In this Economic Commentary , we compare characteristics of the 2000–2006 house-price boom that preceded the Great Recession to the house-price boom that began in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. These two episodes of high house-price growth have important differences, including the behavior of rental rates, the dynamics of housing supply and demand, and the state of the mortgage market. The absence of changes in fundamentals during the 2000s is consistent with the literature emphasizing house-price beliefs during this prior episode. In contrast to during the 2000s boom, changes in fundamentals (including rent and demand growth) played a more dominant role in the 2020s house-price boom.

Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain were widely considered the Eurozone's weakest economies during the Great Recession and subsequent Eurozone debt crisis. These countries were grouped together due to the similarities in their economic crises, with much of them driven by house price bubbles which had inflated over the early 2000s, before bursting in 2007 due to the Global Financial Crisis. Entry into the Euro currency by 2002 had meant that banks could lend to house buyers in these countries at greatly reduced rates of interest.

This reduction in the cost of financing contributed to creating housing bubbles, which were further boosted by pro-cyclical housing policies among many of the countries' governments. In spite of these economies experiencing similar economic problems during the crisis, Italy and Portugal did not experience housing bubbles in the same way in which Greece, Ireland, and Spain did. In the latter countries, their real housing prices (which are adjusted for inflation) peaked in 2007, before quickly declining during the recession. In particular, house prices in Ireland dropped by over 40 percent from their peak in 2007 to 2011.

In a 2019 analysis, Riverside, California was the most at risk of a housing downturn in a recession out of the ** largest metro areas in the United States. The Californian metro area received an overall score of **** percent, which was compiled after factors such as home price volatility and average home loan-to-value ratio were examined.

The year-end value of the S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index amounted to 321.45 in 2024. The index value was equal to 100 as of January 2000, so if the index value is equal to 130 in a given year, for example, it means that the house prices increased by 30 percent since 2000. S&P/Case Shiller U.S. home indices – additional informationThe S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index is calculated on a monthly basis and is based on the prices of single-family homes in nine U.S. Census divisions: New England, Middle Atlantic, East North Central, West North Central, South Atlantic, East South Central, West South Central, Mountain and Pacific. The index is the leading indicator of the American housing market and one of the indicators of the state of the broader economy. The index illustrates the trend of home prices and can be helpful during house purchase decisions. When house prices are rising, a house buyer might want to speed up the house purchase decision as the transaction costs can be much higher in the future. The S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index has been on the rise since 2011.The S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index is one of the indices included in the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index Series. Other indices are the S&P/Case Shiller 20-City Composite Home Price Index, the S&P/Case Shiller 10-City Composite Home Price Index and twenty city composite indices.

Graph and download economic data for All-Transactions House Price Index for the United States (USSTHPI) from Q1 1975 to Q3 2025 about appraisers, HPI, housing, price index, indexes, price, and USA.

Graph and download economic data for Real Residential Property Prices for United States (QUSR628BIS) from Q1 1970 to Q2 2025 about residential, HPI, housing, real, price index, indexes, price, and USA.

The fall in property values associated with the recent recession has caused a decline in property taxes which may be amplifying local government budget crises across the country. Cuyahoga County is set to reappraise property values in 2012, and when it does it may only then absorb the full force of the housing market losses caused by the recession. We estimate the potential losses in property values and the county’s tax base and find that the impact could be significant.

The Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, was created by the U.S. congress in 1938, in order to maintain liquidity and stability in the domestic mortgage market. The company is a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), meaning that while it was a publicly traded company for most of its history, it was still supported by the federal government. While there is no legally binding guarantee of shares in GSEs or their securities, it is generally acknowledged that the U.S. government is highly unlikely to let these enterprises fail. Due to these implicit guarantees, GSEs are able to access financing at a reduced cost of interest. Fannie Mae's main activity is the purchasing of mortgage loans from their originators (banks, mortgage brokers etc.) and packaging them into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) in order to ease the access of U.S. homebuyers to housing credit. The early 2000s U.S. mortgage finance boom During the early 2000s, Fannie Mae was swept up in the U.S. housing boom which eventually led to the financial crisis of 2007-2008. The association's stated goal of increasing access of lower income families to housing finance coalesced with the interests of private mortgage lenders and Wall Street investment banks, who had become heavily reliant on the housing market to drive profits. Private lenders had begun to offer riskier mortgage loans in the early 2000s due to low interest rates in the wake of the "Dot Com" crash and their need to maintain profits through increasing the volume of loans on their books. The securitized products created by these private lenders did not maintain the standards which had traditionally been upheld by GSEs. Due to their market share being eaten into by private firms, however, the GSEs involved in the mortgage markets began to also lower their standards, resulting in a 'race to the bottom'. The fall of Fannie Mae The lowering of lending standards was a key factor in creating the housing bubble, as mortgages were now being offered to borrowers with little or no ability to repay the loans. Combined with fraudulent practices from credit ratings agencies, who rated the junk securities created from these mortgage loans as being of the highest standard, this led directly to the financial panic that erupted on Wall Street beginning in 2007. As the U.S. economy slowed down in 2006, mortgage delinquency rates began to spike. Fannie Mae's losses in the mortgage security market in 2006 and 2007, along with the losses of the related GSE 'Freddie Mac', had caused its share value to plummet, stoking fears that it may collapse. On September 7th 2008, Fannie Mae was taken into government conservatorship along with Freddie Mac, with their stocks being delisted from stock exchanges in 2010. This act was seen as an unprecedented direct intervention into the economy by the U.S. government, and a symbol of how far the U.S. housing market had fallen.

