2016
Tennessee Housing Market
at a Glance
1
Tennessee Housing Market at a Glance 2016
Tennessee Housing Trends…………............…….......................................……2-3
Median Home Prices (Existing) vs. Median Income ……...........................……4-5
2015 Single-Family Median Home Prices in Tennessee Counties ..............…..6-7
2015 Single-Family Home Sales in Tennessee Counties……...................…….8-9
House Price Index - Tennessee versus Other States…..........................……….10
House Price Index - Tennessee Compared to the Highest
and Lowest Performing States and to Neighbors .....................................….11-12
House Price Index - Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Tennessee…...........……….13
Serious Delinquency, Tennessee Counties ………….................................…14-16
Housing Opportunity Index………………….............................……….....……17-19
Workforce Housing Affordability……………………..............................………20-21
Homeowner and Rental Vacancy Rates………........................................…..22-23
Hulya Arik, Ph.D.
Economist
Mapping:
Joseph Speer
THDA Research Specialist
Design and Layout:
Charmaine McNeilly
THDA Publications Coordinator
2
Tennessee Housing Trends
Annually, THDA takes a look at multiple indicators of the economic strength of the state’s housing
market, variability across the state’s sub-markets, and affordability of rental and homeownership
opportunities in the state. This report provides this annual look to examine some trends over time
as well as point-in-time observations about housing in Tennessee
1
.
In the rst half of 2016, the housing markets in Tennessee continued improving. Before the
housing market crash, the home prices in Tennessee did not appreciate as much as the rest of
the nation, and therefore, when the housing bubble burst, the home price depreciation was not
as profound as it was in some other parts of the nation. However, in the last several quarters,
home prices in Tennessee are accelerating faster than the nation. In the last quarter of 2015, the
house price index (HPI) in Tennessee was nearly two percentage points higher than the HPI in
the nation. While outpacing the nation, home price appreciation in Tennessee was still moderate
compared to some states such as Oregon, Washington and Colorado, where there were double
digit annual appreciations. With annual home price appreciation of 6.1 percent in the second
quarter of 2016, Tennessee ranked as 16
th
in the nation among states with its annual price
appreciation.
Housing market recovery varied in different parts of the state. Strong economic recovery
compared to the rest of the state and to the nation was the primary contributing factor to the
housing market recovery in Nashville. In the Nashville MSA, the home builders responded to the
increased demand for housing. In October 2016, the total building permits issued year to date in
the Nashville MSA was 15 percent higher than it was in October 2015.
Statewide, in 2015, the median price of single family homes increased by more than ve
percent compared to 2014. Meanwhile, according to Freddie Mac Primary Mortgage Market
Survey (PMMS), the average interest rate a borrower received for a 30-year xed mortgage
was 3.85 in 2015, a decrease from 4.17 percent average rate in 2014. Increasing median prices
and decreasing borrowing costs resulted in mixed outcomes across the state in terms of the
homeownership cost burden.
_________
1 In the past, the Housing Market at a Glance was usually completed in the end of September using the second quarter data. This provided
a possibility for following and comparing trend for the readers. In 20155, we decided to release the report at the beginning of the year using
mostly the last quarter of the previous year’s data. However, some data, such as sales price and volume, would not be available for the
current year. Therefore, we decided to switch back to our original release date and second quarter data. Since some of the data were not
updated yet from the release of 2015 report, in this “Special Release,” we only updated the information, charts and tables with the current
data. We will go back to regular reporting in September 2017.
3
According to CoreLogic, at the end of the second quarter of 2016, 5.5 percent of Tennessee
mortgage holders were underwater
2
, which means their homes were worth less than the balance
of their mortgage. When the near underwater borrowers are also included, it raises the percent to
8.3 percent of Tennessee mortgage holders who may be at a greater risk for foreclosure. A year
prior, this gure was 10.1 percent of Tennessee borrowers, with 6.6 percent of borrowers who
were underwater and 3.5 percent near underwater.
As of September 2016, 0.4 percent of mortgage loans in Tennessee were in the process of
foreclosure
3
. This was the lowest foreclosure rate in the Southeastern United States, and
Tennessee ranked 38th in the nation. In the same period, the number of completed foreclosures
in Tennessee declined by 16 percent compared to a year ago (from 14,075 completed
foreclosures to 11,796).
_________
2 See http://www.corelogic.com/research/negative-equity/corelogic-q2-2016-equity-report.pdf for full report.
3 See “September 2016 National Foreclosure Report from CoreLogic” for national data and comparison at http://www.corelogic.com/
research/foreclosure-report/national-foreclosure-report-september-2016.pdf.
4
Home Prices
Median Home Prices (Existing) vs. Median Income
In 2015, median existing home prices in Tennessee increased by 3.8 percent compared to 2014.
4
In the same period, the median family income of Tennesseans did not change. In the nation,
the median existing home prices increased by 6.8 percent compared to 2014, while the median
family income slightly declined from the previous year. Compared with the nation, access to
homeownership in Tennessee did not deteriorate as much, considering that Tennessee’s median
home price appreciation was less than the nationwide median home price increase while the
median income stayed unchanged. Both in the U.S. and the state, the gap between the median
income and the median home price was expanding as the median income increasingly fell behind
home price appreciation.
_________
4 In 2015, raw data for Knox County from Comptroller’s ofce did not have an identier for existing or new home purchase. Therefore
Tennessee median existing home price does not include the prices of existing homes sold/purchased in Knox County. However, Knox
County is included in total home sales and median/average price calculations.
5
Home Prices
Median Home Prices (Existing) vs. Median Income
Median Home Prices versus Median Family Income, US
Median Home Prices versus Median Family Income, TN
Source: U.S. median (existing) home prices – National Association of Realtors ®. Median Family Income, Tennessee median (existing) home prices –
THDA tabulations of data obtained from the Property Assessment Division, Comptroller’s Ofce. Median Family Income (U.S. and Tennessee) – U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
US. Median Home Prices and MFI
Median
Home
Prices
(existing)
Median
Family
Income
1998 $128,400 $45,300
1999 $133,300 $47,800
2000 $139,000 $50,200
2001 $147,800 $52,500
2002 $156,200 $54,400
2003 $169,500 $56,500
2004 $185,200 $57,500
2005 $219,000 $58,000
2006 $221,900 $59,600
2007 $217,900 $59,000
2008 $198,100 $61,500
2009 $172,500 $64,000
2010 $172,900 $64,400
2011 $166,200 $64,200
2012 $177,200 $65,000
2013 $197,400 $64,400 11.4% -0.9%
2014 $208,300 $65,800 5.5% 2.2%
2015 $222,400 $65,700 6.8% -0.2%
Median Home prices for US is existing home sales from
National Association of Realtors (NAR)
Tennessee Median Home Prices and MFI
Median
Home
Prices
(existing)
Median
Family
Income
1998 $87,500 $41,000
1999 $91,875 $44,200
2000 $96,250 $47,600
2001 $100,625 $49,900
2002 $105,000 $50,700
2003 $112,500 $47,200
2004 $118,500 $50,700
2005 $125,000 $50,300
2006 $129,900 $51,200
2007 $140,000 $50,700
2008 $139,000 $52,300
2009 $140,000 $54,500
2010 $141,800 $54,600
$25,000
$45,000
$65,000
$85,000
$105,000
$125,000
$145,000
$165,000
$185,000
$205,000
$225,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Median Home Prices versus Median Family Income, US
$25,000
$45,000
$65,000
$85,000
$105,000
$125,000
$145,000
$165,000
$185,000
$205,000
$225,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Median Home Prices versus Median Family Income, TN
Median Home Prices (existing) Median Family Income
US. Median Home Prices and MFI
Median
Home
Prices
(existing)
Median
Family
Income
1998 $128,400 $45,300
1999 $133,300 $47,800
2000 $139,000 $50,200
2001 $147,800 $52,500
2002 $156,200 $54,400
2003 $169,500 $56,500
2004 $185,200 $57,500
2005 $219,000 $58,000
2006 $221,900 $59,600
2007 $217,900 $59,000
2008 $198,100 $61,500
2009 $172,500 $64,000
2010 $172,900 $64,400
2011 $166,200 $64,200
2012 $177,200 $65,000
2013 $197,400 $64,400 11.4% -0.9%
2014 $208,300 $65,800 5.5% 2.2%
2015 $222,400 $65,700 6.8% -0.2%
Median Home prices for US is existing home sales from
National Association of Realtors (NAR)
Tennessee Median Home Prices and MFI
Median
Home
Prices
(existing)
Median
Family
Income
1998 $87,500 $41,000
1999 $91,875 $44,200
2000 $96,250 $47,600
2001 $100,625 $49,900
2002 $105,000 $50,700
2003 $112,500 $47,200
2004 $118,500 $50,700
2005 $125,000 $50,300
2006 $129,900 $51,200
2007 $140,000 $50,700
2008 $139,000 $52,300
2009 $140,000 $54,500
2010 $141,800 $54,600
$25,000
$45,000
$65,000
$85,000
$105,000
$125,000
$145,000
$165,000
$185,000
$205,000
$225,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Median Home Prices versus Median Family Income, US
$25,000
$45,000
$65,000
$85,000
$105,000
$125,000
$145,000
$165,000
$185,000
$205,000
$225,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Median Home Prices versus Median Family Income, TN
Median Home Prices (existing) Median Family Income
6
Home Prices
2015 Single-Family Median Home Prices (New and Existing)
in Tennessee Counties
The median prices of all homes (new and existing) in Tennessee was $175,000 in 2015, an
increase of 5.4 percent from $166,000 in 2014. While home prices increased in 70 counties
across the state, in 22 mostly rural counties, median home sale prices declined from 2014.
