,149

38,736

37,523

12,020

12,853

15,359

18,371

18,941

21,618

25,219

28,492

29,047

29,377

30,350

33,879

35,477

37,377

40,021

42,383

4.8

4.9

5.6

6.4

6.5

7.3

9.0

10.8

11.8

12.6

13.7

16.0

17.6

19.3

21.5

23.6

%6.5

7.7

9.7

11.3

13.2

15.3

16.6

17.8

18.8

19.5

20.1

20.7

20.9

20.7

20.8

20.9

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009


With activeloans


Seriouslydelinquent


Seriously delinquentGeorgia

33,186

34,436

36,285

37,645

38,849

40,289

38,884

37,201

35,365

33,725

32,501

31,506

30,342

29,187

28,123

27,142

49

138

303

473

575

802

849

887

883

865

843

823

799

733

649

596

351

410

553

806

1,048

1,264

1,670

2,213

2,629

2,935

3,570

4,519

5,402

6,064

6,542

6,925

1.1

1.2

1.5

2.1

2.7

3.1

4.3

5.9

7.4

8.7

11.0

14.3

17.8

20.8

23.3

25.5

%0.1

0.4

0.8

1.3

1.5

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.6

2.6

2.6

2.5

2.3

2.2

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

Hawaii




38,986

41,043

42,956

45,126

46,712

47,158

44,684

42,053

39,346

36,842

34,890

33,293

31,508

29,778

28,224

26,767

1,287

3,008

5,007

7,068

9,194

11,566

12,057

12,220

12,194

12,081

11,894

11,726

11,426

10,854

10,285

9,743

761

761

854

1,072

1,216

1,430

1,893

2,488

2,928

3,134

3,577

4,389

4,961

5,397

5,638

5,619

2.0

1.9

2.0

2.4

2.6

3.0

4.2

5.9

7.4

8.5

10.3

13.2

15.7

18.1

20.0

21.0

%3.3

7.3

11.7

15.7

19.7

24.5

27.0

29.1

31.0

32.8

34.1

35.2

36.3

36.5

36.4

36.4

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009


With activeloans


Seriouslydelinquent


Seriously delinquentIdaho

265,717

275,236

285,198

291,620

296,968

297,740

280,788

261,732

244,188

228,493

216,023

206,161

197,355

188,519

181,216

174,749

20,386

28,174

38,808

49,727

61,007

72,645

74,864

75,334

74,856

73,495

72,273

71,237

69,725

66,854

65,108

63,587

14,768

16,108

19,120

23,029

24,196

27,194

32,957

38,222

40,305

41,408

43,292

47,414

50,173

52,246

55,919

58,667

5.6

5.9

6.7

7.9

8.1

9.1

11.7

14.6

16.5

18.1

20.0

23.0

25.4

27.7

30.9

33.6

%7.7

10.2

13.6

17.1

20.5

24.4

26.7

28.8

30.7

32.2

33.5

34.6

35.3

35.5

35.9

36.4

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

Illinois




124,601

128,730

132,245

134,667

137,193

136,111

129,015

121,978

114,902

107,865

101,874

96,751

92,424

88,286

84,593

81,466

10,737

13,366

16,522

19,325

22,326

25,200

25,701

25,854

25,732

24,819

23,912

23,024

21,926

20,686

19,879

19,222

11,555

12,047

12,915

14,262

14,328

15,237

16,972

18,900

18,547

17,993

18,015

18,407

18,277

18,715

19,091

19,290

9.3

9.4

9.8

10.6

10.4

11.2

13.2

15.5

16.1

16.7

17.7

19.0

19.8

21.2

22.6

23.7

%8.6

10.4

12.5

14.4

16.3

18.5

19.9

21.2

22.4

23.0

23.5

23.8

23.7

23.4

23.5

23.6

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009


With activeloans


Seriouslydelinquent


Seriously delinquentIndiana

34,071

34,642

35,255

35,755

36,281

35,976

33,612

31,307

29,358

27,554

26,033

24,794

23,622

22,635

21,713

20,891

171

241

362

485

561

608

628

628

625

561

561

554

514

471

453

447

2,397

2,508

2,815

3,098

2,975

3,199

3,662

3,956

3,940

3,826

3,842

3,906

3,781

