This paper examines the roles that increasing personal wealth and home equity withdrawal (HEW) have had in the decline in the personal saving rate in the United States. It does so by comparing the U.S. experience with that of Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Mortgage market liberalization and innovation reduce household cash-flow and collateral constraints while making housing wealth more liquid as HEW becomes easier over time. Regression analysis indicates the expected negative relationship between U.S. saving and net worth, with a somewhat smaller coefficient than in previous empirical studies. Changes in HEW are found not to have a significant impact on U.S. saving in the short or long run. In that sense, housing wealth is not an “ATM.”
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Similar content being viewed by others
In an earlier version of this paper, we discussed whether the observed declines in saving rates in the four countries under consideration were mere statistical artifacts or real phenomena after adjusting for the effects of inflation, capital gains taxes, and imputed rents (Klyuev and Mills, 2006). Although we found that these adjustments had a significant impact on the level of the saving rate, they did not reverse the declining trend.
A possible adverse effect of securitization is to increase credit rationing for those borrowers whose characteristics do not meet the standardized criteria needed for eligibility into the pools of mortgages to be securitized.
See Frankel (2006) for a discussion of how the credit scores of mortgages backing nonagency MBS have declined markedly between 2000 and 2005.
Frankel (2006) shows how the share of prime mortgages backing U.S. nonagency MBS issuance fell from around 50 to 25 percent since 1995 as Alt-A (near-prime) and subprime lending grew. Subprime loans constituted 9 percent of U.S. securitized mortgage debt and financed 15 percent of home sales in 2005 (JPMorgan, 2006, p. 29).
Boone, Girouard, and Wanner (2001) find that financial deregulation and innovation raised the marginal propensity to consume in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States (Australia was not included in the sample). Borrowers may also seek to reduce interest costs by refinancing unsecured consumer credit through cheaper secured debt, especially if interest on mortgage debt is tax-advantaged relative to unsecured debt (as it has been in the United States since the Tax Reform Act of 1986).
This study examined the degree to which HEW as a proportion of disposable income was related to a constructed indicator of mortgage market completeness in eight European Union countries from 1990 to 2002.
In the United States, according to Freddie Mac data, as a proportion of the loan, average fees and points charged on a 30-year fixed rate mortgage fell from 2.5 percent in 1984 to 0.6 percent in 2005. Although the inclusion of zero-point loans in the sample in 1998 resulted in a fall in this data series of about 0.3–0.5 percent, there has nevertheless been a trend decline in this measure of mortgage transaction costs. Consequently, long-term interest rates need to fall significantly less than they did previously to make it worthwhile for the borrower to refinance in net present value terms (Bennett, Peach, and Peristiani, 2001).
Issuance of U.S. HEL and HELOC asset-backed securities rose from $61 billion in 1999 to $515 billion in 2005 (JPMorgan, 2006).
Such schemes generally take one of two forms. A home reversion plan entails a home owner selling all or part of his or her home for a lump sum with the right to remain in occupation. On sale, lenders receive their equity share of the proceeds. A lifetime mortgage involves the borrower remortgaging his or her house to take a cash lump sum or annuitized income stream. Interest accumulates and is settled on the sale of the property. In the United Kingdom, roughly £1¼ billion of home reversion mortgages and home income plans were sold each year during 2003–05 (United Kingdom Financial Services Authority, 2006).
This analysis uses comparable definitions across countries; hence it does not necessarily reproduce national accounts definitions.
In addition, the Dutch National Bank surveys households in the Netherlands annually to assess their use of HEW (van Els, van den End, and van Rooij, 2005). In 2003, respondents said that increases in secured debt were used predominantly for home improvement (70 percent), followed by saving and investment (10 percent), consumption (8 percent), and repayment of other debt (6 percent).
Stock variables are entered as averages of end-of-period and beginning-of-period values.
This coefficient is somewhat smaller than values reported in other studies (for example, Maki and Palumbo, 2001).