Median prices for all homes in Anderson, Hawkins and Sullivan Counties did not change from
2014. Perry County experienced the largest annual home price depreciation, with 18 percent,
followed by Clay and Fentress Counties, with 12 percent depreciation.
The largest percentage increase in median prices was in Meigs County where the median prices
of all homes increased from $126,500 in 2014 to $159,500 in 2015, followed by Van Buren
and Scott Counties, with 26 percent and 24 percent annual median sales price appreciation,
respectively. Median sales price of $92,700 in Scott County in 2015 was the county’s highest
median price in the past ten years.
At $390,000, Williamson County had the highest median price in the state, which was ve percent
higher compared to 2014. Even though Meigs County had the highest price appreciation among
Tennessee counties in 2015, the county ranked 16th among the counties based on median sales
prices in 2015, with median price of all homes sold in the county nearly half of the median price of
all homes sold in Williamson County.
7
Lowest Median Income Counties - 2015 (2013-2015)
Highest Median Income Counties - 2015 (2013-2015)
Source: THDA tabulations of home sales based on data obtained from the Property Assessment Division, Comptroller’s Ofce, State
of Tennessee. To nd median home sales volume and prices for other counties, MSAs and previous years, go to: http://thda.org/
research-planning/home-sales-price-by-county
County
2009 Media
2010 Media
2011 Media
2012 Medi
2013 Median
2014 Median
2015 Median
Williamson $319,300 $330,265 $335,000 $334,899 $355,000 $370,219 $390,000
Wilson $188,000 $189,900 $199,826 $206,000 $227,000 $234,000 $241,000
Loudon $186,500 $186,400 $179,000 $195,900 $220,000 $225,400 $222,500
Davidson $168,500 $167,000 $178,000 $182,000 $190,550 $204,355 $222,000
Sumner $180,000 $175,900 $181,000 $183,250 $195,842 $204,000 $214,480
Fayette $176,000 $195,000 $189,900 $189,900 $199,900 $187,000 $206,000
Rutherford $148,000 $150,000 $157,000 $162,500 $162,500 $163,000 $182,250
Hamilton $149,500 $154,500 $158,000 $174,000 $175,000 $175,550 $182,000
Shelby $165,000 $165,000 $162,500 $169,280 $176,000 $172,290 $179,000
Maury $149,900 $139,950 $138,000 $150,500 $155,000 $159,900 $175,000
Knox $160,725 $165,450 $157,900 $175,000 $167,500 $174,900 $175,000
Blount $159,951 $160,000 $167,000 $166,000 $170,000 $169,000 $170,000
Montgomery $142,000 $149,000 $155,000 $160,000 $164,000 $158,000 $168,000
Robertson $147,000 $148,500 $145,000 $149,000 $154,000 $165,000 $164,900
Cheatham $153,400 $147,250 $150,000 $154,000 $159,951 $156,500 $160,000
Meigs $125,500 $102,700 $120,743 $160,000 $111,075 $126,500 $159,500
Washington $145,000 $147,500 $155,000 $159,000 $161,500 $156,200 $157,000
Sevier $160,000 $161,813 $155,000 $150,900 $153,000 $150,000 $155,000
Bradley $130,000 $132,000 $134,000 $141,000 $138,000 $144,900 $150,000
Dickson $120,000 $125,000 $129,000 $130,000 $135,000 $139,900 $145,000
Cumberland $138,000 $134,000 $135,000 $140,000 $145,000 $140,000 $143,000
Marion $115,000 $125,000 $110,000 $114,050 $119,500 $130,000 $142,000
Grainger $120,000 $120,000 $117,700 $115,000 $124,000 $136,950 $141,500
Jefferson $140,000 $139,250 $135,000 $142,000 $134,900 $136,000 $139,950
Tipton $139,995 $142,700 $130,000 $135,000 $144,950 $144,900 $139,450
Moore $115,950 $115,750 $125,000 $125,000 $130,500 $125,000 $139,000
Putnam $126,500 $129,900 $126,375 $132,000 $136,000 $136,000 $138,650
Franklin $124,250 $126,000 $123,850 $121,000 $117,000 $127,995 $134,394
Sequatchie $122,000 $94,750 $95,750 $137,500 $118,000 $125,000 $133,450
Roane $123,000 $132,500 $135,000 $132,000 $141,250 $144,170 $132,500
Sullivan $124,000 $125,000 $125,000 $130,000 $133,250 $132,000 $132,000
Anderson $127,500 $125,000 $125,500 $124,948 $124,000 $130,000 $130,000
Polk $122,000 $100,000 $96,000 $110,000 $104,408 $144,250 $130,000
Hamblen $130,000 $126,500 $130,000 $126,000 $127,000 $128,000 $129,000
Cannon $112,800 $107,500 $111,250 $107,000 $115,000 $121,500 $125,000
Monroe $117,000 $114,450 $115,000 $128,000 $115,000 $121,700 $125,000
Madison $117,950 $119,000 $115,000 $125,000 $127,900 $120,000 $124,900
Rhea $125,750 $121,000 $115,000 $123,000 $128,000 $127,725 $124,865
Trousdale $102,750 $123,750 $112,900 $102,500 $121,250 $109,900 $124,500
Coffee $110,400 $110,000 $115,000 $114,250 $114,000 $120,000 $124,000
Union $120,000 $115,000 $119,900 $111,750 $119,000 $130,000 $123,000
Marshall $95,000 $94,438 $98,500 $103,950 $106,000 $108,500 $121,525
Bedford $103,500 $99,900 $104,000 $100,000 $109,900 $115,000 $120,000
Campbell $95,200 $116,500 $119,000 $118,500 $119,000 $105,000 $119,950
Cocke $100,000 $120,500 $95,000 $98,525 $106,000 $112,750 $119,500
Unicoi $113,000 $111,000 $118,222 $119,000 $114,000 $123,500 $119,250
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
Williamson
Wilson
Loudon
Davidson
Sumner
Fayette
Rutherford
Hamilton
Shelby
Maury
