MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2964178956 · doi:10.3390/jrfm12030125

The Role of the Federal Reserve in the U.S. Housing Crisis: A VAR Analysis with Endogenous Structural Breaks

2019· article· en· W2964178956 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mahua Barari, Srikanta Kundu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsFederal fundsGranger causalityInflation (cosmology)Financial crisisMonetary economicsVariance decomposition of forecast errorsInvestment (military)Structural breakEconometricsMacroeconomicsMonetary policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reexamines the role of the Federal Reserve in triggering the recent housing crisis. Specifically, we explore if the relationship between the federal funds rate and the housing variables underwent structural changes in the wake of the housing crisis. Using quarterly data spanning 1960–2017, we estimate a VAR model involving federal funds rate, real GDP growth and a housing variable (captured by house price inflation or residential investment share or housing starts) and conduct time series analysis for the pre- and post-crisis periods. While previous studies mostly set break-dates based on events known a priori to split the full sample to subsamples, we endogenously determine structural break points occurring at multiple unknown dates. Our Granger causality analysis indicates that the federal funds rate did not cause house price inflation, although it caused residential investment share and housing starts in the pre-crisis period. In the post-crisis period, the real GDP growth caused residential investment and housing starts while house price inflation had a momentum of its own. Our impulse response and forecast error variance decomposition analysis reinforce these results. Overall, our findings suggest that housing volume fluctuates more than house prices over the business cycle.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.169 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial management→Same topicHousing Market and Economics→French-language works237,207→