22/5/16: House Prices & Household Consumption: From One Bust to the Other

In their often-cited 2013 paper, titled “Household Balance Sheets, Consumption, and the Economic Slump” (The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128, 1687–1726, 2013), Mian, Rao, and Sufi used geographic variation in changes house prices over the period 2006-2009 and household balance sheets in 2006, to estimate the elasticity of consumption expenditures to changes in the housing share of household net worth. In other words, the authors tried to determine how responsive is consumption to changes in house prices and housing wealth. The study estimated that 1 percent drop in housing share of household net worth was associated with 0.6-0.8 percent decline in total consumer expenditure, including durable and non-durable consumption.

The problem with Mian, Rao and Sufi (2013) estimates is that they were derived from a proprietary data. And their analysis used proxy data for total expenditure.

Still, the paper is extremely influential because it documents a significant channel for shock transmission from property prices to household consumption, and thus aggregate demand. And the estimated elasticities are shockingly large. This correlates strongly with the actual experience in the U.S. during the Great Recession, when the drop in household consumption expenditures was much sharper, significantly broader and much more persistent than in other recessions. As referenced in Kaplan, Mitman and Violante (2016) paper (see full reference below), “… unlike in past recessions, virtually all components of consumption expenditures, not just durables, dropped substantially. The leading explanation for these atypical aggregate consumption dynamics is the simultaneous extraordinary destruction of housing net worth: most aggregate house price indexes show a decline of around 30 percent over this period, and only a partial recovery towards trend since.”

With this realisation, Kaplan, Mitman and Violante (2016) actually retests Mian, Rao and Sufi (2013) results, using this time around publicly available data sources. Specifically, Kaplan, Mitman and Violante (2016) ask the following question: “To what extent is the plunge in housing wealth responsible for the decline in the consumption expenditures of US households during the Great Recession?”

To answer it, they first “verify the robustness of the Mian, Rao and Sufi (2013) findings using different data on both expenditures and housing net worth. For non-durable expenditures, [they] use store-level sales from the Kilts-Nielsen Retail Scanner Dataset (KNRS), a panel dataset of total sales (quantities and prices) at the UPC (barcode) level for around 40,000 geographically dispersed stores in the US. …To construct [a] measure of local housing net worth, [Kaplan, Mitman and Violante (2016)] use house price data from Zillow…”

Kaplan, Mitman and Violante (2016)findings are very reassuring: “When we replicate MRS using our own data sources, we obtain an OLS estimate of 0.24 and an IV estimate of 0.36 for the elasticity of non-durable expenditures to housing net worth shocks. Based on Mastercard data on non-durables alone, MRS report OLS estimates of 0.34-0.38. Using the KNRS expenditure data together with a measure of the change in the housing share of net worth provided by MRS, we obtain an OLS estimate of 0.34 and an IV estimate of 0.37 – essentially the same elasticities that MRS find. …Overall, we find it encouraging that two very different measures of household spending yield such similar elasticity estimates.” The numerical value differences between the two studies are probably due to different sources of house price data, so they are not material to the studies.

Meanwhile, “…the interaction between the fall in local house prices and the size of initial leverage has no statistically significant effect on nondurable expenditures, once the direct effect of the fall in local house prices has been controlled for.”

Beyond this, the study separates “the price and quantity components of the fall in nominal consumption expenditures. …When we control for …changes in prices, we find an elasticity that is 20% smaller than our baseline estimates for nominal expenditures.” In other words, deflation and moderation in inflation did ameliorate overall impact of property prices decline on consumption.

Lastly, the authors use a much more broadly-based data for consumption from the Diary Survey of the Consumer Expenditure Survey “to estimate the elasticity of total nondurable goods and services” to the consumer expenditure survey counterpart of expenditures in the more detailed data set used for original estimates. The authors “obtain an elasticity between 0.7 and 0.9 … when applied to total non-durable goods and services.”

Overall, the shock transmission channel that works from declining house prices and housing wealth to household consumption is not only non-trivial in scale, but is robust to different sources of data being used to estimate this channel. House prices do have significant impact on household demand and, thus, on aggregate demand. And house price busts do lead to economic growth drops.