Highest Median Home Price Counties - 2015
(2013-2015)
2013 Median Home Price 2014 Median Home Price 2015 Median Home Price
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
Lake
Perry
Wayne
Carroll
Hancock
Clay
Benton
Crockett
Lauderdale
Obion
Lowest Median Home Price Counties - 2015
(2013-2015)
2015 Tennessee Median Price= $175,000
County
2009 Media
2010 Media
2011 Media
2012 Medi
2013 Median
2014 Median
2015 Median
Williamson $319,300 $330,265 $335,000 $334,899 $355,000 $370,219 $390,000
Wilson $188,000 $189,900 $199,826 $206,000 $227,000 $234,000 $241,000
Loudon $186,500 $186,400 $179,000 $195,900 $220,000 $225,400 $222,500
Davidson $168,500 $167,000 $178,000 $182,000 $190,550 $204,355 $222,000
Sumner $180,000 $175,900 $181,000 $183,250 $195,842 $204,000 $214,480
Fayette $176,000 $195,000 $189,900 $189,900 $199,900 $187,000 $206,000
Rutherford $148,000 $150,000 $157,000 $162,500 $162,500 $163,000 $182,250
Hamilton $149,500 $154,500 $158,000 $174,000 $175,000 $175,550 $182,000
Shelby $165,000 $165,000 $162,500 $169,280 $176,000 $172,290 $179,000
Maury $149,900 $139,950 $138,000 $150,500 $155,000 $159,900 $175,000
Knox $160,725 $165,450 $157,900 $175,000 $167,500 $174,900 $175,000
Blount $159,951 $160,000 $167,000 $166,000 $170,000 $169,000 $170,000
Montgomery $142,000 $149,000 $155,000 $160,000 $164,000 $158,000 $168,000
Robertson $147,000 $148,500 $145,000 $149,000 $154,000 $165,000 $164,900
Cheatham $153,400 $147,250 $150,000 $154,000 $159,951 $156,500 $160,000
Meigs $125,500 $102,700 $120,743 $160,000 $111,075 $126,500 $159,500
Washington $145,000 $147,500 $155,000 $159,000 $161,500 $156,200 $157,000
Sevier $160,000 $161,813 $155,000 $150,900 $153,000 $150,000 $155,000
Bradley $130,000 $132,000 $134,000 $141,000 $138,000 $144,900 $150,000
Dickson $120,000 $125,000 $129,000 $130,000 $135,000 $139,900 $145,000
Cumberland $138,000 $134,000 $135,000 $140,000 $145,000 $140,000 $143,000
Marion $115,000 $125,000 $110,000 $114,050 $119,500 $130,000 $142,000
Grainger $120,000 $120,000 $117,700 $115,000 $124,000 $136,950 $141,500
Jefferson $140,000 $139,250 $135,000 $142,000 $134,900 $136,000 $139,950
Tipton $139,995 $142,700 $130,000 $135,000 $144,950 $144,900 $139,450
Moore $115,950 $115,750 $125,000 $125,000 $130,500 $125,000 $139,000
Putnam $126,500 $129,900 $126,375 $132,000 $136,000 $136,000 $138,650
Franklin $124,250 $126,000 $123,850 $121,000 $117,000 $127,995 $134,394
Sequatchie $122,000 $94,750 $95,750 $137,500 $118,000 $125,000 $133,450
Roane $123,000 $132,500 $135,000 $132,000 $141,250 $144,170 $132,500
Sullivan $124,000 $125,000 $125,000 $130,000 $133,250 $132,000 $132,000
Anderson $127,500 $125,000 $125,500 $124,948 $124,000 $130,000 $130,000
Polk $122,000 $100,000 $96,000 $110,000 $104,408 $144,250 $130,000
Hamblen $130,000 $126,500 $130,000 $126,000 $127,000 $128,000 $129,000
Cannon $112,800 $107,500 $111,250 $107,000 $115,000 $121,500 $125,000
Monroe $117,000 $114,450 $115,000 $128,000 $115,000 $121,700 $125,000
Madison $117,950 $119,000 $115,000 $125,000 $127,900 $120,000 $124,900
Rhea $125,750 $121,000 $115,000 $123,000 $128,000 $127,725 $124,865
Trousdale $102,750 $123,750 $112,900 $102,500 $121,250 $109,900 $124,500
Coffee $110,400 $110,000 $115,000 $114,250 $114,000 $120,000 $124,000
Union $120,000 $115,000 $119,900 $111,750 $119,000 $130,000 $123,000
Marshall $95,000 $94,438 $98,500 $103,950 $106,000 $108,500 $121,525
Bedford $103,500 $99,900 $104,000 $100,000 $109,900 $115,000 $120,000
Campbell $95,200 $116,500 $119,000 $118,500 $119,000 $105,000 $119,950
Cocke $100,000 $120,500 $95,000 $98,525 $106,000 $112,750 $119,500
Unicoi $113,000 $111,000 $118,222 $119,000 $114,000 $123,500 $119,250
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
Williamson
Wilson
Loudon
Davidson
Sumner
Fayette
Rutherford
Hamilton
Shelby
Maury
Highest Median Home Price Counties - 2015
(2013-2015)
2013 Median Home Price 2014 Median Home Price 2015 Median Home Price
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
Lake
Perry
Wayne
Carroll
Hancock
Clay
Benton
Crockett
Lauderdale
Obion
Lowest Median Home Price Counties - 2015
(2013-2015)
2015 Tennessee Median Price= $175,000
8
Home Sales
2015 Single-Family Home Sales in Tennessee Counties
In 2015, single-family home sales in Tennessee increased by 20 percent compared to 2014.
Including both new and existing homes, 87,681 homes were sold in 2015. In nine counties, home
sales declined from the previous year. The county with the largest percentage year-over-year
decline in home sales was Macon County, in which the home sales declined from 486 in 2014 to
266 in 2015, a 45 percent annual decline.
Lake County, with 25 sales, had the fewest homes sold in 2015, and home sales in the county
declined by 22 percent compared to the year prior (from 32 homes sold in 2014). Davidson
County had the most homes sold in the state with 13,341 single family homes sold during 2015, a
23 percent increase from the previous year.
