Housing market dynamics and macroprudential policies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, we analyze the implications of macroprudential and monetary policies for credit cycles, housing market stability and spillovers to consumption. We consider a countercyclical loan‐to‐value (LTV) policy that responds to a credit‐to‐income ratio, and we compare its effectiveness with a permanent tightening of the LTV ratio and a monetary policy rule that responds to credit. To this end, we construct a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium model with housing market, household debt and collateral constraints, and we estimate it with Canadian data using Bayesian methods. Our study suggests that a countercyclical LTV ratio is a useful policy to reduce spillovers from the housing market into consumption and to lean against housing market boom–bust cycles. It performs better than the permanent tightening of the LTV ratio—a policy that has been used in a number of countries—and the monetary policy rule, both in terms of the stabilization of household indebtedness and spillovers into consumption. Monetary policy that leans against the wind is the least desirable due to its large adverse consequences on the real economy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".