3,811

3,964

4,142

7.0

7.2

8.0

8.7

8.2

8.9

10.9

12.6

13.4

13.9

14.8

15.8

16.0

16.8

18.3

19.8

%0.5

0.7

1.0

1.4

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.0

2.1

2.0

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.1

2.1

2.1

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

Iowa




38,605

39,556

40,282

40,931

41,075

40,568

38,244

35,959

33,776

31,699

30,057

28,713

27,504

26,253

25,170

24,196

856

1,208

1,665

2,082

2,525

3,008

3,123

3,140

3,137

3,065

2,995

2,928

2,801

2,710

2,597

2,487

2,044

2,147

2,243

2,582

2,486

2,647

2,913

3,237

3,151

3,128

3,101

3,369

3,353

3,458

3,718

3,799

5.3

5.4

5.6

6.3

6.1

6.5

7.6

9.0

9.3

9.9

10.3

11.7

12.2

13.2

14.8

15.7

%2.2

3.1

4.1

5.1

6.1

7.4

8.2

8.7

9.3

9.7

10.0

10.2

10.2

10.3

10.3

10.3

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009


With activeloans


Seriouslydelinquent


Seriously delinquentKansas

53,606

55,849

57,950

59,592

61,170

60,536

57,255

53,947

50,654

47,463

44,765

42,427

40,524

38,723

37,133

35,684

610

954

1,428

1,836

2,215

2,514

2,562

2,571

2,525

2,390

2,303

2,192

2,056

1,900

1,796

1,738

3,890

4,109

4,598

5,173

5,194

5,740

6,434

6,970

6,878

6,776

6,693

6,803

6,574

6,733

7,142

7,285

7.3

7.4

7.9

8.7

8.5

9.5

11.2

12.9

13.6

14.3

15.0

16.0

16.2

17.4

19.2

20.4

%1.1

1.7

2.5

3.1

3.6

4.2

4.5

4.8

5.0

5.0

5.1

5.2

5.1

4.9

4.8

4.9

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

Kentucky




57,946

59,327

61,079

62,442

63,736

64,273

61,310

58,506

55,432

52,642

50,445

48,685

47,005

45,491

44,060

42,832

174

359

650

1,032

1,349

1,640

1,692

1,706

1,696

1,621

1,601

1,598

1,508

1,431

1,422

1,392

10,691

8,661

7,922

7,702

6,981

6,793

7,027

7,597

7,398

7,492

7,952

8,563

8,354

8,647

9,400

10,165

18.4

14.6

13.0

12.3

11.0

10.6

11.5

13.0

13.3

14.2

15.8

17.6

17.8

19.0

21.3

23.7

%0.3

0.6

1.1

1.7

2.1

2.6

2.8

2.9

3.1

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.2

3.3

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009


With activeloans


Seriouslydelinquent


Seriously delinquentLouisiana

19,950

20,652

21,264

21,821

22,549

23,163

21,994

20,854

19,679

18,600

17,780

17,091

16,436

15,772

15,213

14,664

93

144

229

350

420

573

611

620

617

588

569

546

519

486

472

462

953

1,122

1,387

1,653

1,834

2,167

2,484

2,858

3,166

3,221

3,314

3,522

3,603

3,660

3,797

3,947

4.8

5.4

6.5

7.6

8.1

9.4

11.3

13.7

16.1

17.3

18.6

20.6

21.9

23.2

25.0

26.9

%0.5

0.7

1.1

1.6

1.9

2.5

2.8

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.1

3.1

3.2

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

Maine




166,555

174,591

185,017

192,580

201,872

206,749

195,745

183,743

171,413

161,994

155,307

149,385

142,977

136,653

131,508

126,717

7,912

15,377

25,114

35,041

45,486

56,024

57,965

58,586

58,343

57,925

57,391

56,811

56,052

53,955

52,168

50,372

2,858

3,379

4,622

6,289

7,285

9,711

13,381

17,569

19,943

22,573

26,379

30,400

32,376

33,242

35,142

36,273

1.7

1.9

2.5

3.3

3.6

4.7

6.8

9.6

11.6

13.9

17.0

20.4

22.6

24.3

26.7

28.6

%4.8

8.8

13.6

18.2

22.5

27.1

29.6

31.9

