Friday, September 2, 2022
From the IMF’s latest report on Estonia:
“The authorities estimate that the housing market was moderately overvalued in 2021, while house price growth accelerated further in early 2022, reflecting a combination of strong demand and limited supply. In March 2022, the government tightened the eligibility criteria of the housing loan support program to better target support. The central bank has announced an increase in the countercyclical capital buffer, moving it from zero to 1 percent effective in December 2022.
(…)
The macroprudential stance is appropriate, but careful monitoring of housing market developments is needed. The new countercyclical buffer framework, which will take effect in December 2022, entails a tighter effective stance. This appears appropriate given the continued upward momentum in house prices and credit, which was sustained even during the early phase of the war in Ukraine. The case for further macroprudential action should be continually re-assessed in line with cyclical and housing market conditions, which would depend on the evolution and impact of the war in Ukraine and for now is subject to large uncertainty. The monitoring of the housing market and related lending should pay particular attention to riskier loans such as those with debt-service-to-income ratios close to the regulatory limit. The government’s recent tightening of the eligibility criteria of the housing loan support program in March 2022 is a welcome step.”
From the IMF’s latest report on Estonia:
“The authorities estimate that the housing market was moderately overvalued in 2021, while house price growth accelerated further in early 2022, reflecting a combination of strong demand and limited supply. In March 2022, the government tightened the eligibility criteria of the housing loan support program to better target support. The central bank has announced an increase in the countercyclical capital buffer, moving it from zero to 1 percent effective in December 2022.
Posted by 12:00 PM
atLabels: Global Housing Watch
On cross-country:
On the US—developments on house prices and rent:
On the US—other developments:
On China:
On other countries:
On cross-country:
On the US—developments on house prices and rent:
Posted by 5:00 AM
atLabels: Global Housing Watch
Thursday, September 1, 2022
From Noah Smith:
“Every so often I encounter the argument that owner-occupied housing isn’t a form of wealth. This would come as news to economists like Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, who study wealth inequality for a living, and who definitely count owner-occupied home equity in their wealth numbers. It would also come as news to the U.S. Census Bureau, who finds that equity in owner-occupied housing represented the largest share of the wealth of households outside the top 1% as recently as 2015:
The definition of wealth here is just assets minus liabilities. An asset is anything you can sell for money. You can sell your house for money. Hence it is an asset. In fact, historically, it’s one of the assets with the best returns.
But I don’t want to make an argument from authority here. There are very good reasons we count owner-occupied housing as wealth, and they’re not too hard to understand.
To see why, first let’s make an analogy: a magic cupboard that gives you food.
Suppose you had a magic cupboard that gave you three meals a day, free of charge. Furthermore, suppose there was a market for magic cupboards, and that you could sell your own for $1 million if you wanted to.
This magic cupboard represents a form of wealth. If you think it’s not, consider whether you would be poorer if your magic cupboard burned down or got stolen or stopped working. Yes, you would be poorer.
Some people might argue: “But you need food every day. If you sold your magic cupboard, you’d just have to use the money to buy food.” And indeed you would. You would have to go to the grocery store or go to restaurants, because you wouldn’t have a magic cupboard. You could use the cash from the sale of your magic cupboard to buy food at the store or at restaurants.
But now consider someone who doesn’t own a magic cupboard. They also have to eat every day. They have to go to the grocery store or go to restaurants. But unlike you if you sold your magic cupboard for cash, the person who didn’t start out with a magic cupboard has to work for the cash they need to buy food every day. Because they have to work for what you could just buy off of an asset sale, they’re poorer than you.
Thus, the magic cupboard is wealth.”
Continue reading here.
From Noah Smith:
“Every so often I encounter the argument that owner-occupied housing isn’t a form of wealth. This would come as news to economists like Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, who study wealth inequality for a living, and who definitely count owner-occupied home equity in their wealth numbers. It would also come as news to the U.S. Census Bureau, who finds that equity in owner-occupied housing represented the largest share of the wealth of households outside the top 1% as recently as 2015:
The definition of wealth here is just assets minus liabilities.
Posted by 8:46 AM
atLabels: Global Housing Watch
Friday, August 26, 2022
On cross-country:
On the US:
On China:
On other countries:
On cross-country:
On the US:
Posted by 7:01 AM
atLabels: Global Housing Watch
Tuesday, August 23, 2022
From the IMF’s latest report on Latvia:
“Macroprudential policy should remain flexible considering high uncertainty. After augmenting their macro-prudential toolkit in mid-2020 with several borrower-based measures, the authorities broadened the scope of these tools to cover credit institutions of other EU countries operating in Latvia with or without local branches. Although real estate prices increased, they appeared to be in line with wage growth and remained less buoyant than in the other Baltic countries. However, housing prices could surge, if the already-low supply of housing is further constrained by the rising costs of capital, labor and materials, and delays in the construction sector due the spillovers of the war. A close monitoring of these developments is warranted, so that macroprudential policy can be re-calibrated accordingly in a timely manner. Credit risks could emerge due to the elevated share of high variable-interest loans to both households and non-financial corporations (87 and 94 percent of outstanding loans respectively).
(…)
Macroprudential policy should stand ready to respond to changing housing market conditions. Given the new risks caused by the war, the frequent reviews of macroprudential measures should continue to ensure the right balance between financial stability and the need for credit in the economy.”
From the IMF’s latest report on Latvia:
“Macroprudential policy should remain flexible considering high uncertainty. After augmenting their macro-prudential toolkit in mid-2020 with several borrower-based measures, the authorities broadened the scope of these tools to cover credit institutions of other EU countries operating in Latvia with or without local branches. Although real estate prices increased, they appeared to be in line with wage growth and remained less buoyant than in the other Baltic countries.
Posted by 5:57 PM
atLabels: Global Housing Watch
Subscribe to: Posts