Previous studies analyzing the link between the housing market and consumer sentiment focus on the impact of the sentiment on house prices. This paper assesses the impact of consumer sentiment on house permits as a proxy for housing production using a linear model that assumes symmetric effects. Additionally, we consider a nonlinear asymmetric model. We estimate both models using state-level data from each state of the United States and find short-run effects of consumer sentiment on house permits in 31 and long-run effects in 33 states. The comparable numbers by estimating a nonlinear asymmetric model were 42 and 41, respectively. In sum, increased consumer confidence has positive long-run effects on the issuance of house permits in most states.
Valuable comments of an anonymous reviewer and those of the editor are greatly appreciated. Any remaining error, however, is our own responsibility. All views and information expressed in this paper do not represent the opinions of any entity whatsoever with which the author has been, is now, or will be affiliated.
Notes
1 There is another literature on consumer sentiment indices in which researchers basically assess the predictive powers of different sentiment indices. For example, Marcato and Nanda (Citation2016) find that the sentiment in real estate conveys valuable information that can help predict changes in real estate returns. They also review the related literature. Consumer sentiment has also been used to predict the turning point in the housing market (Croce & Haurin, Citation2009).
2 Considering the production side of the housing market, Bahmani-Oskooee, Ghodsi, et al. (Citation2021) recently argued that increased issuance of housing permits could move house prices in either direction. They tested the supply-side versus the demand-side hypotheses using data from each state in the United States. Both hypotheses were supported in the short run for most states but only the demand hypothesis in the long run in some states. They uncover asymmetric short-run and long-run effects in 21 states.
3 This section closely follows Bahmani-Oskooee et al. (Bahmani-Oskooee, Azaryan, et al., Citation2021; Bahmani-Oskooee et al., Citation2022). In the first paper, authors investigate the impact of consumer sentiment on house prices by using data from each state of the United States. When a linear model was estimated, they find short-run effects of consumer sentiment on house prices in 34 states that lasted into the long run in only 13 states. The comparable numbers by estimating a nonlinear asymmetric model were 47 and 22, respectively. In the second paper, authors investigate the asymmetric effects of a news-based policy uncertainty measure on house prices, again, in each state. They report short-run asymmetric effects in 32 states and long-run asymmetric effects in 24 states. These were higher than the number of states reported by Bahmani-Oskooee and Ghodsi (Citation2017), who only estimated a linear model. Comparable numbers in the later study were 24 and 17, respectively.
5 Note that the t test in this context is the same as the t test applied to test significance of lagged error-correction term in Engle and Granger (Citation1987) two-step procedure.
6 Note that partial sums of a variable X are constructed as and
7 Shin et al. (Citation2014, p. 291) argue that two partial sum variables associated with each variable should be treated as a single variable so that the critical values of the F test stay at the same high level in both linear and nonlinear models.
8 Note that panel C reported not only cointegration tests results but also a few additional diagnostics. To make sure residuals in each model are autocorrelation-free, we report the Lagrange multiplier test as LM and to make sure the models are correctly specified, we report Ramsey’s RESET test. Both are insignificant almost in all models supporting autocorrelation-free residuals and correctly specified models. We also report the outcome of the CUSUM and CUSUMSQ tests for stability of all estimates. These are reported as CS and CS2 where stable estimates are indicated by “S” and unstable estimates by “US.” Clearly, most estimates are stable. Finally, the goodness-of-fit in each model is reflected by the size of adjusted R2.
9 The list includes Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
10 Other diagnostics are similar to those in and need no repeat.
11 In the absence of any other study on the asymmetric effects of consumer sentiment on housing permits, we are unable to engage in direct comparison. However, compared to Bahmani-Oskooee, Azaryan, et al. (Citation2021), who assessed the asymmetric effects of consumer sentiment on house prices in each state, we find long-run effects in many more states. More precisely, while we find consumer sentiment to have long-run impact on house permits in 41 states, they find long-run impact of consumer sentiment on house prices in 21 states.
12 Future studies could use data from other countries to add to this part of the housing literature.
Marcato, G., & Nanda, A. (2016). Information content and forecasting ability of sentiment indicators: Case of real estate market. Journal of Real Estate Research, 38, 165–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/10835547.2016.12091442
Croce, R. M., & Haurin, D. R. (2009). Predicting turning points in the housing market. Journal of Housing Economics, 18, 281–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2009.09.001
Bahmani-Oskooee, M., Ghodsi, H., & Hadzic, M. (2021). On the link between house prices and house permits: Asymmetric evidence from 51 states of the United States of America. International Real Estate Review, 24(2021), 323–361.
Bahmani-Oskooee, M., Ghodsi, H., & Hadzic, M. (2021). On the link between house prices and house permits: Asymmetric evidence from 51 states of the United States of America. International Real Estate Review, 24(2021), 323–361.