34.0

35.8

37.0

38.0

39.2

39.5

39.7

39.8

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009


With activeloans


Seriouslydelinquent


Seriously delinquentMaryland

122,395

125,077

128,304

131,021

134,003

135,646

129,094

121,824

114,471

108,067

103,170

99,268

95,736

92,244

89,035

85,826

12,072

14,463

17,116

19,452

21,367

23,455

23,679

23,572

23,064

22,295

21,710

21,202

20,560

19,265

18,721

18,182

4,941

5,658

7,162

9,053

9,888

11,237

13,849

16,680

18,220

19,156

19,972

21,575

22,880

23,996

25,568

26,542

4.0

4.5

5.6

6.9

7.4

8.3

10.7

13.7

15.9

17.7

19.4

21.7

23.9

26.0

28.7

30.9

%9.9

11.6

13.3

14.8

15.9

17.3

18.3

19.3

20.1

20.6

21.0

21.4

21.5

20.9

21.0

21.2

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

Massachusetts




232,899

239,929

247,109

251,685

253,611

251,169

236,715

221,865

206,931

193,870

182,737

173,418

165,720

157,965

151,101

144,262

109,511

122,205

135,628

147,213

157,779

164,983

162,939

159,259

153,321

145,035

137,548

131,191

125,721

119,942

114,887

109,720

17,627

19,195

21,975

24,983

24,211

26,345

29,829

32,567

31,174

29,473

29,025

30,309

31,421

32,541

34,940

35,607

7.6

8.0

8.9

9.9

9.5

10.5

12.6

14.7

15.1

15.2

15.9

17.5

19.0

20.6

23.1

24.7

%47.0

50.9

54.9

58.5

62.2

65.7

68.8

71.8

74.1

74.8

75.3

75.7

75.9

75.9

76.0

76.1

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009


With activeloans


Seriouslydelinquent


Seriously delinquentMichigan

114,018

117,636

122,531

126,102

128,951

128,899

121,364

112,977

105,123

97,870

91,831

86,619

82,169

78,097

74,284

70,801

15,624

19,604

24,381

28,626

32,297

35,593

35,951

35,845

35,358

34,189

33,227

32,308

31,272

29,287

27,629

26,377

5,733

6,344

7,661

9,212

9,892

11,248

13,334

14,411

14,544

13,993

13,755

14,146

14,723

15,577

15,811

15,821

5.0

5.4

6.3

7.3

7.7

8.7

11.0

12.8

13.8

14.3

15.0

16.3

17.9

19.9

21.3

22.3

%13.7

16.7

19.9

22.7

25.0

27.6

29.6

31.7

33.6

34.9

36.2

37.3

38.1

37.5

37.2

37.3

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

Minnesota




%%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009


With activeloans


Seriouslydelinquent



115,077

118,999

122,501

125,452

127,364

126,689

118,813

110,428

102,554

95,806

90,216

85,442

81,349

77,659

74,372

71,430

6,073

8,295

10,898

13,569

16,200

18,769

19,190

19,142

18,754

17,970

17,343

16,762

15,930

14,941

14,293

13,775

5,990

6,286

7,490

8,751

8,290

9,462

10,944

11,869

11,303

10,836

11,460

12,378

12,310

12,570

13,465

14,089

5.2

5.3

6.1

7.0

6.5

7.5

9.2

10.7

11.0

11.3

12.7

14.5

15.1

16.2

18.1

19.7

5.3

7.0

8.9

10.8

12.7

14.8

16.2

17.3

18.3

18.8

19.2

19.6

19.6

19.2

19.2

19.3

%%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

34,556

35,898

37,022

37,932

38,686

39,049

37,184

35,324

33,496

31,759

30,267

29,070

27,998

27,051

26,157

25,399

221

480

799

1,165

1,563

1,867

1,910

1,927

1,915

1,851

1,786

1,678

1,545

1,408

1,297

1,243

5,589

5,081

5,059

5,079

4,518

4,531

4,950

5,514

5,378

5,103

5,239

5,613

5,609

5,821

6,183

6,547

16.2

14.2

13.7

13.4

11.7

11.6

13.3

15.6

16.1

16.1

17.3

19.3

20.0

21.5

