Refine
Year of publication
- 2010 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Working Paper (2) (remove)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2) (remove)
Keywords
- USA (2) (remove)
Institute
- Center for Financial Studies (CFS) (2) (remove)
During the last decades households in the U.S. have experienced that residential house prices move in a persistent manner, i.e. that returns are positively serially correlated. Since an owner-occupied home is usually the largest investment of a household it is important to understand how households act when they base their consumption and investment decisions on this experience. We show in a setting with housing market cycles and households who can decide whether they rent or own the home, that - besides the consumption and the precautionary savings motive - serial correlation in house prices generates a new speculative motive for homeownership. In particular, we show how good and bad housing market cycles affect homeownership rates, leverage, stock investments and consumption and can explain empirically observed household behavior during housing market boom and bust periods. Keywords: Asset Allocation , Portfolio Choice , Housing Market Cycles , Real Estate JEL Classification: G11, D91
We show that average excess returns during the last two years of the presidential cycle are significantly higher than during the first two years: 9.8 percent over the period 1948 – 2008. This pattern in returns cannot be explained by business-cycle variables capturing time-varying risk premia, differences in risk levels, or by consumer and investor sentiment. In this paper, we formally test the presidential election cycle (PEC) hypothesis as the alternative explanation found in the literature for explaining the presidential cycle anomaly. PEC states that incumbent parties and presidents have an incentive to manipulate the economy (via budget expansions and taxes) to remain in power. We formulate eight empirically testable propositions relating to the fiscal, monetary, tax, unexpected inflation and political implications of the PEC hypothesis. We do not find statistically significant evidence confirming the PEC hypothesis as a plausible explanation for the presidential cycle effect. The existence of the presidential cycle effect in U.S. financial markets thus remains a puzzle that cannot be easily explained by politicians employing their economic influence to remain in power. JEL Classification: E32; G14; P16 Keywords: Political Economy, Market Efficiency, Anomalies, Calendar Effects