9
Counties with the Fewest Single Family Homes Sold - 2015 (2013-2015)
Counties with the Most Single Family Homes Sold - 2015 (2013-2015)
Source: THDA tabulations of home sales based on data obtained from the Property Assessment Division, Comptroller’s Ofce, State
of Tennessee. To nd median home sales volume and prices for other counties, MSAs and previous years, go to: http://thda.org/
research-planning/home-sales-price-by-county
Volume
County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Difference % change % Change in
Lake 27 23 23 32 25 -7 -22% 39%
Hancock 12 22 20 23 31 8 35% 15%
Van Buren 17 32 28 42 32 -10 -24% 50%
Moore 38 37 36 29 35 6 21% -19%
Clay 34 35 32 40 42 2 5% 25%
Bledsoe 30 31 45 41 55 14 34% -9%
Houston 26 38 43 51 60 9 18% 19%
Pickett 42 25 53 59 62 3 5% 11%
Grundy 38 61 66 60 63 3 5% -9%
Meigs 26 47 48 52 63 11 21% 8%
Perry 26 41 34 50 64 14 28% 47%
Lewis 59 61 52 74 74 0 0% 42%
Scott 48 35 42 63 76 13 21% 50%
Wayne 54 49 61 55 78 23 42% -10%
Haywood 65 75 82 60 80 20 33% -27%
Jackson 46 41 83 67 83 16 24% -19%
Johnson 52 54 99 96 92 -4 -4% -3%
Hardeman 38 82 61 95 93 -2 -2% 56%
Decatur 69 79 79 62 94 32 52% -22%
Polk 68 69 60 76 95 19 25% 27%
Stewart 80 88 109 101 99 -2 -2% -7%
Sequatchie
40 83 75 67 100 33 49% -11%
Trousdale 31 41 60 73 101 28 38% 22%
Grainger 64 89 99 102 116 14 14% 3%
Morgan 57 66 84 72 116 44 61% -14%
Crockett 80 99 97 103 124 21 20% 6%
Fentress 90 82 99 137 125 -12 -9% 38%
Lauderdale
101 94 112 118 125 7 6% 5%
Cannon 60 89 97 114 132 18 16% 18%
Benton 102 99 137 126 139 13 10% -8%
Chester 133 108 118 132 142 10 8% 12%
Union 71 70 92 127 151 24 19% 38%
Overton 110 100 158 169 152 -17 -10% 7%
Marion 115 122 120 159 159 0 0% 33%
Humphreys
105 118 146 166 162 -4 -2% 14%
McNairy 165 138 144 152 190 38 25% 6%
Cocke 111 130 139 154 192 38 25% 11%
DeKalb 109 119 125 178 195 17 10% 42%
Henderson 145 155 157 162 197 35 22% 3%
Claiborne 109 122 152 143 197 54 38% -6%
Smith 215 218 298 179 199 20 11% -40%
Hickman 67 78 83 111 207 96 86% 34%
Carroll 155 171 186 180 215 35 19% -3%
Giles 145 161 182 209 248 39 19% 15%
Rhea 150 135 147 171 249 78 46% 16%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Lake
Hancock
Van Buren
Moore
Clay
Bledsoe
Houston
Pickett
Meigs
Grundy
Counties with the Fewest Single Family Homes Sold - 2015
(2013-2015)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
Davidson
Shelby
Knox
Rutherford
Williamson
Hamilton
Sumner
Montgomery
Wilson
Maury
Counties with the Most Single Family Homes Sold - 2015
(2013-2015)
2013 Home Sales 2014 Home Sales 2015 Home Sales
Volume
County 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Difference % change % Change in
Lake 27 23 23 32 25 -7 -22% 39%
Hancock 12 22 20 23 31 8 35% 15%
Van Buren 17 32 28 42 32 -10 -24% 50%
Moore 38 37 36 29 35 6 21% -19%
Clay 34 35 32 40 42 2 5% 25%
Bledsoe 30 31 45 41 55 14 34% -9%
Houston 26 38 43 51 60 9 18% 19%
Pickett 42 25 53 59 62 3 5% 11%
Grundy 38 61 66 60 63 3 5% -9%
Meigs 26 47 48 52 63 11 21% 8%
Perry 26 41 34 50 64 14 28% 47%
Lewis 59 61 52 74 74 0 0% 42%
Scott 48 35 42 63 76 13 21% 50%
Wayne 54 49 61 55 78 23 42% -10%
Haywood 65 75 82 60 80 20 33% -27%
Jackson 46 41 83 67 83 16 24% -19%
Johnson 52 54 99 96 92 -4 -4% -3%
Hardeman 38 82 61 95 93 -2 -2% 56%
Decatur 69 79 79 62 94 32 52% -22%
Polk 68 69 60 76 95 19 25% 27%
Stewart 80 88 109 101 99 -2 -2% -7%
Sequatchie
40 83 75 67 100 33 49% -11%
Trousdale 31 41 60 73 101 28 38% 22%
Grainger 64 89 99 102 116 14 14% 3%
Morgan 57 66 84 72 116 44 61% -14%
Crockett 80 99 97 103 124 21 20% 6%
Fentress 90 82 99 137 125 -12 -9% 38%
Lauderdale
101 94 112 118 125 7 6% 5%
Cannon 60 89 97 114 132 18 16% 18%
Benton 102 99 137 126 139 13 10% -8%
Chester 133 108 118 132 142 10 8% 12%
Union 71 70 92 127 151 24 19% 38%
Overton 110 100 158 169 152 -17 -10% 7%
Marion 115 122 120 159 159 0 0% 33%
Humphreys
105 118 146 166 162 -4 -2% 14%
McNairy 165 138 144 152 190 38 25% 6%
Cocke 111 130 139 154 192 38 25% 11%
DeKalb 109 119 125 178 195 17 10% 42%
Henderson 145 155 157 162 197 35 22% 3%
Claiborne 109 122 152 143 197 54 38% -6%
Smith 215 218 298 179 199 20 11% -40%
Hickman 67 78 83 111 207 96 86% 34%
Carroll 155 171 186 180 215 35 19% -3%
Giles 145 161 182 209 248 39 19% 15%
Rhea 150 135 147 171 249 78 46% 16%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Lake
Hancock
Van Buren
Moore
Clay
Bledsoe
Houston
Pickett
Meigs
Grundy
Counties with the Fewest Single Family Homes Sold - 2015
(2013-2015)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
Davidson
Shelby
Knox
Rutherford
Williamson
Hamilton
Sumner
Montgomery
Wilson
Maury
Counties with the Most Single Family Homes Sold - 2015
(2013-2015)
2013 Home Sales 2014 Home Sales 2015 Home Sales
10
Home Prices
House Price Index (HPI) – Tennessee vs. U.S.
The House Price Index (HPI) is a measure of single-family home prices. The index can show
average price change in repeat sales on the same properties for various geographic levels
and captures roughly 85 percent of all U.S. sales (limited to homes with repeated sales whose
mortgages have been purchased or securitized by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac since January 1975).
In Tennessee, home prices increased by 6.13 percent in the second quarter of 2016 compared
to the second quarter of 2015. The U.S. home prices increased by 5.61 percent in the second
quarter compared to the same quarter in the previous year. The home prices in Tennessee and in
the nation have increased since the rst quarter of 2012.
Compared to the previous quarter in 2016, house prices in the second quarter of 2016
appreciated by 1.60 percent in Tennessee and 1.17 percent in the nation.
Annual Percentage Change in House Price Index United States vs. Tennessee
2006-2016
Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency’s seasonally adjusted, purchase-only House Price Index (HPI)
TN U.S. TN and US difference
1992_Q1 2.68
2.27 0.41
1992_Q2 1.9
2.16 -0.26
1992_Q3 3.91
2.87 1.04
1992_Q4
3.03
2.77 0.26
1993_Q1
2.12
1.6 0.52
1993_Q2
4.47
2.73 1.74
1993_Q3
3.85
2.63 1.22
1993_Q4
4.87
2.78 2.09
1994_Q1
6.4
3.7 2.7
1994_Q2
5.97
3.5 2.47
1994_Q3
6
3.38 2.62
1994_Q4
5.36
2.93 2.43
1995_Q1
5.73
2.5 3.23
1995_Q2
5
2.19 2.81
1995_Q3
4.99
2.45 2.54
1995_Q4
5.99
2.57 3.42
1996_Q1
4.81
2.97 1.84
1996_Q2 5.46
3.14 2.32
1996_Q4 5.52
2.86 2.66
1996_Q3 4.28
2.83 1.45
1997_Q1 4.53
2.53 2
1997_Q2 4.27
2.71 1.56
1997_Q3 2.93
2.87 0.06
1997_Q4 3.1
3.35 -0.25
1998_Q1 3.12
3.95 -0.83
1998_Q2 3.37
4.5 -1.13
1998_Q3 4.33
5.09 -0.76
1998_Q4 4.53
5.67 -1.14
1999_Q1 4.76
5.95 -1.19
1999_Q2 3.92
6.03 -2.11
1999_Q3 3.94
6.27 -2.33
1999_Q4 3.97
6.19 -2.22
2000_Q1 3.19
6.43 -3.24
2000_Q2 3.84
6.66 -2.82
2000_Q3 3.1
6.73 -3.63
2000_Q4 2.5
6.93 -4.43
2001_Q1 2.69
7.09 -4.4
2001_Q2 2.03
7.02 -4.99
2001_Q3 2.13
6.95 -4.82
2001_Q4 3.16
6.78 -3.62
2002_Q1 2.94
6.6 -3.66
2002_Q2 3.02
6.8 -3.78
2002_Q3 3.75
7.23 -3.48
2002_Q4 2.75
7.71 -4.96
2003_Q1 3.46
7.79 -4.33
2003_Q2 3.89
7.57 -3.68
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
2006_Q1
2006_Q3
2007_Q1
2007_Q3
2008_Q1
2008_Q3
2009_Q1
2009_Q3
2010_Q1
2010-Q3
2011-Q1
2011-Q3
2012-Q1
2012-Q3
2013-Q1
2013-Q3
2014-Q1
2014-Q3
2015-Q1
2015-Q3
2016-Q1
Annual Percentage Change in House Price Index
United States vs. Tennessee
2006-2016
U.S.
