Showing posts with label Global Housing Watch. Show all posts
Saturday, September 3, 2022
From the Grumpy Economist:
“This beautiful graph comes from calculatedriskblog.com. (Courtesy Andy Atkeson who used it in a nice discussion of a great paper by Ivan Werning at the Minneapolis Fed Foundations of Monetary Policy conference.)
The central lines that don’t move so much are the average rent. This is the quantity used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to compute the consumer price index. The blue and yellow lines are the rent of new leases.
The first thing this informs is the economic theory of “sticky prices.” Apartment rents are a classic “sticky price;” the rent is fixed in dollar terms for a year. So, landlords deciding how much rent to charge, and people deciding how much they’re willing to pay, balance rents now vs. higher rents in the future. If everyone believes that inflation will be 10% over the next year, then it makes sense to raise the rent 5% now, and to pay the 5% higher rent, because the savings at the end of the year balance the cost in the beginning. (Obviously, the economics are much more subtle than this, but you get the idea.) And Voila’, you see it.
The graph also says there is some predictability and nomentum to inflation. Inflation should not be a surprise to forecasters. If you see rents on new leases much above average rents, it’s a pretty good bet that average rents will be rising in the future! This kind of phenomenon may be under exploited in formal inflation forecasting.
And, on the continuing speculation whether inflation will go away with interest rates still substantially below current inflation, the graph does seem a leading indicator that the rational expectations model is winning.”
From the Grumpy Economist:
“This beautiful graph comes from calculatedriskblog.com. (Courtesy Andy Atkeson who used it in a nice discussion of a great paper by Ivan Werning at the Minneapolis Fed Foundations of Monetary Policy conference.)
The central lines that don’t move so much are the average rent. This is the quantity used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to compute the consumer price index.
Posted by 8:56 AM
atLabels: Global Housing Watch
Friday, September 2, 2022
From the IMF’s latest report on Austria:
“The financial sector proved resilient during the pandemic but war- and housing-related risks have increased. (…) On the domestic front, house prices rose sharply and further deviated from fundamentals. Mortgage lending has risen considerably, much of which did not comply with Financial Market Stability Board (FMSB) recommendations on borrower-based limits.
(…)
Stricter enforcement of prudential guidelines is welcome, but a further tightening of borrower-based tools may be needed if housing-related systemic risks escalate. In response to risks from the residential real estate sector (RRE), the authorities—in line with staff recommendations—issued regulations to make binding upper limits for loan-to-value ratios (LTV), debt-service-to-income ratios (DSTI), and loan maturities, effective summer 2022. The existing guidance has also been adjusted to include a tighter upper DSTI limit for loans with variable rates. The authorities should carefully monitor the effectiveness of these measures and if vulnerabilities persist, additional macroprudential measures (such as a sectoral systemic risk buffer calibrated to RRE exposure) should be implemented. Depending on the evolution of the macroeconomic outlook and credit growth (currently slightly beyond prudential thresholds), the authorities could consider activating the counter-cyclical capital buffer (CCyB), which has thus far been kept at zero.
(…)
In the housing sector, the authorities plan to assess the effectiveness of the newly introduced legally binding borrower-based measures and stand ready to tighten further as needed. If the high credit growth does not fall to sustainable levels in the next 6-12 months, the authorities will have to consider activating the CCyB. The authorities stressed that retail deposits are adequately protected in the current DGSs. They deem that the mechanisms underpinning the conjoint solidarity and based on the principle of the DGS’s super seniority served financial stability appropriately in the liquidation of Sberbank Europe and recouping fully the outlays.”
From the IMF’s latest report on Austria:
“The financial sector proved resilient during the pandemic but war- and housing-related risks have increased. (…) On the domestic front, house prices rose sharply and further deviated from fundamentals. Mortgage lending has risen considerably, much of which did not comply with Financial Market Stability Board (FMSB) recommendations on borrower-based limits.
(…)
Stricter enforcement of prudential guidelines is welcome, but a further tightening of borrower-based tools may be needed if housing-related systemic risks escalate.
Posted by 12:20 PM
atLabels: Global Housing Watch
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
Subscribe to: Posts