Income inequality, mortgage debt and house prices

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sevim Kösem
Author(s):  
Radhakrishnan Gopalan ◽  
Barton H. Hamilton ◽  
Ankit Kalda ◽  
David Sovich

Urban Studies ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 004209802096262
Author(s):  
David Gray

Convergence among regions to long-run, non-zero income differentials is predicted by mainstream and alternative spatial theories. A variety of convergence, considered by Sala-i-Martin, focuses on the rank order over time. As some must be growing faster than others, intra-distributional mobility implies convergence of regions. A measure of this from Boyle and McCarthy is the trend in rank concordance. As it is a measure of similarity between a given distribution and other sample periods, we propose that Kendall’s criterion ranking coefficient, combined with concordance, provides better insight into intra-distributional mobility and convergence. Agreement with a distribution can be traced over a series to highlight the mobility over time. This has the advantage of revealing whether mobility entails converging from, reverting to or converging to an order. Although there are phases of sigma-convergence and divergence, what is found in an analysis of regional house prices is that the rank-order is little affected by cycle phase. In trend, the UK price distribution appears to converge to a hierarchy, corresponding better with a very large monocentric urban model or Zipf-type, than a core–periphery-type distribution of prices. The broadening of price spreads is likely to be facilitated by the liberalisation of finance seen elsewhere, and by an appetite for greater mortgage debt.


Author(s):  
Carlos Garriga ◽  
Aaron Hedlund

The global financial crisis of 2007–2009 helped usher in a stronger consensus about the central role that housing plays in shaping economic activity, particularly during large boom and bust episodes. The latest research regards the causes, consequences, and policy implications of housing crises with a broad focus that includes empirical and structural analysis, insights from the 2000s experience in the United States, and perspectives from around the globe. Even with the significant degree of heterogeneity in legal environments, institutions, and economic fundamentals over time and across countries, several common themes emerge. Research indicates that fundamentals such as productivity, income, and demographics play an important role in generating sustained movements in house prices. While these forces can also contribute to boom-bust episodes, periods of large house price swings often reflect an evolving housing premium caused by financial innovation and shifts in expectations, which are in turn amplified by changes to the liquidity of homes. Regarding credit, the latest evidence indicates that expansions in lending to marginal borrowers via the subprime market may not be entirely to blame for the run-up in mortgage debt and prices that preceded the 2007–2009 financial crisis. Instead, the expansion in credit manifested by lower mortgage rates was broad-based and caused borrowers across a wide range of incomes and credit scores to dramatically increase their mortgage debt. To whatever extent changing beliefs about future housing appreciation may have contributed to higher realized house price growth in the 2000s, it appears that neither borrowers nor lenders anticipated the subsequent collapse in house prices. However, expectations about future credit conditions—including the prospect of rising interest rates—may have contributed to the downturn. For macroeconomists and those otherwise interested in the broader economic implications of the housing market, a growing body of evidence combining micro data and structural modeling finds that large swings in house prices can produce large disruptions to consumption, the labor market, and output. Central to this transmission is the composition of household balance sheets—not just the amount of net worth, but also how that net worth is allocated between short term liquid assets, illiquid housing wealth, and long-term defaultable mortgage debt. By shaping the incentive to default, foreclosure laws have a profound ex-ante effect on the supply of credit as well as on the ex-post economic response to large shocks that affect households’ degree of financial distress. On the policy front, research finds mixed results for some of the crisis-related interventions implemented in the U.S. while providing guidance for future measures should another housing bust of similar or greater magnitude reoccur. Lessons are also provided for the development of macroprudential policy aimed at preventing such a future crisis without unduly constraining economic performance in good times.


2018 ◽  
Vol 108 (2) ◽  
pp. 241-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kamila Sommer ◽  
Paul Sullivan

This paper studies the impact of the mortgage interest tax deduction on equilibrium house prices, rents, homeownership, and welfare. We build a dynamic model of the housing market that features a realistic progressive tax system in which owner-occupied housing services are tax-exempt and mortgage interest payments are tax-deductible. We simulate the effect of tax reform on the housing market. Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction causes house prices to decline, increases homeownership, decreases mortgage debt, and improves welfare. Our findings challenge the widely held view that repealing the preferential tax treatment of mortgages would depress homeownership. (JEL H24, H31, R21, R31)


2020 ◽  
Vol 110 (6) ◽  
pp. 1603-1634 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Garriga ◽  
Aaron Hedlund

Using a quantitative heterogeneous agents macro-housing model and detailed microdata, this paper studies the drivers of the 2006–2011 housing bust, its spillovers to consumption and the credit market, and the ability of mortgage rate interventions to accelerate the recovery. The model features tenure choice between owning and renting, rich portfolio choice, long-term defaultable mortgages, and endogenously illiquid housing from search frictions. The equilibrium analysis and empirical evidence suggest that the deterioration in house prices and liquidity, transmitted to consumption via balance sheets that vary in composition and depth, is central to explaining the observed aggregate and cross-sectional patterns. (JEL E23, E32, E44, G21, R31)


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Goda ◽  
Chris Stewart ◽  
Alejandro Torres

2017 ◽  
Vol 83 ◽  
pp. 121-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katya Kartashova ◽  
Ben Tomlin
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Kohl

Recent research has emphasized the negative effects of finance on macroeconomic performance and even cautioned of a “finance curse.” As one of the main drivers of financial sector growth, mortgages have traditionally been hailed as increasing the number of homeowners in a country. This article uses long-run panel data for seventeen countries between 1920 (1950) and 2013 to show that the effect of the “great mortgaging” on homeownership rates is not universally positive. Increasing mortgage debt appears to be neither necessary nor sufficient for higher homeownership levels. There were periods of rising homeownership levels without much increase in mortgages before 1980, thanks to government programs, purchasing power increases, and less inflated house prices. There have also been mortgage increases without homeownership growth, but with house price bubbles thereafter. The liberalization of financial markets might after all be a poor substitute for more traditional housing policies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document