White's robust standard errors are employed to assess significance levels. Use of Newey-West or unadjusted standard errors does not alter the findings.
Some of the drop may reflect the effect of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Because the saving rate is calculated for the personal sector, our main measure of HEW also covers that sector, which includes not only households (and nonprofit organizations) but also unincorporated businesses. Our alternative measure excludes the latter. Both measures are derived using the Federal Reserve's Flow of Funds Table 10: Derivation of Measures of Personal Saving. A different measure can be derived from Table 100: Households and Nonprofit Organizations, but it tracks the first very closely and yields identical regression results.
Housing net worth is the difference between the value of residential assets and loans secured by housing. Financial net worth is the difference between financial assets and unsecured debt.
The regression on quarterly data included a lagged dependent variable, because otherwise residuals exhibited mild autocorrelation. Coefficients on HEW were not significant in a quarterly regression that omitted the lagged dependent variable.
One reason for that result is the high correlation between net housing wealth and HEW. Indeed, when the latter is excluded from the equation, the coefficient on the former becomes –0.016, but still remains insignificant. HEW remains insignificant in regressions in which net housing wealth is excluded and net financial wealth is used in place of net worth.
The coefficient for household net worth was not statistically significant in the U.K. regressions.
The HEW series illustrated here are gross rather than net.
Bank of England, 2006, Mortgage Equity Withdrawal: Q4 2005 (London). Available via the Internet: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/mew/2005.htm.
Bayoumi, T., 1993, “Financial Deregulation and Household Saving,” Economic Journal, Vol. 103 (November), pp. 1432–1443.
Benito, A., and J. Power, 2004, “Housing Equity and Consumption: Insights from the Survey of English Housing,” Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, Vol. 44, No. 3 (autumn), pp. 302–309.
Bennett, P., R. Peach, and S. Peristiani, 2001, “Structural Change in the Mortgage Market and the Propensity to Refinance,” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 33 (November), pp. 955–975.
Bernanke, B.S., 2006, “Community Development Financial Institutions: Promoting Economic Growth and Opportunity,” remarks at the Opportunity Finance Network's Annual Conference, Washington, November.
Boone, L., N. Girouard, and I. Wanner, 2001, “Financial Market Liberalisation, Wealth and Consumption,” OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 308 (Paris, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development).
Canner, G., K. Dynan, and W. Passmore, 2002, “Mortgage Refinancing in 2001 and Early 2002,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, Vol. 99 (December), pp. 469–481.
Case, K.E., J.M. Quigley, and R.J. Shiller, 2005, “Comparing Wealth Effects: The Stock Market vs. the Housing Market,” Advances in Macroeconomics, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 1–34.
Catte, P., N. Girouard, R. Price, and C. André, 2004, “Housing Markets, Wealth, and the Business Cycle,” OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 394 (Paris, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development).
Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML), 2005, “UK Mortgage Funding,” Housing Finance, Vol. 2 (February), pp. 1–12.
Doms, Mark, and Meryl Motika, 2006, “The Rise in Homeownership,” Economic Letter, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 2006–30 (November 3). Available via the Internet: http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2006/el2006-30.html.
Duca, J.V., 2006, “Making Sense of the U.S. Housing Slowdown,” Economic Letter, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Vol. 1, No. 11 (November), pp. 1–8.
Edelberg, W., 2006, “Risk-Based Pricing of Interest Rates for Consumer Loans,” Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 53 (November), pp. 2283–2298.
Frankel, A., 2006, “Prime or Not So Prime? An Exploration of US Housing Finance in the New Century,” BIS Quarterly Review (March), pp. 67–78.
Galí, J., 1990, “Finite Horizons, Life-Cycle Savings, and Time-Series Evidence on Consumption,” Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 26 (December), pp. 433–452.
Goldman, Sachs, 2006, “Some Micro Evidence on Saving and MEW,” U.S. Economics Analyst, June 9, 6/23, pp. 4–6.