TN
11
Home Prices
House Price Index (HPI) – Tennessee Compared to the Highest and Lowest
Performing States and to Neighbors
The seasonally adjusted purchase-only HPI rose in 49 states and in the District of Columbia
during the second quarter of 2016 compared to the previous year, and declined only in Vermont.
In the second quarter of 2016, Oregon had the highest annual home price appreciation in the
nation. Only three states (Mississippi, South Carolina and Connecticut) experienced slight home
price depreciation compared to the previous quarter. District of Columbia and West Virginia
experienced the highest quarterly house price appreciations. House prices appreciated in the
second quarter of 2016 compared to the rst quarter of 2016 (quarterly change) by 8.63 percent
in District of Columbia and by 4.75 percent in West Virginia.
Annual home price appreciation of 6.13 percent in Tennessee was also quite substantial. Home
prices in Tennessee appreciated compared to both the same quarter last year and the previous
quarter in 2016. Based on second quarter 2016 gures, Tennessee ranked as 16th in the nation
among the states in annual price appreciation. Among the neighboring states, Georgia had the
highest annual price appreciation with 6.93 percent in the second quarter of 2016.
12
Annual and Quarterly Percentage Changes in Home Prices
State
National
Rank*
Annual Percentage Change
(2015 Q2-2016 Q2)
Quarterly Percentage Change
(2016 Q1-2016 Q2)
States with the highest annual price increase
Oregon 1 11.68 2.65
Washington 2 10.35 2.16
Colorado 3 10.21 2.22
Tennessee and its neighbors
Georgia 13 6.93 2.09
Tennessee 16 6.13 1.60
North Carolina 18 5.80 1.35
Missouri 20 5.27 0.35
Kentucky 26 4.60 1.27
Virginia 29 4.19 0.53
Alabama 35 3.65 1.85
Arkansas 45 2.72 0.21
Mississippi 48 1.72 -1.90
States with the highest annual price decrease
Maine 49 0.66 0.22
Connecticut 50 0.14 -0.27
Vermont 51 -0.39 1.44
U.S. Average - 5.61 1.17
*Based on annual price change
Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA)’s seasonally adjusted, purchase only House Price Index (HPI)
13
Home Prices
House Price Index (HPI) – Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Tennessee
In the second quarter of 2016, home prices appreciated in all Tennessee metro areas. The
Nashville/Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) had a signicant
year over year change in the house price index. With a 9.83 percent annual price appreciation
in the second quarter of 2016, the Nashville/Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin MSA ranked as
23rd in the nation among 259 MSAs. The MSA with the highest price appreciation in the nation,
Boulder, CO MSA, had a 15 percent home price increase in the same period.
In Tennessee, the Jackson and Morristown MSAs followed the Nashville/Davidson-Murfreesboro-
Franklin MSA in house price appreciation with 4.85 percent and 4.55 percent, respectively.
The lowest annual home price appreciation among Tennessee metro areas was in the
Kingsport-Bristol MSA with 1.89 percent annual increase in the second quarter of 2016.
Annual and Quarterly Percentage Changes in Home Prices for Tennessee MSAs
MSAs
National
Rank
a
Annual Percentage Change
(2015 Q2-2016 Q2)
Quarterly Percentage
Change (2016 Q1-2016 Q2)
Chattanooga 152 3.90 0.71
Clarksville*
4.33
Cleveland*
4.26
Jackson*
4.85
Johnson City* 2.22
Kingsport-Bristol 226 1.89 2.65
Knoxville 125 4.51 1.32
Memphis 187 3.03 0.86
Morristown*
4.55
Nashville/Davidson
Murfreesboro-Franklin
23 9.83 3.52
* Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) publishes rankings and quarterly, annual, and ve-year rates of changes for the MSAs and
Metropolitan Divisions that have at least 15,000 transactions over the prior 10 years. For the remaining areas, MSAs and Divisions,
one-year rates of change are provided. Estimates use all-transaction HPI, which includes both purchase and renance mortgages.
a Rankings based on annual percentage change, for all MSAs containing at least 15,000 transactions over the last 10 years.
Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) all-transactions House Price Index (HPI)
14
Foreclosure Activity
Serious Delinquency
According to Market Trends data from CoreLogic®, in the second quarter of 2016, seriously
delinquent loans
5
in Tennessee declined by approximately eight percent compared to the rst quarter
of 2016, and by 19 percent compared to the same quarter in the previous year, translating into 13
consecutive quarters of loan delinquency declines. This decline in delinquencies was consistent
across larger and smaller, urban and rural counties; 82 of Tennessee’s 95 counties saw their totals
decrease, compared to just nine counties that experienced an increase in delinquency (four counties
saw no change). The magnitude of county-level decreases was vastly larger than any of the nine
counties that saw an increase.
The Delinquency Index
6
in Hardeman County was 262, which means that the foreclosure rate in
the county was 2.62 times the delinquency rate of the state. Of the 10 counties at the top of the
Delinquency Index, eight (excluding Lauderdale and Lake) saw their delinquency totals decrease in
the rst quarter, with Hardeman and McNairy County in particular experiencing improvements. For
the third consecutive quarter, Williamson County ranked in the bottom ve of the Delinquency Index,
nishing with a delinquency rate one-fth of the overall Tennessee rate.
The following table shows the 10 counties with the highest delinquency index in the second quarter
of 2016.
_________
5 The number of mortgages delinquent by 90 days or more, includes loans that are in REO or foreclosure.
6 Because the CoreLogic® Market Trends data are proprietary, we cannot publish specic numbers or rates in this
report. We follow the methodology used by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (http://www.mnhousing.gov/wcs/
Satellite?c=Page&cid=1358904870907&pagename=External%2FPage%2FEXTStandardLayout) and calculate index values for each of
the variables. The delinquency index is calculated by dividing each county’s delinquency rate (number of seriously delinquent mortgages
divided by number total mortgages) by the state rate. For example, delinquency index value of a county with a delinquency rate equal to the
state rate will be 100 and in counties with index rates higher than state rate, the delinquency index will be greater than 100.
15
The 10 Counties with the Highest Delinquency Index Values
County
Delinquency
Index Value
Percent Change from
Q1 2016 Index Value
Percent Change from
Q2 2015 Index Value
Grand
Division
1 Hardeman 262 -4.2% 5.6% West
2 Lauderdale 257 8.0% 17.9% West
3 Haywood 245 -2.6% 22.2% West
4 Lake 199 7.7% 38.1% West
5 Hancock 178 -7.3% 30.0% East
6 Shelby 175 1.7% 2.1% West
7 Henderson 167 0.7% 26.9% West
8 McNairy 151 -10.2% -4.5% West
9 Sequatchie 148 2.2% 16.9% Middle
10 Crockett 146 -1.0% -8.9% West
*State delinquency rate=100. Hardeman County’s delinquency rate equals 2.62 times the Tennessee rate.
**A positive value in “percent change” columns reects an increase in the Index Value, not necessarily an increase in a county’s
delinquency rate. A county could see its delinquency rate fall, but if the state average falls faster, the county will show positive values in
these columns.
16
Foreclosure Activity
Serious Delinquency
The decline in foreclosure
7
totals continued in the second quarter of 2016, with a drop of 15 percent
from the prior quarter. When compared to the second quarter of 2015, Tennessee has seen a 34
percent reduction in foreclosure inventory.
Although Shelby County fell out of the top 10 of the Foreclosure Index in the rst quarter, it returned
as number nine in the Index for the second quarter. The Foreclosure Index
8
in Shelby County was
168, which means that the foreclosure rate in Shelby County was 1.68 times (almost two times) the
foreclosure rate of the state. However, Shelby County’s raw foreclosure totals continued to decline
substantially. Robertson County had a second consecutive quarter of above-average foreclosure
decline, while Sequatchie, Henderson, and Union Counties also had strong declines relative to their
size.
