Standard theory predicts a positive relationship between risk and return, yet recent data show that housing returns vary positively with risk in some markets but negatively in others. This paper rationalizes these cross-market differences in the risk-return relationship for housing, and in so doing, explains the puzzling negative relationship. The paper shows that when the current house provides a hedge against the risk associated with the future housing consumption, households are willing to accept a lower return to compensate for risk, thus weakening the positive risk-return relationship. Further, in markets with less elastic housing supply and a growing population, hedging incentives can be sufficiently strong to make the relationship negative. The empirical analysis confirms these predictions, suggesting that hedging incentives, housing supply, and urban growth are indeed central to understanding the risk-return relationship for housing.

[Standard theory predicts a positive relationship between risk and return, yet recent data show that housing returns vary positively with risk in some markets but negatively in others. This paper rationalizes these cross-market differences in the risk-return relationship for housing, and in so doing, explains the puzzling negative relationship. The paper shows that when the current house provides a hedge against the risk associated with the future housing consumption, households are willing to accept a lower return to compensate for risk, thus weakening the positive risk-return relationship. Further, in markets with less elastic housing supply and a growing population, hedging incentives can be sufficiently strong to make the relationship negative. The empirical analysis confirms these predictions, suggesting that hedging incentives, housing supply, and urban growth are indeed central to understanding the risk-return relationship for housing.]

This article examines how price risk affects housing demand. It identifies two relevant channels: a financial risk effect that reduces demand, and a hedging effect that increases demand since current homes may hedge future housing costs. The latter dominates when hedging incentives are strong, namely when the likelihood of moving up the housing ladder is high and the tendency to move across markets is low. For households with weak hedging incentives, the article finds negative effects of price risk on the timing and size of home purchases, but positive effects for households with strong hedging incentives. The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Society for Financial Studies. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: [email protected]., Oxford University Press.

[This article examines how price risk affects housing demand. It identifies two relevant channels: a financial risk effect that reduces demand, and a hedging effect that increases demand since current homes may hedge future housing costs. The latter dominates when hedging incentives are strong, namely when the likelihood of moving up the housing ladder is high and the tendency to move across markets is low. For households with weak hedging incentives, the article finds negative effects of price risk on the timing and size of home purchases, but positive effects for households with strong hedging incentives.]

We study how financial constraints affect the housing market by exploiting a regulatory change that increases the down payment requirement for homes selling for $$$1M or more. Using Toronto data, we find that the policy causes excess bunching of homes listed at $$$1M and heightened bidding intensity for these homes, but only a muted response in sales. While difficult to reconcile in a frictionless market, these findings are consistent with the implications derived from an equilibrium search model with auctions and financial constraints. Our analysis points to the importance of designing macroprudential policies that recognize the strategic responses of market participants.