Full paper: Kaplan, Greg and Mitman, Kurt and Violante, Giovanni L., "Non-Durable Consumption and Housing Net Worth in the Great Recession: Evidence from Easily Accessible Data" (May 2016, NBER Working Paper No. w22232: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2777320)

2/2/2012: Sunday Times 29/01/2012 - irish property bust

This is an edited version of my Sunday Times article from January 29, 2012.

In a recent Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey of 325 major metropolitan areas in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Ireland, United Kingdom and the United States, Dublin was ranked 10th in the world in terms of house prices affordability. The core conjecture put forward in the survey is that Dublin market is characterized by the ratio of the median house price divided by gross [before tax] annual median household income of around 3.4, a ratio consistent in international methodology with moderately unaffordable housing environments.

Keep in mind, the above multiple, assuming the median household income reflects current unemployment rates and labour force changes, puts median price of a house in Dublin today at around €175,000 – quite a bit off the €195,000 average price implied by the latest CSO statistics. But never mind the numbers, there are even bigger problems with the survey conclusions.

While international rankings do serve some purpose, on the ground they mean absolutely nothing, contributing only a momentary feel-good sensation for the embattled real estate agents. In the real world, the very concept of ‘affordability’ in the Irish property market is an irrelevant archaism of the era passed when flipping ever more expensive real estate was called wealth creation.

What matters today and in years ahead are the household expectations about the future disposable after-tax incomes in terms of the security and actual levels of earnings, stability of policies relating to household taxation, plus the demographic dynamics. None of these offer much hope for the medium-term (3-5 years) future when it comes to property prices.

Household earnings are continuing to decline in real terms (adjusting for inflation) in line with the economy. The CSO-reported average weekly earnings fell 1.2% year on year in Q3 2011 once consumer inflation is take out. But the average earnings changes conceal two other trends in the workforce that have material impact on the demand for property.

Firstly, reported earnings are artificially inflated because the workforce on average is becoming older. Here’s how this works. Younger workers and employees with shorter job tenure also tend to be lower-paid, and are cheaper to lay off. Thus, the rise in unemployment, alongside with the declines in overall workforce participation, act to increase average earnings reported. This explains why, for example, average weekly earnings in construction sector rose 2.5% in Q3 2011 year on year, while employment in the same sector fell 4.1% over the same period. This means that fewer potential first-time buyers of property are having jobs, and at the same time as the existent workers are not enjoying real increases in earnings that would allow them to trade up in the property markets.

Secondly, the real world, rising costs across the consumer expenditure basket, further reducing purchasing power of households, is compounded by the composition of these costs. One of the largest categories in household consumption basket for those in the market to purchase a home is mortgage interest. This cost is divorced, in the case of Ireland, from the demand and supply forces in the property markets and is influenced instead by the credit market conditions. In other words, the 14.1% increase in mortgage interest costs in the 12 months through December 2011, once weighted by the relative importance of this line of expenditure in total consumption is likely to translate into a 2-3% deterioration in the total after-tax disposable income of the average household that represents potential purchaser of residential property.

And then there are effects of tax policies on disposable income. One simple fact illustrates the change in households’ ability to finance purchases of property in recent years: between 2007 and 2011 the overall burden of state taxation has shifted dramatically onto the shoulders of ordinary households. In 2007, approximately 46% of total tax collected in the state came directly out of the household incomes and expenditures. In 2011 the same number was 58%.

The above factors reference the current levels of income, cost of living and tax changes and have a direct impact on demand for property in terms of real affordability. In addition, however, the uncertain nature of future economic and fiscal environments in Ireland represents additional set of forces that keep the property market on the downward trajectory. For example, in Q3 2011 there were a total of 116,900 fewer people in employment in Ireland compared to Q3 2009. However, of these, 113,700 came from under 34 years of age cohort. Unemployment rate for this category of workers, comprising majority of would-be house buyers, is now 20.4% and still rising, not falling. Given the long-term nature of much of our current unemployment, no one in the country expects employment and income growth to bring these workers back into the property markets for at least 3 years or longer. Without them coming back, only those who are trading down into the later age of retirement are currently selling, plus those who find themselves in a financial distress.

