Isn’t the Zip Code Level Good Enough—Why Look at More Granular Housing Market Data?

by Guest Contributor 7 min read October 7, 2011

By: John Straka

For many purposes, national home-price averages, MSA figures, or even zip code data cannot adequately gauge local housing markets. The higher the level of the aggregate, the less it reflects the true variety and constant change in prices and conditions across local neighborhood home markets. Financial institutions, investors, and regulators that seek out and learn how to use local housing market data will generally be much closer to true housing markets.

When houses are not good substitutes from the viewpoint of most market participants, they are not part of the same housing market.  Different sizes and types and ages of homes, for example, may be in the same county, zip code, block, or even right next door to each other, but they are generally not in the same housing market when they are not good substitutes.  This highlights the importance of starting with detailed granular information on local-neighborhood home markets and homes. 

To be sure, greater granularity in neighborhood home-market evaluation requires analysts and modelers to deal with much more data on literally hundreds of thousands of neighborhoods in the U.S. It is fair to ask if zip-code level data, for example, might not be generally sufficient. Most housing analysts and portfolio modelers, in fact, have traditionally assumed this, believing that reasonable insights can be gleaned from zip code, county-level, or even MSA data. But this is fully adequate, strictly speaking, only if neighborhood home markets and outcomes are homogenous—at least reasonably so—within the level of aggregation used. Unfortunately, even at zip-code level, the data suggests otherwise. 

Examples

All of the home-price and home-valuation data for this report was supplied by Collateral Analytics. I have focused on zip7s, i.e. zip+2s, which are a more granular neighborhood measure than zip codes. A Hodrick-Prescott (H-P) Filter was applied by Collateral Analytics to the raw home-price data in order to attenuate short-term variation and isolate the six-year trends. But as we’ll see this dampening still leaves an unrealistically high range of variation within zip codes, for reasons discussed below. Fortunately there is an easy way to control for this, which we’ll apply for final estimates of the range of within-zip variation in home-price outcomes. 

The three charts below show the H-P filtered 2005-2011 percent changes in home-price per square foot of living area within three different types of zip codes in San Diego county. Within the first type of zip code, 92319 in this case, the home-price changes in recent years have been relatively homogenous, with a range of -56% to -40% home-price change across the zip7s (i.e., zip+2s) in 92319. But the second type of zip code, illustrated by 92078, is more typical. In this type of case the home-price changes across the zip7s have varied much more. The 2055-2011 zip7 %chg in home prices within 92078 have varied by over 40 percentage points, from -51% to -10%. In the third type of zip code, less frequent but surprisingly common, the home-price changes across the zip7s have had a truly remarkable range of variation. This is illustrated here by zip code 92024 in which the home price outcomes have varied from -51% to +21%, or a 71 percentage point range of difference—and this is not the zip code with the maximum range of variation observed!

House Price Trends - ZIP 92139
House Price Trends - Zip 92078
House Price Trends - ZIP 92024

All of the San Diego County zip codes are summarized in the bar chart below. Nearly two-thirds of the zip codes, 65%, have more than 30 percentage points within-zip difference in the 2005-2011 zip7 %changes in home prices. 40% have more than a 40 percentage point range of different home-price outcomes, 23% have more than a 50 percentage point range, and 13% have more than a 70 percentage point range of differences. The average range of the zip7 within-zip code differences is a 37 percentage point median, 41 percentage-point mean. These high numbers are surprising, and are most likely unrealistically high.

Summary of Within-Zip (Zip+2 level) Ranges of Variation in Home-Price Changes in San Diego: Percentage of Zips by Range Across Zip+2s in Home Price/Living Area %Change 2005-2011

House Price Changes

Controlling for Factors Inflating the Range of Variation

Such sizable differences within a typical single zip code clearly suggest materially different neighborhood home markets. While this qualitative conclusion is supported further below, the magnitudes of the within-zip variation in home-price changes shown above are quite likely inflated. There is a tendency for a limited number of observations in various zip7s to create statistical “noise” outliers, and the inclusion of distressed property sales here can create further outliers, with cases of both limited observations and distress sales particularly capable of creating more negative outliers that are not representative of the true price changes for most homes and their true range of variation within zip codes.  (My earlier blog on June 29th discussed the biases from including distressed property sales while trying to gauge general price trends for most properties.)

Fortunately, I’ve been able to access a very convenient way to control for these factors by using the zip7 averages of Collateral Analytics’ AVM (Automated Valuation Model) values rather than simply the home price data summarized above. These industry-leading AVM home valuations have been designed, in part, to filter out statistical noise problems. 

The bar chart below shows the still significant zip7 ranges within San Diego County zip codes using the AVM values, but the distribution is now shifted considerably, and more realistically, to a much smaller share of the zip codes with remarkably high zip7 variation. Compared with the chart above, now just 1% of the zips have a zip7 range greater than 60 percentage points, 5% greater than 50, and 11% greater than 40, but there are still 36% greater than 30.

