房价波动:不同类型的金融中介对房地产市场周期的影响是否不同?

Julia Braun, Hans-Peter Burghof, Julius Langer, Dag Einar Sommervoll
{"title":"房价波动:不同类型的金融中介对房地产市场周期的影响是否不同?","authors":"Julia Braun, Hans-Peter Burghof, Julius Langer, Dag Einar Sommervoll","doi":"10.1007/s11146-022-09907-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Housing markets display several correlations to multiple economic sectors of an economy. Their enormous impact on economies’ health, wealth, and stability is uncontroversial. Interestingly, the forms of financing residential property vary widely between the different countries in terms of both, the available product types and the institutions offering them. This research examines the implications of different financial intermediaries on housing market cycles with special emphasis on two institutional types, conventional banks and building and loan associations. Introducing a heterogeneous agent-based model, the interactions of buyers, sellers, and the two types of credit institutions are assessed. Heterogeneous economic principles and expectations of agents create endogenous market conditions which are strongly influenced by the lending practices of financial intermediaries.</p><p>Focusing primarily on collateral values to decide about lending, conventional banks may contribute to volatile housing markets which are prone to recessions. Building and loan associations, on the other hand, rely to a greater extent on endogenously created borrower information. Thus, they are able to cushion the volatility of house prices caused by procyclical mortgage lending of conventional banks and increase the stability of the housing market. Simulations show that the most stable market conditions are attained if both types of financial intermediaries serve the mortgage lending market jointly. Furthermore, transaction and homeownership rates are the highest in this market setting. These findings advocate in favor of diversified financial markets.</p>","PeriodicalId":22891,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Volatility of Housing Prices: Do Different Types of Financial Intermediaries Affect Housing Market Cycles Differently?\",\"authors\":\"Julia Braun, Hans-Peter Burghof, Julius Langer, Dag Einar Sommervoll\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11146-022-09907-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Housing markets display several correlations to multiple economic sectors of an economy. Their enormous impact on economies’ health, wealth, and stability is uncontroversial. Interestingly, the forms of financing residential property vary widely between the different countries in terms of both, the available product types and the institutions offering them. This research examines the implications of different financial intermediaries on housing market cycles with special emphasis on two institutional types, conventional banks and building and loan associations. Introducing a heterogeneous agent-based model, the interactions of buyers, sellers, and the two types of credit institutions are assessed. Heterogeneous economic principles and expectations of agents create endogenous market conditions which are strongly influenced by the lending practices of financial intermediaries.</p><p>Focusing primarily on collateral values to decide about lending, conventional banks may contribute to volatile housing markets which are prone to recessions. Building and loan associations, on the other hand, rely to a greater extent on endogenously created borrower information. Thus, they are able to cushion the volatility of house prices caused by procyclical mortgage lending of conventional banks and increase the stability of the housing market. Simulations show that the most stable market conditions are attained if both types of financial intermediaries serve the mortgage lending market jointly. Furthermore, transaction and homeownership rates are the highest in this market setting. These findings advocate in favor of diversified financial markets.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22891,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-022-09907-y\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-022-09907-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

房地产市场与一个经济体的多个经济部门显示出若干相关性。它们对经济健康、财富和稳定的巨大影响是无可争议的。有趣的是,在不同国家之间,住宅物业融资的形式、可用的产品类型和提供这些产品的机构都有很大的不同。本研究考察了不同金融中介机构对住房市场周期的影响,特别强调了两种机构类型,即传统银行和建筑和贷款协会。引入基于异质主体的模型,评估了买方、卖方和两种信用机构之间的相互作用。异质的经济原则和代理人的期望创造了内生的市场条件,这些条件受到金融中介机构贷款做法的强烈影响。传统银行主要关注抵押品的价值来决定贷款,这可能会导致房地产市场的波动,从而容易陷入衰退。另一方面,建筑和贷款协会在更大程度上依赖于内生的借款人信息。因此,它们能够缓冲由传统银行顺周期抵押贷款引起的房价波动,增加住房市场的稳定性。模拟结果显示,当两类金融中介机构共同为按揭贷款市场服务时,市场条件最稳定。此外,在这种市场环境下,交易和住房拥有率是最高的。这些发现支持多元化的金融市场。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Volatility of Housing Prices: Do Different Types of Financial Intermediaries Affect Housing Market Cycles Differently?

Housing markets display several correlations to multiple economic sectors of an economy. Their enormous impact on economies’ health, wealth, and stability is uncontroversial. Interestingly, the forms of financing residential property vary widely between the different countries in terms of both, the available product types and the institutions offering them. This research examines the implications of different financial intermediaries on housing market cycles with special emphasis on two institutional types, conventional banks and building and loan associations. Introducing a heterogeneous agent-based model, the interactions of buyers, sellers, and the two types of credit institutions are assessed. Heterogeneous economic principles and expectations of agents create endogenous market conditions which are strongly influenced by the lending practices of financial intermediaries.

Focusing primarily on collateral values to decide about lending, conventional banks may contribute to volatile housing markets which are prone to recessions. Building and loan associations, on the other hand, rely to a greater extent on endogenously created borrower information. Thus, they are able to cushion the volatility of house prices caused by procyclical mortgage lending of conventional banks and increase the stability of the housing market. Simulations show that the most stable market conditions are attained if both types of financial intermediaries serve the mortgage lending market jointly. Furthermore, transaction and homeownership rates are the highest in this market setting. These findings advocate in favor of diversified financial markets.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Real Estate Automated Valuation Model with Explainable Artificial Intelligence Based on Shapley Values Differential Measurement Error in House Price Indices The Spillover Effects of Land Value Taxation: How Can It Affect Your Neighbors' Job Growth? The Impact of Monetary Policy on REITs: Evidence from FOMC Announcements Tax Induced Divestment in the Residential Market - Insights from Investors and Non-investors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1