The Unassuming Economist

My ‘golden oldie’ interview with Robert Shiller still makes for interesting reading. It is prescient but even Shiller could not have predicted the fate of Eliot Spitzer.

Shiller on US corporate scandals: “On that score I’m actually somewhat sanguine … Eliot Spitzer has been going after corporate crime as aggressively as Eliot Ness, the guy who went after the gangster Al Capone. Combine that with people like … William Donaldson, Chair of the SEC, and it adds up to a lot of people who are really doing their jobs. The budget for the SEC has really been increased; for 2004, it was over $800 million, more than double what it was five years ago. And people can see what a price Martha Stewart paid for acting on a tip. This is the U.S. solution: the United States has generally handled financial scandals aggressively.”

Shiller on housing markets (in 2004): “I’m not exactly sure what’s going on with housing prices. People still report that a major consideration for their buying houses is that they think it is a good investment; that is, they expect house prices to appreciate. But fewer people report buying houses just to make a profit from speculation. I think the thought process a lot of homebuyers are going through right now is more like: I know prices are too high, but that’s what I thought last year and prices still went up. I better buy now before I’m totally priced out.”

Shiller on importance of combining psychology and economics: “We know the role that overconfidence and wishful thinking play in driving financial markets. But psychological theories have still not been completely integrated into economics. Human behavior is very complex, and economists have been in the mood to simplify it, and simplify it heroically. We will have to change our whole approach to problems—our methodology and our tool kits—if we are serious about grappling with the complexity of human behavior.”

Shiller on how he got into behavioral finance: “I wasn’t much of a rebel as a graduate student. My dissertation was on rational expectations. But I was always a bit skeptical about conventional economic theory. An early formative influence was George Katona, who wrote the book Psychological Economics in 1975. I never took one of his courses, but I sat in on one of his lectures and was impressed. It seemed fine to me, then, that there were only a few people like Katona who wanted to sit halfway between economics and psychology. It wasn’t as clear to me then as now that psychology should be central to economics. Much later, Stan Fischer invited me to write a review essay critiquing the rational expectations revolution for a conference he’d organized. Writing that essay awakened further doubts about rational expectations, which I always thought of as a construct that had some interest but was a small part of a big picture.”

Read the full interview here and also a very nice profile of Shiller written by Paolo Mauro.

My colleague Hites Ahir, who has worked with me over the years on housing issues, is making this presentation at UDC today. What’s the answer to the question posed in this title? See his presentation below to find out.

“The housing market has experienced strong price growth but from low levels. In nominal terms at end-2012, house prices rose 14.9 percent y-o-y in Vienna compared with 11.5 percent y-o-y for Austria overall. In real terms and from a medium-term perspective, the price increase appears more modest: a cumulative 40 percent over 10 years in Vienna and about 5 percent in the rest of Austria. Housing market activity seems to be driven largely by non-resident buyers and domestic investors seeking an alternative to low fixed-income returns, though continued immigration also likely supported demand for housing in urban areas. Mortgage credit has exhibited slow growth, suggesting the prevalence of equity buyers,” according to the IMF’s annual report on Austria. 

“House prices in the Nordic-4 [Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden] rose in tandem from the mid-1990s until the recent peaks in 2007 but diverged afterwards. House prices increased by more than 120 percent on average in the Nordic countries between 1995 and 2007 (see Figure 2.1). Since 2007 peaks, house price co-movements seem to have dissipated. The real house price in Norway increased by more than 10 percent relative to the 2007 peak level, while house prices fell by close to 30 percent in Denmark. In Finland and Sweden, house prices have remained broadly constant around 2007 levels,” according to an IMF report on the Nordic Region. 

“The estimates suggest house prices are overvalued in the Nordic-4, but the extent of overvaluation varies (see Figure 2.3). The chart shows both the range and the mean of house price gaps based on the three different measures discussed above [(i) a time-series model; (ii) deviations from a long-run price-to-income ratio; and (iii) deviations from a long-run price-to-rent ratio]. The average estimate of the valuation gap for Norway is just over 40 percent while the estimated valuation gap is less than 10 percent in Denmark. Average estimates for Finland and Sweden suggest that house prices are moderately overvalued, by 12 and 22 percent, respectively.”