Are Swedish House Prices Too High? Why the Price-to-Income Ratio Is a Misleading Indicator

Lars Svensson

No 31862, NBER Working Papers from National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc

Abstract: Appropriate indicators of housing valuation are important for macroprudential policy and assessments of risks to financial stability. Overvalued housing may result in a correction and a fall in house prices. This would weaken households’ balance sheets, reduce the collateral of mortgages and covered housing bonds, and could threaten financial stability. According to ECB (2023) and European Systemic Risk Board (2022), Swedish owner-occupied housing (OOH) was overvalued by about 55% in 2021q2, the largest overvaluation in the EU and EEA; according to European Commission (2023c), by about 30% in 2022. These assessments affect warnings and recommendations issued for Swedish economic policy and the shocks in EBA stress tests of Swedish banks. But these large overvaluation assessments are due to the use of misleading indicators: the deviations of price-to-income (PTI) and price-to-rent ratios from their historical averages. They disregard mortgage rates and other housing costs and lack scientific support. According to a large housing literature, it is not the purchase price but the user cost that is the appropriate measure of the cost of living in OOH, the cost of the housing services that the OOH delivers. From this point of view, “Are house prices too high?” is the wrong question. The right question is, “Are user costs too high?” New improved estimates of the user costs are constructed, including an adjustment for a preference shift during the coronavirus crisis in favor of larger and better housing. According to the user-cost-to-income (UCTI) ratio, Swedish owner-occupied houses have since 2010 instead become increasingly undervalued (not overvalued), by about 35% in 2019q4. Due to higher mortgage rates, they are less undervalued in 2023q4, but still about 25%. For Sweden, the UCTI and PTI indicators are in fact strongly negatively correlated, with opposite signs. If the UCTI indicator is the right one, the PTI indicator is consistently wrong. The valuation assessments of the ECB, the ESRB, the Commission, the OECD, and the IMF are scrutinized and compared. The problem of misleading indicators and overvaluation assessments—and resulting distorted warnings and recommendations—is not restricted to Sweden but concerns several other countries in the European Union.

JEL-codes: E43 G21 G50 R21 R30 R31 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023-11
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-ure
Note: AP EFG IFM ME
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.nber.org/papers/w31862.pdf (application/pdf)
Access to the full text is generally limited to series subscribers, however if the top level domain of the client browser is in a developing country or transition economy free access is provided. More information about subscriptions and free access is available at http://www.nber.org/wwphelp.html. Free access is also available to older working papers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:nbr:nberwo:31862

Ordering information: This working paper can be ordered from
http://www.nber.org/papers/w31862
The price is Paper copy available by mail.

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in NBER Working Papers from National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by ().