To be sure, this distribution, and the average range of zip7 differences—which is now a 25 percentage-point median, 26 percent age-point mean—do show a considerable range of local home market variation within zip codes. It seems fair to conclude that the typical zip code does not contain the uniformity in home price outcomes that most housing analysts and modelers have tended to simply assume. The difference between the effects on consumer wealth and behavior of a 10% home price decline, for example, vs. a 35 to 50% decline, would seem to be sizable in most cases. This kind of difference within a zip code is not at all unusual in these data.

Automated Value Model price  - San Diego County

How About a Different Type of Urban Area—More Uniform?

It might be thought that the diversity of topography, etc., across San Diego County (from the sea to the mountains) makes its variation of home market outcomes within zip codes unusually high. To take a quick gauge of this hypothesis, let’s look at a more topographically uniform urban area: Columbus, Ohio.

When I informally polled some of my colleagues asking what their prior belief would be about the within-zip code variation in home price outcomes in Columbus vs. San Diego County, there was unanimous agreement with my prior belief. We all expected greater within-zip uniformity in Columbus. I find it interesting to report here that we were wrong.

Both the H-P filtered raw home-price information and the AVM values from Collateral Analytics show relatively greater zip7 variation within Columbus (Franklin County) zip codes than in San Diego County. 

The bar chart below shows the best-filtered, most attenuated results,  the AVM values. 5% of the Columbus zips have a zip7 range greater than 70 percentage points, 8% greater than 60, 23% greater than 50, 35% greater than 40, and 65% greater than 30. The average range of zip7 within-zip code differences in Columbus is a 35 percentage point median, 38 percentage-point mean.

Conclusion

These data seem consistent with what experienced appraisers and real estate agents have been trying to tell economists and other housing analysts, investors, and financial institutions and policymakers for quite a long time. Although they have quite reasonable uses for aggregate time-series and forecasting purposes, more aggregate-data based models of housing markets actually miss a lot of the very real and material variation in local neighborhood housing markets.  For home valuation and many other purposes, even models that use data which gets down to the zip code level of aggregation—which most analysts have assumed to be sufficiently disaggregated—are not really good enough. These models are not as good as they can or should be.

These facts are indicative of the greater challenge to properly define local housing markets empirically, in such a way that better data, models, and analytics can be more rapidly developed and deployed for greater profitability, and for sooner and more sustainable housing market recoveries.

I thank Michael Sklarz for providing the data for this report and for comments, and I thank Stacy Schulman for assistance in this post.

Related Posts

Rewriting the Road Ahead with Longer Loan Terms and Increased Refinancing Options

The automotive market is entering a new phase defined not just by what consumers are buying, but by how they’re choosing to finance it. According to Experian Automotive’s State of the Automotive Finance Market Report: Q1 2026, nearly one-third (35.55%) of all new vehicle loans now stretch more than six years, up from 30.83% in Q1 2025. Similarly on the used side, 31.54% of loans extended more than six years, an increase from 28.60% last year. The shift highlights why affordability is reshaping how consumers are financing their vehicles, particularly in larger and higher-priced vehicles. Refinancing gains traction as interest rates stabilize In addition to longer-term loans, consumers are becoming increasingly deliberate with their financing decisions and managing monthly payments as refinancing activity has gained momentum. For instance, consumers who refinanced this quarter lowered their interest rate by 2.2% and saved an average of $81 on their monthly payment. Credit unions, in particular, continued to play a major role in helping consumers secure more affordable payment options. In Q1 2025, credit unions accounted for the lion’s share of automotive refinancing at 63.43%, from 62.31% a year ago. By comparison, banks went from 23.51% to 22.59% year-over-year. Furthermore, those who refinanced with a credit union saved an average of $101 this quarter, whereas those who refinanced with banks saved $60. Expanding credit access through flexible financing Another notable trend this quarter was the incessant growth in subprime financing as credit accessibility across the market continues to increase. In the first quarter of this year, subprime borrowers made up 15.75% of total vehicle financing, from 14.40% last year. For new vehicles in particular, the subprime market went from 5.61% to 6.88% year-over-year, while subprime in used vehicle financing grew to 20.60% this quarter, from 19.36% a year ago. Increased activity in the subprime segment highlights continued confidence in the automotive market and underscores the importance of expanded financing options. As consumers seek greater flexibility with financing decisions that fit their lifestyle, lenders and dealers have the opportunity to approach them with more personalized solutions. These trends are helping keep both new and used vehicle markets moving forward, while creating new opportunities for consumers to manage payments and purchase confidently. To learn more about automotive finance trends, view the full State of the Automotive Finance Market Report: Q1 2026 presentation on demand.