The 10 Counties with the Highest Foreclosure Index Values
County
Delinquency
Index Value
Percent Change from
Q1 2016 Index Value
Percent Change from
Q2 2015 Index Value
Grand
Division
1 Hancock 296 -41.7% 21.1% East
2 Benton 263 46.5% 471.1% West
3 Hardeman 250 13.4% 24.6% West
4 Stewart 192 46.2% 53.3% Middle
5 Rhea 172 -1.1% 27.1% East
6 Cocke 172 13.8% 23.0% East
7 Fentress 169 102.9% 32.2% Middle
8 Montgomery 169 0.2% 12.0% Middle
9 Shelby 168 2.7% 2.8% West
10 Claiborne 159 -12.1% -16.6% East
*State rate=100; Hancock County’s value of 296 denotes a foreclosure rate 2.96 times that of the Tennessee overall rate.
**A positive value in “percent change” columns reects an increase in the Index Value, not necessarily an increase in a county’s foreclosure
rate. A county could see its foreclosure rate fall, but if the state average falls faster, the county will show positive values in these columns.
_________
7 According to Market Trends data from CoreLogic®. The number of foreclosures are counted as the number of loans that are in the
foreclosure process in which an owner’s right to a property is terminated, usually due to default.
8 Foreclosure Index is calculated by dividing each county’s foreclosure rate (number of mortgages in foreclosure process divided by
number total mortgages) by the state rate.
17
Affordability
Housing Opportunity Index
The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) developed the housing opportunity index
(HOI), a measure of the share of homes sold in an area in a certain time that would have been
affordable to a family earning the area median income (AMI), based on standard mortgage
underwriting criteria.
9
We calculated a housing opportunity index for Tennessee counties in 2014 and 2015
10
similar
to the NAHB/Wells Fargo HOI. The index ranges from zero to 100. As the value of the index
increases so does the number of homes sold in the area that are affordable to a family earning
the median income. In 2014, the index values ranged from 27 percent in Williamson County to 99
percent in Chester County.
On average, 75 percent of homes sold in Tennessee would have been affordable to a family
earning the median income in 2015, slightly increasing from 74 percent in 2014. Even though the
median home price in Williamson County increased in 2015 (from $370,219 in 2014 to $390,000
in 2015), declining interest rates and increased median family income led to a slightly higher
opportunity index in the county. On average, 27 percent of all homes sold in Williamson County
would have been affordable to a family earning median income in 2015, compared to 25 percent
affordable in 2014.
In 2015, the housing opportunity index declined in 36 counties compared to 2014. The most
signicant deterioration in housing affordability was in Lake County where the housing opportunity
index declined from 100 percent in 2014 to 88 percent in 2015. The most signicant improvement
in housing affordability compared to 2014 was in Madison County with a nine percentage point
increase in the housing opportunity index.
_________
9 More information about NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index (HOI) and historical HOI for metropolitan areas can be found at
http://www.nahb.org/en/research/housing-economics/housing-indexes/housing-opportunity-index.aspx
10 We used the sales price and volume data we receive from the Property Assessment Division, Comptroller’s Ofce for the prices of
homes purchased during the year. We assumed 10 percent downpayment and average xed interest rate for a 30-year mortgage as
reported by Freddie Mac Primary Mortgage Market Survey http://www.freddiemac.com/pmms/pmms_archives.html. We added insurance
and property tax payments to nd monthly principal, interest, tax and insurance (PITI) payments. We compared the monthly PITI for each
homes purchased to the monthly area median family income (following NAHB methodology, we assumed that a family paying 28 percent of
its income for PITI will not be cost burdened). Median family income is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
18
In some counties, wide uctuations in the index values were related to the small number of home
sales. The highest deterioration in affordability among the counties with 500 or more home sales
was in Bradley County where the housing opportunity index declined from 83 percent in 2014 to
76 percent in 2015, a seven percentage point decline.
The maps on the following page show the housing opportunity index in Tennessee counties and
the change in affordability from 2014 to 2015. The county level housing opportunity index values
for 2014 and 2015 can be found in Appendix A.
19
Affordability
Housing Opportunity Index
Percent of Homes Sold in the County that were Affordable to a Family Earning AMI
2014 Housing Opportunity Index
Source: Tennessee home prices – THDA tabulations of data obtained from the Property Assessment Division, Comptroller’s Ofce. Median
Family Income – U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
2015 Housing Opportunity Index
20
Workforce Housing Affordability –2014 and 2015
Housing Affordability for Home Buyers and Renters with Selected Occupations in
Tennessee and Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)
As the previously presented analysis showed, buying a home in some counties in 2015 became
less affordable for a family earning the area median income compared to 2014. Housing
affordability continued to be a challenge for single-wage earner households working at various
occupations. Registered nurses, police ofcers and educators earning the median wage were
generally able to purchase or rent a median-priced home without being cost burdened in most
MSAs and in the state as a whole in 2014 and 2015. None of the single wage earners in selected
occupations experienced improvement in their housing cost burdens in 2015 compared to 2014,
except police ofcers in the Morristown MSA. A slight increase in the median hourly wages of
Morristown MSA police ofcers helped them afford to buy a median priced home even though
the median home price in the MSA increased by three percent compared to the previous year.
Possibly, the lower cost of borrowing compensated for the increasing median price and led to an
improved affordability in the Morristown MSA.
Homeownership was out of reach for many single-wage earner households when the median
hourly wage rate for all occupations was considered, except in the Jackson MSA. In 2015, the
average worker who earned a $14.57 median hourly wage in the Jackson MSA could buy a
home and afford to rent a two-bedroom house at the fair market rent. The median home price
in the Jackson MSA was the lowest in the state among the MSAs both in 2014 and 2015 even
though it increased by four percent. In 2015, housing affordability worsened in the Cleveland,
Kingsport-Bristol and Memphis MSAs. Single-wage earner households in these MSAs were not
able to buy a median priced home or afford to rent a two-bedroom apartment at the fair market
rent, while they could at least rent affordably in 2014.
Housing affordability deterioration in the Kingsport-Bristol MSA was even more evident
considering that, in 2014, the single family wage earner households were able to both buy and
rent affordably. In 2015, the single family wage earner households with an average salary could
afford to buy a median priced home but could not rent a two-bedroom apartment affordably at
fair market rent. The fair market rent in the Kingsport-Bristol MSA increased by 25 percent in
2015 compared to 2014, which made renting unaffordable for an average single wage earner
household in the MSA.
Educators and police ofcers in Nashville earning the median wage could not afford to buy at the
median price, but they could afford to rent in 2014 and 2015. Wait staff, cashiers, and retail sales
persons could not afford to buy or rent a median-priced home in any MSA in either 2014 or 2015.