23.6

25.8

0.6

1.3

2.2

3.1

4.0

4.8

5.1

5.5

5.7

5.8

5.9

5.8

5.5

5.2

5.0

4.9

Mississippi


Missouri



11,890

12,457

13,057

13,775

14,258

14,182

13,393

12,549

11,632

10,771

10,119

9,642

9,082

8,536

8,073

7,713

9

27

69

114

170

259

287

296

296

289

283

274

257

245

228

224

311

320

342

396

397

467

511

604

690

741

813

976

1,137

1,267

1,329

1,374

2.6

2.6

2.6

2.9

2.8

3.3

3.8

4.8

5.9

6.9

8.0

10.1

12.5

14.8

16.5

17.8

%0.1

0.2

0.5

0.8

1.2

1.8

2.1

2.4

2.5

2.7

2.8

2.8

2.8

2.9

2.8

2.9

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009


With activeloans


Seriouslydelinquent


Seriously delinquentMontana

22,872

23,647

24,213

24,599

24,938

24,651

23,207

21,805

20,565

19,338

18,344

17,534

16,854

16,153

15,479

14,861

239

334

470

597

723

805

823

825

794

732

705

673

641

600

574

551

1,243

1,315

1,467

1,716

1,642

1,725

1,938

2,162

2,149

2,018

2,066

2,168

2,155

2,281

2,392

2,428

5.4

5.6

6.1

7.0

6.6

7.0

8.4

9.9

10.4

10.4

11.3

12.4

12.8

14.1

15.5

16.3

%1.0

1.4

1.9

2.4

2.9

3.3

3.5

3.8

3.9

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.7

3.7

3.7

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

Nebraska




157,510

168,728

180,208

189,621

198,269

202,603

195,372

186,439

176,541

165,632

154,792

145,350

136,066

126,796

117,823

111,225

63,160

77,034

91,447

103,996

116,268

128,247

130,380

130,498

129,173

123,624

117,104

111,158

105,424

99,550

93,492

88,965

2,424

3,066

4,374

6,729

8,716

11,543

15,894

22,090

25,873

27,842

29,484

34,330

38,765

40,390

40,795

42,239

1.5

1.8

2.4

3.5

4.4

5.7

8.1

11.8

14.7

16.8

19.0

23.6

28.5

31.9

34.6

38.0

%40.1

45.7

50.7

54.8

58.6

63.3

66.7

70.0

73.2

74.6

75.7

76.5

77.5

78.5

79.4

80.0

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009


With activeloans


Seriouslydelinquent


Seriously delinquentNevada

27,619

28,288

29,341

30,138

31,093

31,505

29,857

28,071

26,402

24,967

23,767

22,767

21,877

20,982

20,235

19,508

1,033

1,314

1,681

2,024

2,289

2,603

2,638

2,615

2,549

2,445

2,358

2,270

2,171

2,020

1,947

1,897

878

1,069

1,365

1,547

1,714

2,058

2,411

2,780

2,900

2,826

2,948

3,358

3,492

3,681

4,086

4,343

3.2

3.8

4.7

5.1

5.5

6.5

8.1

9.9

11.0

11.3

12.4

14.7

16.0

17.5

20.2

22.3

%3.7

4.6

5.7

6.7

7.4

8.3

8.8

9.3

9.7

9.8

9.9

10.0

9.9

9.6

9.6

9.7

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

New Hampshire




166,581

171,893

179,419

185,242

192,289

198,238

189,113

178,894

168,194

159,115

152,217

147,112

141,968

136,511

131,742

127,617

8,331

12,842

19,026

24,516

29,517

34,973

36,047

36,328

36,012

35,564

35,136

34,759

34,278

33,418

32,573

31,858

5,832

6,645

8,271

10,289

12,001

14,467

18,466

23,057

26,325

28,853

31,157

34,946

38,927

41,330

43,834

45,699

3.5

3.9

4.6

5.6

6.2

7.3

9.8

12.9

15.7

18.1

20.5

23.8

27.4

30.3

33.3

35.8

%5.0

7.5

10.6

13.2

15.4

17.6

19.1

20.3

21.4

22.4

23.1

23.6

24.1

24.5

24.7

25.0

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009


With activeloans


Seriouslydelinquent


Seriously delinquentNew Jersey

30,688

31,805

32,944

34,111

35,367

35,910

