• No results found

hdtex_technical_appendix.pdf

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2020

Share "hdtex_technical_appendix.pdf"

Copied!
9
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Housing Dynamics

Technical Appendix

Edward L. Glaeser, Joseph Gyourko,

Eduardo Morales and Charles G. Nathanson

January 7, 2014

1

Definitions of Trend Variables

We write the housing demand equation as

Ht−

E(Ht+1)

1 +r −

rC

1 +r =x+qt+xt−αNt

and the housing supply equation as

E(Ht+1) = C+c0t+c1It+c2Nt.

Our third equation is the relationship between city population and construction:

Nt+1=Nt+It.

Glaeser: Department of Economics, Harvard University, and NBER; Gyourko: The Wharton

(2)

We define ˆHt, ˆNt, and ˆIt to be the unique solutions to the non-stochastic elements of

these three equations, which are linear. They are the unique solutions to

ˆ

Ht−

ˆ

Ht+1

1 +r −

rC

1 +r = x+qt−α

ˆ

Nt

ˆ

Ht+1 = C+c0t+c1Iˆt+c2Nˆt

ˆ

Nt+1 = Nˆt+ ˆIt

and are therefore given by

ˆ

Ht =

c2

2(x+r(C+x)) +α(1 +r)(c2C−c0c1)

c2(rc2+α(1 +r))

+

(1 +r)(αc0+qc2)(c22+α(1 +r)(c1−c2))

c2(rc2+α(1 +r))2

+

(1 +r)(αc0+qc2)

rc2+α(1 +r)

t;

ˆ

Nt =

rc0c1+ (1 +r)c2x

c2(rc2+α(1 +r))

− (1 +r)(r(c1−c2)−c2)(αc0+qc2)

c2(rc2+α(1 +r))2

+

q(1 +r)−rc0

rc2+α(1 +r)

t;

ˆ

It =

q(1 +r)−rc0

rc2+α(1 +r)

.

2

Proof of Lemma 1

Let h = H −Hˆ, n = N −Nˆ, and i = I −Iˆ, where H, N, I constitute a solution to

(3)

The three key equations reduce to

ht−

E(ht+1)

1 +r = xt−αnt

E(ht+1) = c1it+c2nt

nt+1 = nt+it.

Note that because E(xt+j) = δj−1E(xt+1), limj→∞E(xt+j) = 0. We can therefore

de-duce from the first key equation that

lim

j→∞

E(nt+j)

(1 +r)j = 0. (1)

By combining the three key equations, we obtain the following difference equation:

(1 +r)E(xt+1) = (1 +r)(c2−c1)E(nt) + ((1 +r)(α+c1) +c1−c2)E(nt+1)−c1E(nt+2) = −c1(φL−I)(φL−I)E(nt+2).

Here L is the lag operator, I is the identity operator, and φ < φ are the two roots to the characteristic equation

0 =−c1y2+ ((1 +r)(α+c1) +c1−c2)y+ (1 +r)(c2−c1).

Because limj→∞E(xt+j) = 0, one of the following two equations must hold:

lim

j→∞(φL−I)E(nt+j) = 0

lim

(4)

We claim only the first holds. To prove this, we show that 0 < φ < 1 < 1 +r < φ. Recall that α >0 and c2 < c1. Note that

φ = (1 +r)(α+c1) +c1−c2+ p

((1 +r)(α+c1) +c1−c2)2−4(1 +r)c1(c1−c2) 2c1

> (1 +r)(α+c1) +c1−c2+

p

((1 +r)c1+c1−c2)2−4(1 +r)c1(c1−c2) 2c1

= (1 +r)(α+c1) +c1−c2+rc1+c2 2c1

= 1 +r+α(1 +r) 2c1

> 1 +r.

We also have

φ+φ= (1 +r)(α+c1) +c1−c2

c1

>0

and

φφ= (1 +r)

1− c2

c1

∈(0,1 +r).

Therefore 0< φ <1. Because of equation (1) and the fact that φ >1 +r, the limit

lim

j→∞(φL−I)E(nt+j) = 0

cannot hold. Therefore,

lim

j→∞(φL−I)E(nt+j) = 0

holds, and because 0 < φ < 1, this limit implies the limit limj→∞E(nt+j) = 0.

The equation nt+1 = nt +it shows that limj→∞E(it+j) = 0, and then the equation

(5)

condition. We can therefore simplify the above equation to

(φL−I)nt+1 =− 1 +r

c1

φ−1(I−φ−1L−1)−1E(xt+1) =−

1 +r c1(φ−δ)

E(xt+1).

Therefore

it=nt+1−nt=−(φL−I)nt+1−(1−φ)nt=

1 +r c1(φ−δ)

E(xt+1)−(1−φ)nt,

which proves the second equation of the lemma. For the first equation of the lemma,

note that

ht = xt−αnt+

E(ht+1)

1 +r

= xt−αnt+

c1 1 +rit+

c2 1 +rnt

= xt+

E(xt+1)

φ−δ +

c2−(1−φ)c1

1 +r −α

nt

= xt+

E(xt+1)

φ−δ −

α(1 +r) 1 +r−φnt.

