04 Jun estion Lauren? An asset price bubble can be defined as ‘that part of asset pr
Question
Lauren?
An asset price bubble can be defined as ‘that part of asset price movement that is unexplainable based on what we call fundamentals’ (Garber,2000), where a fundamental is ‘usually argued to be along-run equilibrium consistent with a general equilibrium’ (Rosser,2000). Asset price bubbles are often difficult to identify until the inflated prices are either supported by subsequent cash flows (Siegel,2003) or until the bubble ‘bursts’ and the price of the asset plummets down to, or below, the fundamental value. Bubbles can form in various ways, but often occur as a result of inconsistency in the expectations of the market and through disagreement in the value of a large economic development (WSJ).Speculation and expectations are a major contributor in the formation of an economic bubble, as this is the catalyst of spiralling price increases which occur until the bubble eventually bursts (book). Price bubbles are often bred when interest rates are low, funds are easily accessible and optimistic investors are willing to borrow them. The formation and implosion of asset price bubbles has been observed in some of the world’s earliest economies and have caused steep declines in economic activity for some of the world’s largest economies more recently. In this report, the cause and effect of the ‘dotcom’ bubble, the US housing market bubble of 2007 and the EU price bubble are deconstructed. As is highlighted by these cases, when an asset price bubble crashes, detrimental follow-on effects can include ‘economic activity reduction, financial instability and, in some cases, significant budgetary costs from banks altering their capital structure’ (IMF).Potential monetary policy response mechanisms are explored, and their effectiveness in mitigating the repercussions of a burst asset bubble discussed.
Asset Bubbles in the Australian Market – MARCEL TRIPOLONE 20971214
In terms of determining whether any bubbles exist within any Australian markets, a number of assumptions must be satisfied. As of March 2015, the Australian Banking Association (ABA) determined that despite unprecedented growth in the Australian Property market, there was in fact no bubble observed. This conclusion was justified by a number of factors, firstly, they argued it was volatility of housing prices had increase post-GFC, which had contributed to the overall increase in price rise but had seen prices fall in specific markets eg. Adelaide and Hobart. Secondly, recalling data from December Quarter 2014, suggests that the rate of growth in housing prices nationwide had already peaked. Finally, historical factors support the notion that property price appreciation has been a key driver for wealth creation for Australian’s since late 1980’s, stating that natural confidence and expectations of growth is the driver of high property prices Australia wide.
Despite these justifications by the ABA, a number of economic commentators have been critical of the report, adamantly believing in the existence of a property bubble. Firstly, the reports comparison of growth rates of property markets globally puts Australia in good stand, but this is only concerning data post-GFC, and is ignorant of Australia’s record-breaking housing growth of the early 2000’s second only to Norway. Of course, the counter argument, stating that income growth was proportional is valid, but overall the price-to-income ratio for housing has been ever increasing (Figure 1), indicating household prices rising faster than personal income. So if it isn’t the domestic market driving these exorbitant prices, who is?
“For significant periods, the risk free return has beenhigher than the rental yields on housing. Under this scenario it would only make financial sense to purchase dwellings as an investment to rent if there were expectations of capital gains on housing…” ABA Economic Report, March 11th, p5
This quote from the ABA report, identifies the concept of negative gearing, which involves supports investors as governments make up the difference if investment is less than the cost of owning and managing the investment. Arguably, this has allowed wealthy, overseas investors to purchase property in the Australian market at a marginally lower risk, as any losses on investment will be directly returned in Tax deductions. This could be argued as one of the primary reasons for continued growth in the property market, post-GFC, as despite low consumer confidence, support by the Australian Government made reward outweigh the risk in many instances.
THE US HOUSING BUBBLE
One of the central causes of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) in 2008 was the bursting of a bubble that had been growing over for a number of years. House prices rose by approximately 8.3% between the first quarter of 1990 and the first quarter of 1997 (according to the S&P/Case-Shiller Index). Following this, house prices experienced a swift increase and peaked in the second quarter of 2006 more than 132% higher than the first quarter of 1997. There were four main causes of the housing bubble: overexuberance without rationality, low short-term interest rates, lower standards for mortgage loans, and low mortgage interest rates (2).