33,917

31,889

29,824

28,010

26,643

25,490

24,414

23,367

22,399

21,556

94

315

737

1,234

1,930

2,876

3,124

3,163

3,155

3,088

3,025

2,941

2,851

2,743

2,633

2,534

920

961

986

1,098

1,126

1,276

1,493

1,933

2,193

2,369

2,606

3,042

3,346

3,594

3,793

3,961

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.2

3.2

3.6

4.4

6.1

7.4

8.5

9.8

11.9

13.7

15.4

16.9

18.4

%0.3

1.0

2.2

3.6

5.5

8.0

9.2

9.9

10.6

11.0

11.4

11.5

11.7

11.7

11.8

11.8

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

New Mexico




256,904

264,774

277,069

287,638

299,792

310,238

300,685

288,844

276,456

265,129

255,980

249,082

242,280

234,900

228,274

222,570

4,278

7,440

11,332

15,299

19,558

24,470

25,650

25,991

25,866

25,734

25,526

25,308

25,030

24,450

23,858

23,333

10,892

12,212

14,957

18,266

20,647

24,340

29,921

36,123

40,068

43,160

46,766

52,936

58,519

62,725

66,911

71,234

4.2

4.6

5.4

6.4

6.9

7.8

10.0

12.5

14.5

16.3

18.3

21.3

24.2

26.7

29.3

32.0

%1.7

2.8

4.1

5.3

6.5

7.9

8.5

9.0

9.4

9.7

10.0

10.2

10.3

10.4

10.5

10.5

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009


With activeloans


Seriouslydelinquent


Seriously delinquentNew York

146,359

152,973

159,767

165,586

170,128

171,411

162,733

153,294

143,104

133,882

127,369

122,244

117,739

113,022

108,823

105,043

350

653

1,392

2,128

3,044

4,363

4,664

4,782

4,771

4,713

4,699

4,675

4,605

4,421

4,309

4,170

7,145

7,614

8,458

9,650

9,175

10,055

11,551

13,199

13,226

12,874

13,578

15,286

16,530

17,678

19,139

20,346

4.9

5.0

5.3

5.8

5.4

5.9

7.1

8.6

9.2

9.6

10.7

12.5

14.0

15.6

17.6

19.4

%0.2

0.4

0.9

1.3

1.8

2.5

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.7

3.8

3.9

3.9

4.0

4.0

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

North Carolina




3,743

3,935

4,162

4,393

4,590

4,604

4,332

4,077

3,852

3,566

3,328

3,168

3,013

2,852

2,693

2,564

0

1

2

6

8

8

8

7

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

102

133

192

209

210

227

218

256

265

270

262

297

305

315

343

338

2.7

3.4

4.6

4.8

4.6

4.9

5.0

6.3

6.9

7.6

7.9

9.4

10.1

11.0

12.7

13.2

%0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009


With activeloans


Seriouslydelinquent


Seriously delinquentNorth Dakota

219,060

225,814

231,493

236,397

240,557

238,436

226,976

215,063

203,161

192,071

182,235

173,962

167,197

160,533

154,560

148,838

31,149

35,745

41,518

46,439

50,757

53,780

53,619

52,990

51,521

48,957

47,538

45,985

43,733

40,762

39,131

37,767

23,434

24,746

27,480

30,315

30,390

32,371

35,382

37,976

37,139

35,793

34,556

34,664

34,589

34,688

35,986

36,286

10.7

11.0

11.9

12.8

12.6

13.6

15.6

17.7

18.3

18.6

19.0

19.9

20.7

21.6

23.3

24.4

%14.2

15.8

17.9

19.6

21.1

22.6

23.6

24.6

25.4

25.5

26.1

26.4

26.2

25.4

25.3

25.4

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

Ohio




51,526

53,797

55,782

57,348

58,865

59,406

56,649

53,951

51,247

48,439

45,889

43,781

41,999

40,201

38,469

37,029

69

100

132

168

194

223

226

227

225

225

223

223

219

209

205

202

3,268

3,372

3,614

3,990

4,092

4,330

4,812

5,405

5,440

5,258

5,175