21
2015 Median Hourly Wage by Occupation 2015
Metropolitan
Statistical Areas
(MSAs)
Median
Home
Price
Wage
Needed
to Buy
2-BDRM
Apartment
Monthly Rent
Wage
Needed
to Rent
Education**
Registered
Nurse
Police
Wait
Person
Cashier
Retail
Sales-
person
All
Occupations
Chattanooga $180,000 $19.27 $714 $13.73 $21.37 $26.98 $18.20 $8.81 $8.84 $9.85 $14.92
Clarksville $168,000 $17.99 $781 $15.02 $25.18 $27.76 $19.62 $8.62 $8.77 $10.06 $14.62
Cleveland $149,900 $16.05 $683 $13.13 $20.92 $17.52 $19.83 $8.71 $8.78 $11.00 $13.06
Jackson $120,000 $12.85 $678 $13.04 $22.09 $24.23 $21.39 $8.72 $8.83 $9.68 $14.57
Johnson City $142,670 $15.27 $729 $14.02 $21.05 $16.90 $19.68 $8.55 $8.75 $10.26 $14.02
Kingsport-Bristol
$128,500 $13.76 $774 $14.88 $20.86 $24.33 $18.77 $8.82 $8.65 $9.58 $14.82
Knoxville
$169,000 $18.09 $658 $12.65 $20.69 $26.08 $19.09 $8.72 $8.89 $9.63 $15.05
Memphis^
$176,500 $18.90 $832 $16.00 $22.51 $29.09 $24.42 $8.62 $8.82 $10.77 $15.59
Morristown
$134,000 $14.35 $593 $11.40 $18.47 $16.10 $14.58 $8.62 $8.70 $10.88 $13.86
Nashville/Davidson-
Murfreesboro-
Franklin^
$220,000 $23.55 $850 $16.35 $21.38 $28.28 $21.53 $8.64 $8.98 $10.46 $16.72
TENNESSEE
$165,900 $17.76 $749 $14.40 $21.10 $27.33 $20.34 $8.65 $8.86 $10.22 $15.30
2014 Median Hourly Wage by Occupation 2014
Metropolitan
Statistical Areas
(MSAs)
Median
Home
Price
Wage
Needed
to Buy
2-BDRM
Apartment
Monthly Rent
Wage
Needed
to Rent
Education**
Registered
Nurse
Police
Wait
Person
Cashier
Retail
Sales-
person
All
Occupations
Chattanooga $174,000 $19.36 $679 $13.06 $21.02 $27.72 $18.20 $8.61 $8.81 $9.74 $14.65
Clarksville $158,000 $17.58 $767 $14.75 $24.15 $27.69 $19.19 $8.53 $8.83 $9.69 $14.43
Cleveland $144,900 $16.12 $649 $12.48 $20.70 $25.20 $20.19 $8.50 $8.87 $10.23 $12.72
Jackson $115,000 $12.80 $685 $13.17 $22.62 $23.83 $19.90 $8.58 $8.96 $9.35 $14.62
Johnson City $145,000 $16.13 $646 $12.42 $20.27 $26.43 $18.34 $8.47 $8.80 $10.40 $13.88
Kingsport-Bristol
$128,573 $14.31 $617 $11.87 $20.55 $23.99 $18.09 $8.69 $8.69 $9.53 $14.59
Knoxville
$167,350 $18.62 $774 $14.88 $21.03 $26.11 $18.69 $8.56 $8.85 $9.98 $14.95
Memphis^
$171,000 $19.03 $780 $15.00 $22.56 $28.32 $23.25 $8.55 $8.81 $10.48 $15.27
Morristown
$130,000 $14.47 $637 $12.25 $16.69 $16.35 $14.40 $8.46 $8.71 $10.81 $13.78
Nashville/Davidson-
Murfreesboro-
Franklin^
$207,000 $23.03 $851 $16.37 $20.88 $28.30 $21.26 $8.56 $8.99 $10.35 $16.47
TENNESSEE
$165,900 $18.46 $729 $14.02 $20.77 $27.10 $19.75 $8.55 $8.87 $10.09 $15.02
*Tennessee represents the whole state, not the balance of the state.
**”Education” represents education, training and library occupations.
^”Licensed Practical and Licensed Vocational Nurses” category is used for “Registered Nurse”
category.”
Source: “Median Home Price” is THDA calculations based on data from the Property Assessment
Division, Comptroller’s Ofce, State of Tennessee, “2-bedroom Apartment Rent” is Fair Market Rent
(FMR) by room size from US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). “Median
Hourly Wages” are from Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment Statistics.
can afford to buy and rent
can afford to buy, but not rent
can afford to only rent
cannot afford to buy or rent
22
Vacancy rates
Homeowner and Rental Vacancy Rates
Quarterly Vacancy Rates, Tennessee 2008-2016
Source: Census Bureau, Housing Vacancies and Homeownership (CPS/HVS) www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/rates.html
Statewide vacancy rates in the second quarter of 2016 were seven percent for rental housing
and 1.7 percent for homeowner housing. These vacancy rates were comparable to the national
vacancy rates of 6.7 percent for rental housing and 1.7 percent for homeowner housing. The
rental vacancy rate was slightly higher than the rate of 6.5 percent in the same quarter of the
previous year. The homeowner vacancy rate of 1.7 percent was lower than the homeowner
vacancy rate of 2.9 percent in the second quarter of 2015.
Tennessee’s two largest MSAs have very different patterns with regards to rental and homeowner
vacancy. In the Memphis MSA, both rental and homeowner vacancy rates decreased in 2015
compared to 2014
11
. Although the rental vacancy rate was higher than the vacancy rate of metro
areas across the nation, the homeowner vacancy rate was slightly lower than the average of
metro areas in the nation. The Memphis MSA rental vacancy rates declined from 15.1 in 2014 to
10.7 in 2015. In the Nashville MSA, the rental vacancy rate declined in 2014, but the homeowner
vacancy rate increased more than one percentage point compared to 2013. In the Nashville MSA,
the rental vacancy rate increased from four percent in 2014 to 4.9 in 2015, and during the same
Rental Homeowner
er Vacancy Rate
Memphis M
Nashville M
Inside Metro Areas - U.S.
Memphis M
Nashville M
1986 5.9 5.3 7.2 1986 1.4 0.9
1987 5.5 8 7.7 1987 1.2 0.3
1988 8.3 8.4 7.8 1988 1.2 2.9
1989 8.9 11.2 7.4 1989 1.3 1.5
1990 10.2 11.3 7.1 1990 1.7 2.4
1991 10.8 8.8 7.5 1991 2.7 1.9
1992 10.2 4.3 7.4 1992 1 1.3
1993 7.4 4.9 7.5 1993 0.8 0.7
1994 6.8 2.7 7.3 1994 2.5 1
1995 8.8 4.2 7.6 1995 1.6 1.1
1996 5.9 3.9 7.7 1996 2 0.7
1997 3.3 6.6 7.5 1997 1.3 1.1
1998 6.6 5.4 7.7 1998 1.3 1.8
1999 9.2 4.4 7.8 1999 2.9 1.3
2000 7.1 3.5 7.7 2000 2.7 1.4
2001 8.8 7.5 8 2001 2.6 2.3
2002 12.2 7.1 8.7 2002 2.1 2
2003 12.2 7.8 9.6 2003 1.5 2.5
2004 12.2 9.3 10.2 2004 3.4 1.7
2005 10.2 14.6 10.8 2005 1.9 1.9
2006 9.5 10.5 11.5 2006 1.9 1.5
2007 12.8 7.6 12.2 2007 2.8 2.4
2008 16.6 10.6 12.6 2008 3.3 2.2
2009 22.9 8.3 12.8 2009 2.4 1.9
2010 18.5 8.2 10.3 2010 3.4 2.4
2011 15.4 8.2 9.5 2011 3 2.2
2012 14.9 8.4 8.6 2012 2.4 1.6
2013 13.4 5.3 8 2013 1.8 0.9
2014 15.1 4 7.4 2014 2 2.4
2015 10.7 4.9 6.8 2015 1.4 3.1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
2008_Q2
2008_Q4
2009_Q2
2009_Q4
2010_Q2
2010_Q4
2011_Q2
2011_Q4
2012_Q2
2012_Q4
2013_Q2
2013_Q4
2014_Q2
2014_Q4
2015_Q2
2015_Q4
2016_Q2
Percent of Units Vacant
Quarterly Vacancy Rates, Tennessee
2008-2016
Rental
Homeowner
Source: Census Bureau, Housing Vacancies and Homeownership (CPS/HVS)
_________
11 The most recent available data for the metropolitan areas.
23
time period, rental vacancy rates in metro areas across the nation declined from 7.4 percent
to 6.8 percent. Even though the rental vacancy rate in the Nashville MSA was lower than the
nationwide average rate across all metro areas, it still contradicts the increasing rental demand in
the metro area. One possible explanation could be that the rental housing built in recent years is
catching up with the demand pressure.