Greenspan, A., and J. Kennedy, 2005, “Estimates of Home Mortgage Originations, Repayments, and Debt on One-to-Four-Family Residences,” Finance & Economics Discussion Paper No. 2005-41 (Washington, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September). Available via the Internet: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2005/200541/200541pap.pdf.
JPMorgan, 2006, Skimming the Froth from the Punchbowl, Economic Research (New York, May 3).
Juster, F.T., J.P. Lupton, J.P. Smith, and F. Stafford, 2006, “The Decline in Household Saving and the Wealth Effect,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 88 (February), pp. 20–27.
Kennedy, Neale, and Palle Andersen, 1994, “Household Saving and Real House Prices: An International Perspective,” BIS Working Paper No. 20 (Basel, Switzerland: Bank for International Settlements, January).
Klyuev, Vladimir, and Paul Mills, 2006, “Is Housing Wealth an ‘ATM’? The Relationship Between Household Wealth, Home Equity Withdrawal, and Saving Rates,” IMF Working Paper 06/162 (Washington, International Monetary Fund). Available via the Internet: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2006/wp06162.pdf.
Krainer, J., and M. Marquis, 2003, “Mortgage Refinancing,” Economic Letter 2003-29, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (October 3). Available via the Internet: http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2003/el2003-29.html.
Maki, D.M., and M.G. Palumbo, 2001, “Disentangling the Wealth Effect: A Cohort Analysis of Household Saving in the 1990s,” Finance and Economics Discussion Paper No. 2001-21 (Washington, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System). Available via the Internet: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2001/200121/200121pap.pdf.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2005, “Recent House Price Developments: The Role of Fundamentals,” OECD Economic Outlook, Vol. 78 (December), pp. 123–154.
Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), 2003, “Housing Equity Withdrawal,” Reserve Bank of Australia Bulletin (February), pp. 50–54.
———, 2005, “Survey on Housing Equity Withdrawal and Injection,” Reserve Bank of Australia Bulletin (October), pp. 1–12.
Scanlon, K., and C. Whitehead, 2004, International Trends in Housing Tenure and Mortgage Finance (London, Council of Mortgage Lenders).
Schwartz, Carl, Tim Hampton, Christine Lewis, and David Norman, 2006, “A Survey of Housing Equity Withdrawal and Injection in Australia,” RBA Research Discussion Paper No. 2006-08 (Sydney, Reserve Bank of Australia August). Available via the Internet: http://www.rba.gov.au/rdp/RDP2006-08.pdf.
United Kingdom Financial Services Authority, 2006, Regulation of Home Reversion and Home Purchase Plans, Consultation Paper No. 06/08 (London, April). Available via the Internet: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Policy/CP/2006/06_08.shtml.
van Els, P.J.A., W.A. van den End, and M.C.J. van Rooij, 2005, “Financial Behaviour of Dutch Households: Analysis of the DNB Household Survey 2003,” in “Investigating the Relationship Between the Financial and Real Economy,” BIS Papers No. 22 (Basel, Switzerland, Bank for International Settlements, April), pp. 21–39.
*Vladimir Klyuev is an economist with the IMF Western Hemisphere Department. Paul Mills is a senior economist with the IMF Monetary and Capital Markets Department. The authors gratefully acknowledge comments and contributions by Tamim Bayoumi, Kornélia Krajnyák, Sam Ouliaris, an external referee, and seminar participants at the IMF and at the Durham University Think Tank on Housing Wealth; help with data provided by the Reserve Bank of Australia and Statistics Canada; and excellent research assistance provided by Yoon Sook Kim, Andrew Swiston, and Volodymyr Tulin.
About this article
Cite this article
Klyuev, V., Mills, P. Is Housing Wealth an “ATM”? The Relationship Between Household Wealth, Home Equity Withdrawal, and Saving Rates. IMF Econ Rev 54, 539–561 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.imfsp.9450018