Just two years ago, RealtyTrac was in some hot water over counting foreclosure filings multiple times for a single property and providing inflated foreclosure statistics to the media. Since then, the company has said to have changed its data collecting and reporting methods. However, as seen in last week’s articles, many of these duplicate listings are still appearing throughout the media.

On their statistics page, readers can see the different categories for filings; however, the actual numbers are not easy to come by. One would have to break out a calculator in order to see a glimmer of actual figures. Still, even with a calculator actual foreclosure filings are almost impossible to tell because numerous types of filings appear including Real Estate Owned properties, or REOs. REOs shouldn’t be counted again as they have already been counted in the notice of default category, in months prior.

As foreclosure concerns increase, it looks like readers and journalists are finally beginning to question the accuracy of foreclosure reporting companies. While questioning the companies and researching figures is much more difficult than simply accepting the given figure, it is happening sporadically.

Take an article published in the Park Record on February 27, 2009. The article titled, “Foreclosures may increase in 2009″ analyzes a few different foreclosure listing companies. Here is an excerpt of the article.

“Realtytrac.com, a popular foreclosure listing site, says there are 37 such properties in Summit County. Two other websites, Foreclosure.com and Foreclosurefreesearch.com list about 20 such properties in the county.”

Considering the data collection methods of RealtyTrac, the higher figure (almost double) is of no surprise. The article continues by stating, “the smaller number is closer to what is actually posted on an official board in the Summit County Recorder’s Office.”

It looks like Foreclosure research isn’t the only website/researcher uncovering the discrepancies between foreclosure listings providers and the news publications that report their data.

According to a blog on The Washington Post, author Elizabeth Razzi voices her frustrations with foreclosure reporting. In an article posted on March 16, 2009, titled “How Many Foreclosed or Homeless?” Razzi writes, “One of the biggest frustrations in trying to report about this housing crisis and recession is the lack of reliable numbers on two of its most dire outcomes: foreclosures and homelessness.”

Razzi continues by stating, “Like most major media outlets, The Post reports foreclosure numbers from RealtyTrac each month, mostly because there’s no other source that’s better. But I don’t know anyone who uses those numbers, including reputable economists, who isn’t frustrated by the fact that the same home often gets counted more than once in their statistics.”

Foreclosure Research has pointed out this fact on numerous occasions. Notices of Trustee Sales are counted within RealtyTrac’s pre-foreclosure filings and statistics while it is a secondary notice following a notice of default or lis pendens. Meaning two foreclosure notices for a single property.

Razzi brings up another valid point about RealtyTrac’s ultimate motive. Razzi writes that “it’s important to remember that RealtyTrac is actually in the business of selling leads on foreclosed properties to investors. It’s a bit like having IHOP report numbers about pancakes. Come and get ‘em!”

In other words, aside from posting duplicate figures, one can make the assumption that ultimately RealtyTrac’s motives behind reporting foreclosure statistics are to say the least, self-serving in nature.

In the midst of foreclosure reports touting the worst of the real estate market meltdown, one article seemed to stray away from the pack. Published on March 2, 2009 on The New York Times Web site, the article headline reads, “Foreclosure Rates Aren’t Really That High…”

While many would say otherwise, the fact that the article was such a departure from the usual doom and gloom warranted a further look. According to the article by Catherine Rampell, a new study out of the University of Virginia states that foreclosures are not as rampant as one may assume.

An expert from the article reads:

“A new study takes issue with the media narrative that foreclosures are dangerously widespread. The paper’s authors, William Lucy and Jeff Herlitz at the University of Virginia, examined foreclosure rates in every state, 35 metropolitan areas and 236 counties, and they found that 62 percent of foreclosures in 2008 were in the four states mentioned above.”

Those four states include Florida, California, Nevada and Arizona. The article continues, “[California] may have had only 10 percent of the nation’s housing units, but it had 34 percent of the nation’s foreclosures in 2008.”