Rental Vacancy Rates: Memphis and Nashville MSAs 2006-2015
Homeowner Vacancy Rates: Memphis and Nashville MSAs 2006-2015
Source: Rental and homeowner vacancy rates by Metro Areas are from U.S. Census Bureau, Housing Vacancies and Homeownership
(CPS/HVS) https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/ann15ind.html
Tennessee US Tennessee
Rental
Homeowne
Rental Homeowner
Rental Vaca
Homeowne
2005_Q1 9.8 1.7 1986 6 1.5
2005_Q2 9 1.6 1987 7.6 1
2005_Q3 9.5 1.7 1988 7.2 1.3
2005_Q4 13 1.8 1989 9.1 1.3
2006_Q1 9.7 1.6 1990 9.5 2.4
2006_Q2 10.5 2.1 1991 8.5 1.7
2006_Q3 12.7 1.6 1992 6 1.1
2006_Q4 9.1 1.9 1993 4.6 1
2007_Q1 12.1 2 1994 4.6 1.4
2007_Q2 7.9 1.8 1995 5.4 1.5
2007_Q3 8.5 1.9 1996 5.4 1.6
2007_Q4 8.3 2.8 1997 7.2 1.3
2008_Q1 8.6 3.3 1998 7.4 1.2
2008_Q2 14.3 2.3 1999 8.2 1.7
2008_Q3 12.5 3.5 2000 7.1 1.9
2008_Q4 12.9 2.7 2001 9.5 2.4
2009_Q1 11.2 2 2002 10.4 2.1
2009_Q2 13.4 1.9 2003 8.3 1.7
2009_Q3 14.6 2.9 2004 10 2.4
2009_Q4 13 3.1 2005 10.3 1.7
2010_Q1 13.4 2.3 10.6 2.6 2006 10.5 1.8
2010_Q2 13.6 2.6 10.6 2.5 2007 9.2 2.1
2010_Q3 12.4 2.1 10.3 2.5 2008 12.1 3
2010_Q4 10.4 3.4 9.4 2.7 2009 12.8 2.5
2011_Q1 11.1 3.6 9.7 2.6 2010 12.5 2.6
2011_Q2 11.9 3.4 9.2 2.5 2011 12 2.8
2011_Q3 12.4 1.8 9.8 2.4 2012 11.6 2.6
2011_Q4 12.4 2.3 9.4 2.3
2012_Q1 11.7 3.3 8.8 2.2
2012_Q2 12.6 2.9 8.6 2.1
2012_Q3 12.2 1.9 8.6 1.9
2012_Q4 10.1 2.3 8.7 1.9
2013_Q1 10.9 2 8.6 2.1
2013_Q2 7.7 1.4 8.2 1.9 4.9
2013_Q3 8.3 1.9 8.3 1.9
2013_Q4 8.7 2.6 8.2 2.1
2014_Q1 8.1 2.2 8.3 2
2014_Q2 8 2.9 7.5 1.9 0.3 0.9
2014_Q3 10.1 2.3 7.4 1.8
2014_Q4 7.7 1.9 7 1.9
2015_Q1 7.4 2.7 7.1 1.9
2015_Q2 6.5 2.9 6.8 1.8
2015_Q3 8.5 2.2 7.3 1.9
2015_Q4 7.5 2 7 1.9
2016_Q1 7.6 1.8 7 1.7
0
5
10
15
20
25
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Percent of Units Vacant (%)
Rental Vacancy Rates: Memphis and Nashville MSAs
2006-2015
Inside Metro
Areas - U.S.
Memphis MSA
Nashville MSA
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Percent of Units Vacant (%)
Homeowner Vacancy Rates: Memphis and Nashville
MSAs 2006-2015
Inside Metro
Areas - U.S.
Memphis
MSA
Nashville
MSA
Tennessee US Tennessee
Rental
Homeowne
Rental Homeowner
Rental Vaca
Homeowne
2005_Q1 9.8 1.7 1986 6 1.5
2005_Q2 9 1.6 1987 7.6 1
2005_Q3 9.5 1.7 1988 7.2 1.3
2005_Q4 13 1.8 1989 9.1 1.3
2006_Q1 9.7 1.6 1990 9.5 2.4
2006_Q2 10.5 2.1 1991 8.5 1.7
2006_Q3 12.7 1.6 1992 6 1.1
2006_Q4 9.1 1.9 1993 4.6 1
2007_Q1 12.1 2 1994 4.6 1.4
2007_Q2 7.9 1.8 1995 5.4 1.5
2007_Q3 8.5 1.9 1996 5.4 1.6
2007_Q4 8.3 2.8 1997 7.2 1.3
2008_Q1 8.6 3.3 1998 7.4 1.2
2008_Q2 14.3 2.3 1999 8.2 1.7
2008_Q3 12.5 3.5 2000 7.1 1.9
2008_Q4 12.9 2.7 2001 9.5 2.4
2009_Q1 11.2 2 2002 10.4 2.1
2009_Q2 13.4 1.9 2003 8.3 1.7
2009_Q3 14.6 2.9 2004 10 2.4
2009_Q4 13 3.1 2005 10.3 1.7
2010_Q1 13.4 2.3 10.6 2.6 2006 10.5 1.8
2010_Q2 13.6 2.6 10.6 2.5 2007 9.2 2.1
2010_Q3 12.4 2.1 10.3 2.5 2008 12.1 3
2010_Q4 10.4 3.4 9.4 2.7 2009 12.8 2.5
2011_Q1 11.1 3.6 9.7 2.6 2010 12.5 2.6
2011_Q2 11.9 3.4 9.2 2.5 2011 12 2.8
2011_Q3 12.4 1.8 9.8 2.4 2012 11.6 2.6
2011_Q4 12.4 2.3 9.4 2.3
2012_Q1 11.7 3.3 8.8 2.2
2012_Q2 12.6 2.9 8.6 2.1
2012_Q3 12.2 1.9 8.6 1.9
2012_Q4 10.1 2.3 8.7 1.9
2013_Q1 10.9 2 8.6 2.1
2013_Q2 7.7 1.4 8.2 1.9 4.9
2013_Q3 8.3 1.9 8.3 1.9
2013_Q4 8.7 2.6 8.2 2.1
2014_Q1 8.1 2.2 8.3 2
2014_Q2 8 2.9 7.5 1.9 0.3 0.9
2014_Q3 10.1 2.3 7.4 1.8
2014_Q4 7.7 1.9 7 1.9
2015_Q1 7.4 2.7 7.1 1.9
2015_Q2 6.5 2.9 6.8 1.8
2015_Q3 8.5 2.2 7.3 1.9
2015_Q4 7.5 2 7 1.9
2016_Q1 7.6 1.8 7 1.7
0
5
10
15
20
25
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Percent of Units Vacant (%)
Rental Vacancy Rates: Memphis and Nashville MSAs
2006-2015
Inside Metro
Areas - U.S.
Memphis MSA
Nashville MSA
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Percent of Units Vacant (%)
Homeowner Vacancy Rates: Memphis and Nashville
MSAs 2006-2015
Inside Metro
Areas - U.S.
Memphis
MSA
Nashville
MSA
24
THDA is a political subdivision of the State of Tennessee. THDA is the state’s housing
nance agency, responsible for selling tax exempt mortgage revenue bonds to offer
affordable mortgage funds to homebuyers of low and moderate incomes through local
lenders, and to administer various housing programs targeted to households of very
low-, low- and moderate-incomes.
THDA, established in 1973, is entirely self-supporting, providing affordable xed rate
mortgages to over 100,000 households without using state tax dollars. THDA issues
between $250 and $300 million in mortgage revenue bonds annually for its rst-time
homebuyer program.
More information about THDA is available on-line at www.thda.org.
Additional county-by-county data is available
on our website at www.thda.org.
Tennessee Housing Development Agency
l
502 Deaderick St.,
Nashville, TN 37243
l
615-815-2200
l
www.thda.org
