Long-run drivers and integration in interprovincial Canadian housing price relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to examine the integration of housing markets in Canada by examining housing price data (1999–2016) of six metropolitan areas in different provinces, namely, Calgary, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal and Halifax. The authors test for cointegration, driver cities of long-run relationships, long-run Granger causality and instantaneous causality in light of the global financial crisis (GFC) (2007–2008). Design/methodology/approach The authors use Johansen’s system cointegration approach with structural breaks. Moving average representation is used for common stochastic trend(s) analysis. Finally, the authors apply vector error correction model-based Granger causality and instantaneous causality. Findings Cities’ housing prices are in long-run equilibrium. Post-crisis Canadian housing markets became more integrated. The Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal markets drive the Canadian housing market, leading all cities toward long-run equilibrium. Strong long-run Granger causality exists, but the authors observe no instantaneous causality. Price information takes time to disseminate, and long-run price adjustments play a significant role in causation. Practical implications The findings of cointegration increasing after the GFC and strong lead–lag can be used by investors to arbitrage and optimize portfolios. This can also help national and local policymakers in mitigating risk. Incorporating these findings can lead to better price forecasting. Originality/value This study presents many novelties for the Canadian housing market: it is the first to use repeat-sales regional pricing indices to test long-run behaviors, conduct common stochastic trend analyzes and present causality relations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".