Alternative Mortgage Instruments, Qualification Constraints and the Demand for Housing: An Empirical Analysis

Richard A. Phillips, James H. VanderHoff

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

11 Scopus citations

Abstract

Government‐guaranteed mortgage loans (GFRMs) and adjustable‐rate mortgages (ARMs) were introduced to make payment to income (PTI) and loan‐to‐value (LTV) qualification conventions less restrictive. This paper analyzes the effect of GFRMs and ARMs on the demand for housing. Using a large national data set for the 1988 to 1989 period, we employ a two‐stage procedure to estimate housing demand. in the first stage, a multinomial logit model estimates the probability of choosing an FRM, ARM or GFRM. Predicted values from the logit are used to construct user costs and estimate housing demand. Using the model estimates, we simulate demand under four different mortgage availability regimes: FRM, FRM and GFRM, FRM and ARM and all three. These simulations indicate that GFRMs, by relaxing LTV constraints, increase housing demand by approximately 6.2% relative to the FRM regime; the addition of ARMs, by relaxing both PTI and LTV constraints, raises demand by an additional 6%, for a total of 12.2% with inclusion of all alternatives.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)453-477
Number of pages25
JournalReal Estate Economics
Volume22
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1994

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Accounting
  • Finance
  • Economics and Econometrics

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Alternative Mortgage Instruments, Qualification Constraints and the Demand for Housing: An Empirical Analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this