5,323

5,553

5,761

6,125

6,369

6.3

6.3

6.5

7.0

7.0

7.3

8.5

10.0

10.6

10.9

11.3

12.2

13.2

14.3

15.9

17.2

%0.1

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009


With activeloans


Seriouslydelinquent


Seriously delinquentOklahoma

100,485

103,473

106,757

111,349

115,616

117,029

111,095

104,577

97,952

91,759

86,785

82,590

78,719

74,571

70,930

67,718

654

1,718

3,533

5,614

7,813

10,843

11,631

11,930

11,912

11,822

11,714

11,555

11,353

10,868

10,365

9,973

1,936

1,911

2,105

2,492

2,797

3,475

4,384

5,568

6,625

7,288

8,158

9,753

11,799

12,685

13,136

13,412

1.9

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

3.0

3.9

5.3

6.8

7.9

9.4

11.8

15.0

17.0

18.5

19.8

%0.7

1.7

3.3

5.0

6.8

9.3

10.5

11.4

12.2

12.9

13.5

14.0

14.4

14.6

14.6

14.7

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

Oregon




182,236

189,003

197,878

205,029

212,495

216,417

207,437

197,475

187,588

178,608

170,989

164,677

159,116

153,823

149,022

144,506

1,812

2,799

4,455

6,405

8,221

10,023

10,399

10,514

10,458

10,255

10,088

9,941

9,743

9,444

9,191

8,995

10,890

11,489

12,922

14,598

14,760

16,241

18,557

21,263

22,095

22,890

23,901

25,864

26,812

28,471

30,527

32,362

6.0

6.1

6.5

7.1

6.9

7.5

8.9

10.8

11.8

12.8

14.0

15.7

16.9

18.5

20.5

22.4

%1.0

1.5

2.3

3.1

3.9

4.6

5.0

5.3

5.6

5.7

5.9

6.0

6.1

6.1

6.2

6.2

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009


With activeloans


Seriouslydelinquent


Seriously delinquentPennsylvania

27,133

27,701

28,321

28,461

28,799

28,919

27,144

25,261

23,390

21,860

20,669

19,600

18,674

17,853

17,180

16,590

5,193

6,561

8,090

9,364

10,609

11,753

11,899

11,847

11,625

11,320

11,038

10,538

10,042

9,605

9,244

8,925

928

1,128

1,402

1,820

2,020

2,454

2,952

3,465

3,553

3,573

3,707

3,940

3,995

4,077

4,364

4,596

3.4

4.1

5.0

6.4

7.0

8.5

10.9

13.7

15.2

16.3

17.9

20.1

21.4

22.8

25.4

27.7

%19.1

23.7

28.6

32.9

36.8

40.6

43.8

46.9

49.7

51.8

53.4

53.8

53.8

53.8

53.8

53.8

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

Rhode Island




74,095

77,637

80,981

83,608

86,335

87,757

83,852

79,414

74,573

70,201

66,779

64,096

61,487

59,391

57,321

55,452

1,184

1,966

3,071

3,944

5,158

6,608

6,900

6,979

6,921

6,763

6,665

6,541

6,366

6,132

5,930

5,775

4,633

4,678

5,156

5,847

5,810

6,358

7,370

8,401

8,456

8,502

8,689

9,500

9,859

10,808

11,695

12,294

6.3

6.0

6.4

7.0

6.7

7.2

8.8

10.6

11.3

12.1

13.0

14.8

16.0

18.2

20.4

22.2

%1.6

2.5

3.8

4.7

6.0

7.5

8.2

8.8

9.3

9.6

10.0

10.2

10.4

10.3

10.3

10.4

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009


With activeloans


Seriouslydelinquent



SouthCarolina

5,977

6,257

6,533

6,767

6,947

6,865

6,410

5,968

5,563

5,157

4,832

4,529

4,281

4,042

3,827

3,644

7

14

19

24

31

33

34

34

33

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

267

298

371

427

410

434

524

548

529

538

521

526

544

589

602

605

4.5

4.8

5.7

6.3

5.9

6.3

8.2

9.2

9.5

10.4

10.8

11.6

12.7

14.6

15.7

16.6

%0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.6

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.5