CAUSES OF THE HOUSING BUBBLE
Mortgage Interest Rates
During the period of the housing bubble, there was an excess of savings in the US over investment. In addition to this, countries such as China, Japan, Brazil and major oil exporting countries were sending savings to the US, pushing mortgage interest rates down (2). Net foreign savings inflows to the US increased from approximately 1.5% of GDP in 1995 to 6% in 2006 (Bernanke, 2009). Investors from the countries sending money to the US were seeking investments holding good returns and low risk. The original focus was on US government securities, before a quest for higher returns led them to mortgage-backed securities. Following this, investors venture into the market for mortgage-backed securities issued by Wall Street firms. These securities appeared to carry low risk due to favourable credit ratings granted to them by respected credit agencies such as Standard and Poor’s, and Moody’s. The contribution of the low mortgage interest rates to the housing bubble was that they allowed monthly mortgage payments to remain affordable even while house prices were rising (2).
Short-term Interest Rates
An attempt by the Federal Reserve between 2002 and 2004 to help boost recovery from the 2001 recession led to the federal funds rate reaching a historical low. These low short-term interest rates were important in the formation of the housing bubble for two reasons. Firstly, they encouraged the use of adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs), as potential home buyers could afford the lower short-term monthly payments as opposed to the longer-term rates provided by fixed rates. The resulting demand for housing increased prices, but when after two years the interest rates increased, the home buyers found it impossible to keep up with the higher mortgage payments.
Secondly, short-term interest rates encouraged leveraging (investment using borrowed money). Investors looked to increase returns by borrowing at the low short-term rates and using the money to invest in long-term investments with higher yields, such as mortgage-backed securities. Leveraging boosted the available financing for mortgage lending and as a result contributed to the rise in house prices. When the housing bubble finally burst, effects were amplified by the amount of leverage in the economy (2).
Mortgage Standards
In 1995, banks were pressured into increasing mortgage lending to lower-income households due to an alteration to the Community Reinvestment Act. The resulting relaxation of mortgage lending standards was also increased by the greater securitisation of home mortgage debt. In the securitisation process, a mortgage’s originator sells it to another party, usually an investment bank. The bank then buys thousands of mortgages and pools them, before these “securities” are sold to investors. The securities are divided into tranches with differing risk and return qualities and rated by credit agencies. However, improper evaluations based on historical mortgage default rates for similar mortgage pools occurred, later causing problems. An increase in subprime mortgages (home loans for people with higher credit risk) also contributed to relaxed standards in mortgage lending (2).
Irrational Exuberance
Speculation caused by the housing bubble led to parties involved in its creation believing that house prices would continue to rise. The unhealthy trends continued, leading to the bursting of the housing bubble.
BURSTING OF THE HOUSING BUBBLE
The peak in house prices was reached in the second quarter of 2006, but did not immediately fall significantly following this. However, an increase in foreclosure start rates between the second and fourth quarters of 2006 by 43% and increase by 75% in 2007 compared to 2006 (Liebowitz, 2008) signified that default rates on mortgages began rising as soon as house prices began falling. People began walking away from properties, and negative equity for people with ARMs could no longer make monthly payments once their rate increased. Falling home prices proved reinforcement for already falling house prices. Foreclosures led to more houses available for sale, gain leading to further foreclosures. They also lowered the value of mortgage- backed securities, increasing the difficulty of lending more of them by the investment banks, removing a large source of financings for new mortgage loans and so continuing the downward trend in house prices.
EFFECTS OF THE BURST
Huge losses were incurred by the bursting of the housing bubble. Homeowners, in particular those who had bought homes or taken out credit from home equity lines against the value of their homes too close to the peak were heavily affected. Since the bursting of the bubble, a third of the top 30 mortgage lenders have either filed for bankruptcy, been liquidated or been acquired (Zandi, 2009). Likewise, the largest five US investment banks have either been acquired, filed for bankruptcy or become commercial banks controlled by greater legislation. Foreign investors and insurance companies were also greatly affected. The entire financial system felt the effects of the burst, with the perceived credit risk increasing. Financing for corporations, commercial real estate investors and home buyers became much more difficult to access. The credit crisis meant that spending on real investment decreased between the third quarter of 2007 and the second quarter of 2009 by 32%.