Published: June 2, 2026 by Melinda Zabritski
Staying Competitive After Trigger Leads Evolve: A Roadmap For Lenders

Trigger leads have long been the preferred solution for identifying high-intent mortgage borrowers. But with the implementation of the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act (HPPA), which introduces new limitations and consumer protections around trigger leads, that playbook will need to shift. Now, lenders are quickly facing a pivotal shift in how they discover, engage, and convert prospective borrowers into customers. The industry now stands at a crossroads. Lenders who adapt early—leaning into predictive tools, consent-based engagement, and smarter prescreening—will redefine borrower acquisition in a more privacy-centric era.  HPPA: A structural change to mortgage marketing  The HPPA amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act by significantly restricting the use of mortgage inquiries for prescreen purposes. As of March 5, 2026, credit bureaus may only provide or utilize mortgage inquiries to:  End users with explicit borrower consent  The originator of the consumer’s current mortgage  The servicer of the consumer’s current mortgage  An insured depository institution or credit union where the consumer has an existing account  While these exemptions may provide continuity for banks and credit unions, many mortgage brokers and nonbank lenders will need to overhaul their prescreen practices—or risk being cut off entirely from a previously high-performing acquisition channel.  Why this isn’t just a compliance shift—It’s a strategic recalibration  Mortgage triggers in prescreen allow lenders to react instantly to consumer intent. Lenders rely on a prompt and convincing narrative to entice applicants to switch lenders. Mortgage inquiry triggers are effective and were, therefore, a prospecting strategy for many lenders. Recent legislative changes significantly restrict the availability of these inquiry triggers, and impacted lenders are focusing on a more intentional prospecting strategy to compete.   Without these mortgage triggers in prescreen, lenders need to ask:  Who are we trying to reach?  What early signals can we act on?  How do we earn permission and attention before a mortgage inquiry ever happens?  Transforming the funnel: From reaction to anticipation  The shift in mortgage inquiry-based prescreen isn’t the end of high-intent lead targeting. It’s the beginning of a more strategic and intentional approach—one that leverages earlier indicators of mortgage readiness and focuses on building relationships, not just closing transactions.  Here’s where the momentum is evolving, creating a new and smarter funnel:  Prescreen marketing: Using credit and behavioral attributes to help identify consumers who meet specific lending criteria before they signal active intent.  Predictive modeling: Leveraging propensity scores or custom models to prioritize outreach based on conversion likelihood.  Consent-based engagement: Implementing compliant mechanisms to capture and manage borrower opt-ins at scale.  The power of predictive modeling  According to recent industry interviews, propensity modeling is emerging as one of the most effective replacements for trigger-based prescreen. These models analyze hundreds of credit attributes—such as utilization, account mix, account age, and depth—to help identify consumers statistically more likely to seek a mortgage.  For lenders just beginning to use predictive modeling, off-the-shelf models can be a quick way to identify potential borrowers. For example, when layering propensity scores on top of credit eligibility, which can improve borrower targeting, many lenders see an increase in open mortgage loan rates.  Meanwhile, custom-built models, which analyze a lender’s own campaign performance over time, offer the highest level of precise targeting. These models isolate the attributes most predictive of conversions within a specific product mix—optimizing not just volume, but fit.  Speed without traditional triggers? It’s possible  One of the biggest concerns among lenders is maintaining the speed historically enabled by trigger leads. But that concern may be overblown.  Self-service prescreen platforms now allow marketers to generate qualified lead lists in as little as 24 hours, enabling rapid response during rate drops, competitive shifts, or seasonal demand spikes.   For those new to prescreening, batch campaigns still offer value, especially with analyst support.   Don’t overlook retention  In an era of intense acquisition competition, retention becomes a key differentiator.  Lenders who monitor property status, cash flow, and consumer credit behavior can proactively identify when an existing borrower is likely to list, refinance, or exit. Armed with that intelligence, lenders can re-engage with the borrower at the right moment—sometimes before a competitor is considered or contacted.  This level of behavioral intelligence may soon separate proactive lenders from reactive ones.  Actions instead of reactions  The evolution of trigger-based prescreen doesn’t just require new tools; it demands new thinking. Lenders should begin by auditing their current pipelines and determining:  What percentage of our acquisition is dependent on triggers?  What share of our book falls under the HPPA exemptions?  How will we scale compliant opt-in collection?  Are our current prescreen or modeling capabilities future-ready?  Those who answer these questions today—and act on them—won’t just be in compliance with the new laws, they’ll lead in a transformed market. Lenders should also be asking:   Do we have the infrastructure to collect and act on borrower consent?  Are our acquisition teams equipped to run prescreen campaigns — both batch and self-service?  What predictive models are we using (or could we use) to prioritize leads?  Are we proactively monitoring our portfolio to catch retention risks early?  How are we preparing our sales teams for longer, more consultative buying journeys?  Conclusion  The HPPA signals a shift away from relying on passive, inquiry-based prescreen acquisition and the beginning of smarter, more strategic engagement with potential borrowers. Lenders who embrace this transition early will find themselves not just compliant, but competitive—with deeper borrower insights, better conversion rates, and stronger long-term customer relationships.  The market is moving. The only question is: will you lead the change or chase it?  Citation  Experian. (2025, November). Interview: How the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act is reshaping mortgage marketing—and what lenders should do now [transcript]. Experian Mortgage Insights. Insights based on lender feedback, campaign performance data, and analysis of prescreen marketing strategies and predictive modeling outcomes were gathered from Experian client engagements and internal mortgage analytics between May and October 2025. Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act timeline and legal context referenced from legislation signed September 5, 2025, with implementation beginning March 5, 2026.   

Published: April 22, 2026 by Ivan Ahmed