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

South Dakota




124,054

130,056

135,739

141,100

145,102

145,855

138,431

130,718

122,819

115,450

109,391

104,082

99,021

94,680

90,781

87,268

720

1,476

2,514

3,621

5,037

6,327

6,559

6,636

6,626

6,531

6,461

6,362

6,134

5,798

5,597

5,404

7,766

8,227

9,649

11,122

10,757

12,219

13,726

15,341

15,069

15,100

15,963

17,114

17,185

17,721

18,539

19,011

6.3

6.3

7.1

7.9

7.4

8.4

9.9

11.7

12.3

13.1

14.6

16.4

17.4

18.7

20.4

21.8

%0.6

1.1

1.9

2.6

3.5

4.3

4.7

5.1

5.4

5.7

5.9

6.1

6.2

6.1

6.2

6.2

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009


With activeloans


Seriouslydelinquent


Seriously delinquentTennessee

476,668

504,222

525,598

548,152

569,197

577,337

556,051

533,337

507,667

483,433

464,006

448,503

432,332

417,210

403,092

389,891

3,511

7,042

11,389

15,439

19,706

25,317

26,364

26,680

26,623

25,846

24,975

24,145

23,058

22,068

21,387

20,590

25,183

26,621

28,877

31,926

31,515

34,221

39,490

45,081

44,077

42,459

44,830

51,594

50,081

52,452

57,460

61,809

5.3

5.3

5.5

5.8

5.5

5.9

7.1

8.5

8.7

8.8

9.7

11.5

11.6

12.6

14.3

15.9

%0.7

1.4

2.2

2.8

3.5

4.4

4.7

5.0

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.4

5.3

5.3

5.3

5.3

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

Texas




75,194

78,183

81,113

84,501

87,599

88,619

82,612

76,011

69,437

63,439

58,640

54,611

50,940

47,642

44,886

42,389

200

730

1,832

3,487

6,383

10,948

12,050

12,372

12,350

12,220

12,029

11,779

11,463

10,841

10,333

9,837

2,336

2,083

2,093

2,280

2,264

2,525

3,097

4,027

4,613

5,022

5,566

6,507

7,475

8,271

8,774

9,045

3.1

2.7

2.6

2.7

2.6

2.8

3.7

5.3

6.6

7.9

9.5

11.9

14.7

17.4

19.5

21.3

%0.3

0.9

2.3

4.1

7.3

12.4

14.6

16.3

17.8

19.3

20.5

21.6

22.5

22.8

23.0

23.2

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009


With activeloans


Seriouslydelinquent


Seriously delinquentUtah

6,404

6,502

6,659

6,817

7,063

7,245

6,847

6,515

6,170

5,850

5,577

5,356

5,169

4,929

4,731

4,580

67

96

146

229

290

388

417

428

425

417

401

389

382

356

345

342

229

270

319

391

441

485

573

666

756

764

762

845

893

927

987

1,068

3.6

4.2

4.8

5.7

6.2

6.7

8.4

10.2

12.3

13.1

13.7

15.8

17.3

18.8

20.9

23.3

%1.0

1.5

2.2

3.4

4.1

5.4

6.1

6.6

6.9

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.2

7.3

7.5

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

Vermont




182,012

192,710

204,395

213,736

222,857

226,632

215,130

202,000

187,931

174,658

164,209

156,343

148,449

140,879

134,210

128,789

26,285

36,103

46,654

55,880

63,574

70,337

71,258

71,122

70,069

68,064

66,111

63,355

59,621

55,888

52,766

50,596

3,127

3,608

4,844

6,651

7,902

10,549

14,503

18,888

20,604

20,857

21,239

23,778

25,289

25,725

26,243

26,715

1.7

1.9

2.4

3.1

3.5

4.7

6.7

9.4

11.0

11.9

12.9

15.2

17.0

18.3

19.6

20.7

%14.4

18.7

22.8

26.1

28.5

31.0

33.1

35.2

37.3

39.0

40.3

40.5

40.2

39.7

39.3

39.3

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009


With activeloans


Seriouslydelinquent


Seriously delinquentVirginia

181,739

187,261

193,217

201,197

208,084