According to the study, homes that people were purchasing in California at the peak of the market were, “quite expansive” compared to the homebuyer’s income. In Los Angeles County 20% of all mortgage holders were utilizing at least 50 percent of their household income for housing related expenses. The new norm for housing costs, stated by the Obama administration, should be below 30% of household income.

Another interesting aspect of the article is that while the authors were questioning some media reports, readers were questioning the authors, in respect to their seemingly conflicting foreclosure figures.

Here is an excerpt of the author’s response:
“Foreclosure data are difficult to compare from one source to another… These processes may be interrupted by delinquencies being paid, changes in lenders’ enforcement policies, or legislation requiring delays in foreclosure proceedings. The same property may be listed multiple times (Olick 2007).”

According to the article, the differing data comes from two foreclosure listing companies. One for which the authors used as the more credible source, and another listing company.

“RealtyTrac’s data for foreclosure proceedings (2.3 million) more than doubled the foreclosure rate of foreclosure.com in 2008. But RealtyTrac reported “more than 860,000 properties were actually repossessed by lenders” in 2008 (Associated Press 2009). Foreclosure.com’s website said “home foreclosures jumped 64% to nearly one million homes in 2008.” In our study, we used foreclosure.com data for states and counties, usually from November 2008. The U.S. number of foreclosures and preforeclosures in that source was 1,009,485…”

The differing numbers makes sense as Realty Trac reports multiple listings on a single property, which has been reported by Foreclosure Research in the past.

In parts I and II of “The Underbelly of an Online Listing Provider,” Foreclosure Research set out to uncover the truth behind Foreclosure Store’s deceptive façade. Beyond duplicitous listings and charging methods, every factor of the company seems to be wrought with deceptive or unethical tactics.

Take the sign-up page for the free trial for example. At meets the eye, it looks incredibly similar to a competing foreclosure listing site, Foreclosure.com (See photos 1 and 2). The layout and styles are the same and even the text is copied verbatim. In this case, based on further investigation, the original sign-up page belongs to Foreclosure.com, making Foreclosure Store the copyright infringe r.

ForeclosureStore.com Sign Up Page

Foreclosure.com Sign Up Page

Upon further review of the sign-up page on Foreclosure Store are icons from various high-caliber news journals, such as the New York Times, USA Today, Fox News, and many more. There also appears to be a quote from the New York Times.

While there was in fact an article that mentioned Foreclosure Store, it was much different than the quote offered on the site and on the sign-up page.

The New York Times article, which actually was a Q&A editorial, was published October 27, 1996. The blurb offered some foreclosure advice to a reader who was referencing “Final List Services” as just one site that offers a foreclosure list. Whether or not Foreclosure Store is actually “Final List Services” is never mentioned, however, Foreclosure Store seems to say it is based on the insertion of their name into the direct quote.

Below you will find the quotes from the New York Times and the edited quote that appears on the Foreclosure Store Web site.

New York Times: “Final List Services and other companies gather lists of various properties owned by various organizations and then offer their list to the public for a fee,”

Foreclosure Store (Foreclosure World/Final List Services, etc.): “Foreclosure World gathers lists of properties owned by thousands of banks and other mortgage companies, sorts and compiles them into state and county directories, then offers their lists to investors and the public for a small fee,”

Note that the quote was obviously edited to the favor of Foreclosure Store, yet quotation marks indicating a direct quote are still improperly utilized. Below you will find additional false quotes.

New York Times: “People can either purchase lists from the companies or contact the banks directly,” he said, explaining that the fee charged by such companies is usually limited to the charge for the list itself.

Foreclosure Store: “you can purchase comprehensive directories from Foreclosure World or you can try contacting individual banks. However, many will not deal directly with the public and many also charge a fee for their lists. In any event, the fees charged are limited to the cost of the directories, not any commissions.”

It is no surprise that this New York Times blurb has been the only reference to Foreclosure Store, or any of its aliases, for over 10 years. Keep your eyes peeled for future references of Foreclosure Store as Foreclosure Research is confident the subject matter will be to the beat of a different tune, and Foreclosure Store will have lot of whiting out to do.