The last equality comes verifying that the equality

c2−(1−φ)c1

1 +r −α=−

α(1 +r) 1 +r−φ

(6)

4

Proof of Proposition 1

We have

E(nt+j) = φjnt+ j−1 X

k=0

φk(E(nt+j−k)−E(nt+j−k−1))

= φjnt+

1 +r c1(φ−δ)

j−1 X

k=0

φkE(xt+j−k)

= φjnt+

1 +r c1(φ−δ)

E(xt+1)

j−1 X

k=0

φkδj−1−k

= φjnt+

1 +r c1(φ−δ)

φj δj

φ−δ E(xt+1).

Note that ˆNt+j−Nˆt=jIˆ. Therefore

E(Nt+j −Nt) = jIˆ+

1 +r c1(φ−δ)

φj−δj

φ−δ E(xt+1)−(1−φ

j)n t.

Next, we have

E(It+j) = E(Nt+j+1)−E(Nt+j)

= Iˆ+ 1 +r

c1(φ−δ)

δj(1δ)φj(1φ)

φ−δ

E(xt+1)−φj(1−φ)nt.

Finally,

E(Ht+j −Ht) = Hˆt+j −Hˆt+E(ht+j)−ht

(7)

that prices and construction fall below trend att+j for largej, we must by Proposition 1 show that

δj(1−δ)−φj(1−φ)

φ−δ =δ

j1−δ−(1−φ)(φ/δ) j

φ−δ

is negative for large j. If φ > δ, then the numerator is negative for large j, while the denominator is positive. The opposite occurs when φ < δ. In either case, the fraction is negative for largej, which is what we wanted to show.

6

Proof of Proposition 3

From Lemma 2, we have

I0 = ˆI+

1 +r c1(φ−δ)δ0. Therefore

N1 = ˆN1+

1 +r c1(φ−δ)

δ0.

It follows again from Lemma 2 that

I1 = ˆI+

1 +r

c1(φ−δ)δ(1+δ0)−(1−φ)

1 +r c1(φ−δ)δ0.

Recall that

ˆ

I = q(1 +r)−rc0

rc2+α(1 +r)

.

Therefore

Cov(I0, I1) =

1 +r rc2+α(1 +r)

2

Var(q) +

δ(1 +r)

c1(φ−δ) 2

(δ+φ−1)Var(0),

which is positive as long as

Var(q) Var(0)

>(1−δ−φ)

δ(rc2+α(1 +r))

c1(φ−δ)

2

.

Because δ >1−φ by assumption, this inequality must hold. We now turn to price growth. From Lemma 2, we have

H0 = ˆH0+

(8)

We also have

H1 = ˆH0+

φ φ−δ1+

φ φ−δ −

α(1 +r) 1 +r−φ

1 +r c1(φ−δ)

δ0.

To obtainH2, we first note that

N2 =N1 +I1 = ˆN2+

δ(1 +r)

c1(φ−δ)(1+ (δ+φ−1)0).

Therefore

H2 = Hˆ2+

φ φ−δ2+

φ φ−δ −

α(1 +r) 1 +r−φ

1 +r c1(φ−δ)

δ1

+

δφ φ−δ −

α(1 +r) 1 +r−φ

(1 +r)(φ+δ)

c1(φ−δ)

δ0.

Recall that

ˆ

Ht+1−Hˆt =

(1 +r)(αc0+qc2)

rc2+α(1 +r)

.

Much algebra produces

Cov(H2−H1, H1−H0) =

(1 +r)c2

rc2+α(1 +r) 2

Var(q)− Ω

c1(φ−δ)2

Var(),

where Var() is the common variance of0 and 1, and Ω is given by

Ω =

α(1 +r)2δ

1 +r−φ +c1(1−δ)φ

(1−δ−φ)α(1−r)2δ

1 +r−φ +c1(1−δ+δ

2 )φ

.

(9)

7

Calculation of Volatilities in Table 5

We showed above that

(φL−I)nt+1 =−

1 +r c1(φ−δ)

E(xt+1).

It follows from decomposing nt into a linear combination of the terms that

Std(nt) =

(1 +r)(θ+δ)

c1(φ−δ)

X

j=1

φj δj

φ−δ σ.

This expression allows us to compute the congestion externality volatility, as it is a

constant times this expression.

The other volatility is of a sum of xt and E(xt+1), which can be written as a sum of xt and t. The variance of x is obtained from taking the recursive equation

xt=δxt−1+t+θt−1

and then computing the variance of both sides. The result is

σx2 = 1 + 2δθ+θ 2

1−δ2 σ

2

.

The covariance ofxtandtis justσ2. Therefore, we can readily compute the volatility of

the direct wage term, using the standard formula for the variance of a sum of correlated

References

Related documents