Tax uncertainty further compounds the problem of risks relating to unemployment and future expected incomes. Government projections that in 2013-2015 fiscal adjustments will involve raising taxes by €3.1 billion against achieving current spending savings of €4.9 billion are rightly seen as largely incredulous, given the poor record in cutting current spending to-date. Thus, in addition to already draconian pre-announced tax hikes, Irish households rationally expect at least a significant share of so-called current expenditure ‘cuts’ to be passed onto households via indirect taxation and cost of living increases.

In short, there is absolutely no catalysts in the foreseeable future for property markets reversing their precipitous trajectory. No matter what ‘affordability’ ranking Irish property markets achieve, the demand for property is not going to grow.

This, of course, brings us to the projections for the near-term future. The latest CSO data for the Residential Property Price Index released this week shows that nationwide, property prices were down 16.7% in December 2011 compared against December 2010. Linked to the peak prices as recorded by the now defunct PTSB-ESRI Index, the latest CSO figures imply that nationally, residential property prices have fallen from the peak of €313,998 in February 2007 to ca €166,000 today (down 47% on peak). In Dublin, peak-level average prices of €431,016 – recorded back in April 2007 – are now down to close to €195,000 (almost 55% off peak).

Using monthly trends for the last 4 years, and adjusting for quarterly changes in average earnings and unemployment, we can expect the residential property price index to fall 11-12% across all properties in 2012. Houses nationwide are forecast to fall in price some 12-14% - broadly in line with last year’s declines, while apartments are expected to fall 11-12% year on year in 2012, slightly moderating the 16.4% annual fall in 2011.

More crucially, even once the bottom is reached, which, assuming no further material deterioration in the economy, can happen in H2 2012 to H1 2013, the recovery will be L-shaped with at least 2-3 years of property prices bouncing along the flat trendline at the bottom of the price correction. After that, return toward longer-term equilibrium will require another 1-2 years. Assuming no new recessions or crises between now and then, by 2015-2016 we will be back at the levels of prices recorded in 2010-2011. Between now and then, there will be plenty more reports about improving affordability of housing in Ireland and articles about the proverbial foreign investors kicking tyres around South Dublin realtors’ offices.

Chart: Residential Property Price Index, end of December figures, January 2005=100

Source: CSO and author own forecast

Box-out:

Ireland’s latest shenanigans in the theatre of absurd is the fabled ‘return to the bond markets’ with this week’s swap of the 2 year 4.0% coupon Government bond for a 4.5% coupon 3-year bond. The NTMA move means we will be paying more for the privilege to somewhat reduce the overall massive debt pile maturing in 2014, just when the current Troika ‘bailout’ runs out. So in effect, this week’s swap is a de fact admission by the state that Ireland has a snowball’s chance in hell raising the funding required to roll over even existent debt in 2014 through the markets. Which, of course, is an improvement on the constant droning from our political leaders about Ireland ‘not needing a second bailout’. Of course, as far as our ‘return to the markets’ goes – no new debt has been issued, no new cost of financing the state deficits has been established in this swap. The whole event is a bit of a clock made out of jelly – little on substance, massive on PR, and laughable from the functionality perspective.

13/11/2011: Non Performing Loans and links to macroeconomy

‘Often, the banking problems do not arise from the liability side, but from a protracted deterioration in asset quality, be it from a collapse in real estate prices or increased bankruptcies in the nonfinancial sector’’ (Kaminsky and Reinhart, 1999).

How true this sounds today. Take Euro area banks:

1) Collapse in US and European real estate valuations in recent years has triggered fall off in the value of linked assets held on the banks balance sheets

2) Collapse in the European bonds valuations has triggered a precipitous decline in core assets, including capital-linked assets

3) General recession have further undermined core assets on the loans side in corporate, SME and household lending.