210,721

199,751

187,108

174,642

163,169

154,490

147,331

140,487

133,385

127,317

122,290

739

2,472

5,644

9,358

13,723

19,826

21,645

22,351

22,351

22,222

22,045

21,843

21,512

20,721

20,020

19,452

4,100

4,174

4,802

5,562

5,987

6,713

8,548

10,663

12,053

13,174

14,696

17,897

21,440

23,696

25,251

26,660

2.3

2.2

2.5

2.8

2.9

3.2

4.3

5.7

6.9

8.1

9.5

12.1

15.3

17.8

19.8

21.8

%0.4

1.3

2.9

4.7

6.6

9.4

10.8

11.9

12.8

13.6

14.3

14.8

15.3

15.5

15.7

15.9

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

Washington




10,516

10,994

11,612

12,336

12,716

12,961

12,411

11,751

11,106

10,556

10,124

9,722

9,355

8,943

8,581

8,273

1,142

1,320

1,640

1,948

2,220

2,465

2,499

2,449

2,404

2,331

2,281

2,252

2,214

2,122

2,039

1,972

647

682

747

827

737

825

1,040

1,290

1,254

1,305

1,464

1,557

1,571

1,589

1,618

1,689

6.2

6.2

6.4

6.7

5.8

6.4

8.4

11.0

11.3

12.4

14.5

16.0

16.8

17.8

18.9

20.4

%10.9

12.0

14.1

15.8

17.5

19.0

20.1

20.8

21.6

22.1

22.5

23.2

23.7

23.7

23.8

23.8

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009


With activeloans


Seriouslydelinquent


Seriously delinquentWest Virginia

71,766

74,395

77,953

80,259

82,662

83,262

78,243

72,957

67,914

63,384

59,768

56,623

53,803

51,303

48,998

46,992

2,400

3,451

5,002

6,368

7,802

9,094

9,305

9,362

9,158

8,803

8,626

8,447

8,180

7,657

7,362

7,114

4,477

4,886

5,822

6,789

7,131

8,188

9,706

10,948

11,181

11,056

11,338

11,592

11,608

11,912

12,531

12,770

6.2

6.6

7.5

8.5

8.6

9.8

12.4

15.0

16.5

17.4

19.0

20.5

21.6

23.2

25.6

27.2

%3.3

4.6

6.4

7.9

9.4

10.9

11.9

12.8

13.5

13.9

14.4

14.9

15.2

14.9

15.0

15.1

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

Wisconsin




7,989

8,294

8,563

8,918

9,311

9,291

8,654

8,012

7,425

6,832

6,375

5,970

5,655

5,330

5,039

4,792

30

64

118

173

274

414

448

464

464

460

459

448

441

421

396

370

173

213

243

259

261

275

338

387

401

396

405

449

486

575

657

659

2.2

2.6

2.8

2.9

2.8

3.0

3.9

4.8

5.4

5.8

6.4

7.5

8.6

10.8

13.0

13.8

%0.4

0.8

1.4

1.9

2.9

4.5

5.2

5.8

6.2

6.7

7.2

7.5

7.8

7.9

7.9

7.7

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009


With activeloans


Seriouslydelinquent


Seriously delinquentWyoming

7,042,247

7,332,583

7,660,361

7,949,339

8,221,852

8,358,373

7,992,184

7,577,782

7,143,347

6,728,294

6,374,170

6,090,063

5,821,670

5,556,210

5,319,566

5,106,683

940,794

1,215,056

1,539,004

1,845,318

2,145,353

2,453,835

2,514,270

2,523,852

2,497,956

2,412,966

2,314,600

2,229,881

2,143,119

2,039,041

1,946,828

1,861,880

279,177

299,930

354,594

431,636

469,503

558,255

703,785

876,555

969,626

1,021,676

1,077,138

1,204,241

1,294,916

1,342,652

1,400,282

1,439,903

4.0

4.1

4.6

5.4

5.7

6.7

8.8

11.6

13.6

15.2

16.9

19.8

22.2

24.2

26.3

28.2

%13.4

16.6

20.1

23.2

26.1

29.4

31.5

33.3

35.0

35.9

36.3

36.6

36.8

36.7

36.6

36.5

%Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2006

2007

2008

2009

Total (all states and the District of Columbia)

(250532)


united states government accountability office …2010/05/14 · washington, dc 20548 gao-10-633r...

Documents