Yim Yiu, C (2009) Negative real interest rate and housing bubble implosion: An empirical study in Hong Kong. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 14(3), pp. 257-270. ISSN 1366-4387
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper to identify the asymmetric effect of real interest rate on housing return. Design/methodology/approach It tests empirically the impacts of positive and negative real interest rate on housing return in Hong Kong by time series regression analyses on series from 1984Q1 to 2009Q2, keeping other macroeconomic factors constant. Findings It shows that negative real interest rate imposes a much stronger, negative and significant effect on housing return than a positive one. Research limitations/implications The results imply that the two housing bubbles in Hong Kong could be largely explained by the negative real interest rate. Although it is theoretically sound, empirical evidence on this asymmetric effect of real interest rate on housing return has seldom been found, because negative real interest rate is very rare in other countries in the past. Practical implications It provides a good signal for housing bubbles in the future and helps understand the underlying causes of housing bubbles. Originality/value The currency board arrangement in Hong Kong enables the first empirical study on this issue.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Hong Kong; housing; interest rates |
| Index terms: | Hong Kong, empirical study, housing bubble, regression analysis, time series, evidence, methodology, interest rate, housing |
| Subjects: | evaluation and assessment methods, construction type, data science, economic analysis, Geography, research methods, industry analysis, statistical analysis |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Construction Technology |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here