THE DOTCOM BUBBLE
FORMATION OF THE DOTCOM BUBBLE
Prior to the housing crisis, the US experienced the effects of the “dotcom bubble”. The “dotcom bubble” saw the share prices of early internet companies rise due to significant speculation. This speculation was fuelled by the booms in the economy and stock markets in the late 1990’s, leading some economists to believe that inflation had become non-existent, and recessions a remnant of the past. In the period from 1996 to 2000, the NASDAQ stock index surged from 600 points to 5000. The “dotcom companies” were being run by young people with no clear business plans and even some others who were not earning at the time. Despite this, their companies were going public, and hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of capital were being made in the process. At the height of the bubble, it was even said that every 60 seconds in Silicon Valley a new millionaire was being produced (Colombo 2012).
BURSTING OF THE DOTCOME BUBBLE
Near the beginning of 2000, investors began to come to the realisation that a speculative bubble had been formed. In a matter of months, the NASDAQ stock index plummeted from 5000 points to 2000. Companies that had rapidly become multibillionaire corporations disappeared as quickly as they had arrived, with panic setting in, as by 2002 the NASDAQ reached 800. Combined with this, scandals were brought into the open concerning tech companies artificially inflating their earnings. The bubble led to the US experiencing a recession in 2001, forcing the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates repeatedly to try to stem the problems resulting. Large numbers of technology professionals saw both their jobs and life savings disappear (Colombo 2012).
Asset bubbles in Europe
Similar to the United States, the financial crisis that Europe faced gradually lead to a housing bubble. Due to the crisis, it was difficult for many European nations to re-finance their debt without the help of third parties.
The European financial crisis is said to have began in October in 2009, which coincided with the formation of the new Greek government. This crisis is said to have been initiated through the globalization of finance, international trade imbalances, many real estate bubbles bursting, easy credit, fiscal policies, slowed economic growth and bailout policies. The following month after the new government announced its plan to reduce it’s level of deficit, wages in the public sector were frozen. This was when the EU Commission stepped in and urged Greece to cut the wage bill and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were sent to assess the finances. Following on from all of this, taxes were increased, wages were cut, public sector bonuses were reduced and state-funded pensions were frozen.
Although there had been progress, a month later a bailout plan was created for Greece by the European Monetary Union and their debt rating was downgraded to junk bonds. With Greece not being the only country to have their debt rating downgraded, concerns began to heighten throughout Europe. These concerns lead to a domino effect, starting with a major selloff and a 1000-point intra-day drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average followed by a fall in the euro and further debt. By June 2010, the euro had fallen to its lowest in four years and another bailout was approved in September.
There was a substantial rise in debt in only a few countries, but the crisis became a perceived problem for all of Europe. Although Greece, Portugal and Ireland was greatly affected by this, the currency for Europe was able to remain at a stable rate even with these countries’ accounting for approximately 5% of the Eurozone’s GDP.
Due to investors seeking for yields greater than what bonds from the US Treasury were offering, there was an increase in available savings for investment between 2000 and 2007. Because of this, policy and regulatory controls were overwhelmed and lead to bubbles bursting that caused asset prices in the property market to fall. The amount international investors were owed remained at their full price and raised questions about the banking and government systems solvency abilities.
All the countries within Europe generated bubbles to different extents due to money being invested to different degrees. For example, a huge housing bubble was generated in Ireland due to their banks loaning money to property developers and there is speculation of a bubble in the Sweden property market as their prices have more than trebled since 1996 and household debt is 174% of after-tax income. However, concern is not limited to these countries alone as the IMF requested policymakers to work on constraining housing prices all around the world.
Within the European property market, countries were separated into two categories; the countries that experienced sharp drops and the countries where there was a dip followed by a rebound (Figure 1). As they take on larger mortgages, household debt levels are hitting record levels and have overtaken America’s debt to after tax income percentage. Urban Backstorm, a former governor of Sweden’s central bank says, “You cannot know you’re in a bubble, but you can know that debt has moved too far.” But prices are still set to increase due to expectations that borrowing will stay cheap and not enough supply of housing.
Figure 1
As the economies in the euro zone remain in such bad condition, central banks are unable to use interest rates to try deflate the housing bubble. The use of monetary policy was attempted in Sweden in 2010 to try control the market but resulted in the country heading towards deflation.
Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.
Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.
About Writedemy
We are a professional paper writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework. We offer HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE Papers.
How It Works
To make an Order you only need to click on “Order Now” and we will direct you to our Order Page. Fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.
Are there Discounts?
All new clients are eligible for 20% off in their first Order. Our payment method is safe and secure.