It’s an interesting theory but there are too many players and loans are spread out all over the country into too many markets (none of which had the same appreciation or depreciation timetables). The various institutions don’t have secret meetings and design the bottom, but there are trends and your prediction may still be correct, but not for those reasons. More than likely the trend in quality of reo’s and areas have more to do with the demographics of the borrowers. The shakiest buyers with the riskiest loans (subprime toxic loans) went early and had few resources to avoid foreclosure. They were more likely to strip their place and more likely to not have put much into it or take care of it, thus the crappier ones were the bulk of the early foreclosures. As unemployment spread a little upwards and trouble shifted into prime, the houses were in different places and in better shape. None of this applies to “all” reo’s, just the trend.
I do think your fall 2009 prediction will be accurate, I just don’t think it was by design.