Bahmani-Oskooee, M., Ghodsi, H., & Hadzic, M. (2022). Consumer sentiment and house prices: Asymmetric Evidence from state level data in the United States. International Journal of Housing Market Analysis, 15(2022), 1088–1121.
Bahmani-Oskooee, M., & Ghodsi, H. (2017). Policy uncertainty and house prices in the United States of America. Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, 23, 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/10835547.2017.12089999
Chen, M., & Patel, K. (1998). House price dynamics and Granger causality: An analysis of Taipei new dwelling market. Journal of Asian Real Estate Society, 1(1), 101–126.
Apergis, N. (2003). Housing prices and macroeconomic factors: Prospects within the European Monetary Union. International Real Estate Review, 6, 63–74. https://doi.org/10.53383/100046
Apergis, N., & Rezitis, A. (2003). Housing prices and macroeconomic factors in Greece: Prospects within the EMU. Applied Economics Letters, 10, 799–804. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350485032000126758
Gallin, J. (2006). The long-run relationship between house prices and income: Evidence from local housing markets. Real Estate Economics, 34, 417–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6229.2006.00172.x
Chen, M., Tsai, C., & Chang, C. (2007). House prices and household income: Do they move apart? Evidence from Taiwan. Habitat International, 31, 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2007.02.005
McQuinn, K., & O’Reilly, G. (2008). Assessing the role of income and interest rates in determining house prices. Economic Modelling, 25, 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2007.06.010
Rapach, D. E., & Strauss, J. K. (2009). Differences in housing price forecastability across U.S. States. International Journal of Forecasting, 25, 351–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2009.01.009
Kim, S., & Bhattacharya, R. (2009). Regional housing prices in the USA: An empirical investigation of nonlinearity. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 38, 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-007-9094-y
Mikhed, V., & Zemcik, P. (2009). Do house prices reflect fundamentals? Aggregate and panel data evidence. Journal of Housing Economics, 18, 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2009.03.001
Adams, Z., & Fuss, R. (2010). Macroeconomic determinants of international housing markets. Journal of Housing Economics, 19, 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2009.10.005
Zhou, J. (2010). Testing for cointegration between house prices and economic fundamentals. Real Estate Economics, 38, 599–632. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6229.2010.00273.x
Holly, S., Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2010). A spatio-temporal model of house prices in the USA. Journal of Econometrics, 158, 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2010.03.040
Madsen, J. B. (2012). A behavioral model of house prices. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 82, 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.12.010
Apergis, N., Simo-Kengne, B. D., Gupta, R., & Chang, T. (2015). The dynamic relationship between house prices and output: Evidence from U.S. metropolitan areas. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 19(4), 336–345. https://doi.org/10.3846/1648715X.2015.1072857
Antonakakis, N., Gupta, R., & Andre, C. (2015). Dynamic co-movements between economic policy uncertainty and housing market returns. Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, 21, 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/10835547.2015.12089971
Antonakakis, N., Gupta, R., & Andre, C. (2015). Dynamic co-movements between economic policy uncertainty and housing market returns. Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, 21, 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/10835547.2015.12089971
Bahmani-Oskooee, M., & Ghodsi, H. (2016). Do changes in the fundamentals have symmetric or asymmetric effects on house prices? Evidence from 52 states of the U.S. Applied Economics, 48, 2912–2936. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2015.1130795
Bahmani-Oskooee, M., & Ghodsi, H. (2018). Asymmetric causality between unemployment rate and house prices in each state of the USA. International Real Estate Review, 21, 71–92. https://doi.org/10.53383/100255
Alola, A. A. (2020). Revisiting the housing market dynamics and its fundamentals: New evidence from Cyprus. Journal of Economic Studies, 47, 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/JES-07-2018-0237
De Albuquerquemello, V. P., & Bessarria, C. (2021). Rental market and macroeconomics: Evidence for the U.S. Journal of Economic Studies, 48, 587–603. https://doi.org/10.1108/JES-01-2020-0003
Cuesta, J. C., & Kukk, M. (2021). The interaction between housing prices and housing credit: Evidence from a country with rapid credit accumulation. Journal of Economic Studies, 48, 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1108/JES-11-2019-0519
Engle, R. F., & Granger, C. W. J. (1987). Cointegration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica, 55(2), 251–276. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913236
Shin, Y., Yu, B. C., & Greenwood-Nimmo, M. (2014). Modelling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework. In R. Sickels & W. Horrace (Eds.), Festschrift in honor of Peter Schmidt: Econometric methods and applications (pp. 281–314). Springer.
Bahmani-Oskooee, M., Azaryan, R., & Ghodsi, H. (2021). On the link between policy uncertainty and house prices: Asymmetric evidence from state-level data in the U.S. Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, 27, 166–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/10835547.2021.1986348