MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289549916 · doi:10.1111/1540-6229.12405

Who benefits the most? Risk pooling in mortgage loan insurance: Evidence from the Canadian mortgage market

2022· article· en· W4289549916 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kiana Basiri, Babak Mahmoudi, Chenggang Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueReal Estate Economics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsCanada Mortgage and Housing CorporationToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMortgage insuranceLoan-to-value ratioLeverage (statistics)Mortgage underwritingEconomic rentShared appreciation mortgageSecondary mortgage marketEconomicsCounterfactual thinkingAsset (computer security)LoanPoolingMonetary economicsRentingWelfareFinanceInsurance policyKey person insuranceMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article evaluates the effect of mortgage loan insurance (MLI), an essential macroprudential tool available to policy makers, on housing affordability, household leverage, and the overall welfare of the economy. A dynamic model of the housing market with heterogeneous households and competitive housing and mortgage markets is constructed and is calibrated to Canadian data. We find that relaxing the mandatory nature of MLI required for mortgages with a loan‐to‐value ratio of 80% or more, in favor of a counterfactual system where MLI reflects credit risks, dampens demand for housing to purchase and puts downward pressure on house prices. Some of the households with low income and low asset holdings can no longer afford a house; therefore, the aggregate homeownership rate drops. In contrast, demand for rental units increases and rents go up.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReal Estate EconomicsSame topicHousing Market and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207