A recent IMF paper: “Nonperforming Loans and Macrofinancial Vulnerabilities in Advanced Economies” by Mwanza Nkusu (2011) (IMF WP/11/161, July 2011) looks into the asset-focused linkages between financial and macroeconomic shocks, aiming “to uncover macro-financial vulnerabilities from the linkages between nonperforming loans (NPL) and macroeconomic performance in advanced economies”.

Based on a sample of 26 advanced countries from 1998 to 2009, the paper deals with two empirical questions on NPL and macrofinancial vulnerabilities: 

1) the determinants of NPL and 

2) the interactions between NPL and economic performance. 

With respect of the first question, the literature suggests that the determinants of NPL can be macroeconomic, financial, or purely institutional. In addressing the second question, the paper investigated “the extent to which falling asset prices and credit constraints facing borrowers may backfire and lead to an extra round of financial system stress and subdued economic activity”. 

The findings show that “NPL play a central role in the linkages between credit markets frictions and macroeconomic vulnerabilities. The results confirm that a sharp increase in NPL weakens macroeconomic performance, activating a vicious spiral that exacerbates macrofinancial vulnerabilities. …The broad policy implication is that, while NPL remain a permanent feature of banks’ balance sheets, policies and reforms should be geared to avoiding sharp increases that set into motion the adverse feedback loop between macroeconomic and financial shocks.”

Per authors: “empirical regularities …shape the modeling of NPL, …include the cyclical nature of bank credit, NPL, and loan loss provisions. In particular, in upturns, contemporaneous NPL ratios tend to be low and loan loss provisioning subdued. Also, competitive pressure and optimism about the macroeconomic outlook lead to a loosening of lending standards and strong credit growth, sowing the seeds of borrowers’ and lenders’ financial distress down the road. The loosening of lending standards in upturns depends on the existing regulatory and supervisory framework. In downturns, higher-than-expected NPL ratios, coupled with the decline in the value of collaterals, engenders greater caution among lenders and lead to a tightening of credit extension, with adverse impacts on domestic demand.”

In other words, first order effects of ‘positive’ pressures on lending expansion are reinforced by ‘positive’ second order effects of reduced risk management provisions, regulatory slackening and counter-cyclical capital buffers. Once things blow, however, the same effects again reinforce each other. The bubble acceleration is supported by both moments as well as the bubble explosion – yielding higher peaks and deeper troughs.

Thus, the determinants of NPL “are both institutional/structural and macroeconomic”.

The institutional / structural determinants are found in financial regulation and supervision and the lending incentive structure. “Intuitively, disparities in financial regulation and supervision affect banks’ behavior and risk management practices and are important in explaining cross-country differences in NPL.” 

The macroeconomic environment drivers work by altering “borrowers’ balance sheets and their debt servicing capacity. The set of macroeconomic variables [includes]… broad indicators of macroeconomic performance, such as GDP growth and unemployment...”

The core findings of the study are: 

• “A sharp increase in NPL triggers long-lived tailwinds that cripple macroeconomic performance from several fronts. …of all the variables included in the model, NPL is the only one that has both a statistically significant response to- and predictive power on- every single [macroeconomic performance] variable over a 4-year forecast period. …Regardless of the factors behind the deterioration in loan quality, the evidence suggests that a sharp increase in aggregate NPL feeds on itself leading to an almost linear incremental response that continues into the fourth year after the initial shock.”
• “The confluence of adverse responses in key indicators of macroeconomic performance—GDP growth and unemployment—leads to a downward spiral in which banking system distress and the deterioration in economic activity reinforce each other.”
• “The broad policy implication [is that] …policies and reforms should be geared to avoiding sharp increases that set into motion the adverse feedback loop between macroeconomic and financial shocks. … preventing excessive risk-taking during upturns through adequate macroprudential regulations is the first best.”

In other words, folks, you can’t ignore the macroeconomic effects of Non Performing Loans, as Ireland’s Government is implicitly doing by refusing to focus on repairing household debt overhang here. And, via a link between negative equity and NPL (the study cites evidence that house prices have direct negative effect on NPL – with house prices collapse leading to increased NPLs), we can’t ignore negative equity effects either.