Four years into the economic recovery, housing markets have finally started to improve. While many indicators of activity indicate recent growth, comparing over time and across the United States suggests that many regional housing markets are looking better now only in comparison to where they were during the recession. The recovery in housing markets does appear to be gaining steam, but it remains a work in progress in many places.

The homeownership rate in the United States declined slightly in 2023 and remained stable in 2024. The U.S. homeownership rate was the highest in 2004 before the 2007-2009 recession hit and decimated the housing market. In 2024, the proportion of households occupied by owners stood at **** percent in 2024, *** percentage points below 2004 levels. Homeownership since the recession The rate of homeownership in the U.S. fell in the lead up to the recession and continued to do so until 2016. Despite this trend, the share of Americans who perceived homeownership as part of their personal American dream remained relatively stable. This suggests that the financial hardship caused by the recession led to the fall in homeownership, rather than a change in opinion about the importance of homeownership itself. What the future holds for homeownership Homeownership trends vary from generation to generation. Homeownership among Americans over 65 years old is declining, whereas most Millennial renters plan to buy a home in the near future. This suggests that homeownership will remain important in the future, as Millennials are forecast to head most households over the next two decades.

The Global Financial Crisis of 2008-09 was a period of severe macroeconomic instability for the United States and the global economy more generally. The crisis was precipitated by the collapse of a number of financial institutions who were deeply involved in the U.S. mortgage market and associated credit markets. Beginning in the Summer of 2007, a number of banks began to report issues with increasing mortgage delinquencies and the problem of not being able to accurately price derivatives contracts which were based on bundles of these U.S. residential mortgages. By the end of 2008, U.S. financial institutions had begun to fail due to their exposure to the housing market, leading to one of the deepest recessions in the history of the United States and to extensive government bailouts of the financial sector.

Subprime and the collapse of the U.S. mortgage market

The early 2000s had seen explosive growth in the U.S. mortgage market, as credit became cheaper due to the Federal Reserve's decision to lower interest rates in the aftermath of the 2001 'Dot Com' Crash, as well as because of the increasing globalization of financial flows which directed funds into U.S. financial markets. Lower mortgage rates gave incentive to financial institutions to begin lending to riskier borrowers, using so-called 'subprime' loans. These were loans to borrowers with poor credit scores, who would not have met the requirements for a conventional mortgage loan. In order to hedge against the risk of these riskier loans, financial institutions began to use complex financial instruments known as derivatives, which bundled mortgage loans together and allowed the risk of default to be sold on to willing investors. This practice was supposed to remove the risk from these loans, by effectively allowing credit institutions to buy insurance against delinquencies. Due to the fraudulent practices of credit ratings agencies, however, the price of these contacts did not reflect the real risk of the loans involved. As the reality of the inability of the borrowers to repay began to kick in during 2007, the financial markets which traded these derivatives came under increasing stress and eventually led to a 'sudden stop' in trading and credit intermediation during 2008.

Market Panic and The Great Recession

As borrowers failed to make repayments, this had a knock-on effect among financial institutions who were highly leveraged with financial instruments based on the mortgage market. Lehman Brothers, one of the world's largest investment banks, failed on September 15th 2008, causing widespread panic in financial markets. Due to the fear of an unprecedented collapse in the financial sector which would have untold consequences for the wider economy, the U.S. government and central bank, The Fed, intervened the following day to bailout the United States' largest insurance company, AIG, and to backstop financial markets. The crisis prompted a deep recession, known colloquially as The Great Recession, drawing parallels between this period and The Great Depression. The collapse of credit intermediation in the economy lead to further issues in the real economy, as business were increasingly unable to pay back loans and were forced to lay off staff, driving unemployment to a high of almost 10 percent in 2010. While there has been criticism of the U.S. government's actions to bailout the financial institutions involved, the actions of the government and the Fed are seen by many as having prevented the crisis from spiraling into a depression of the magnitude of The Great Depression.

This dataset includes various economic indicators such as stock market performance, inflation rates, GDP, interest rates, employment data, and housing index, all of which are crucial for understanding the state of the economy. By analysing this dataset, one can gain insights into the causes and effects of past recessions in the US, which can inform investment decisions and policy-making.

There are 20 columns and 343 rows spanning 1990-04 to 2022-10

The columns are:

1. Price: Price column refers to the S&P 500 lot price over the years. The S&P 500 is a stock market index that measures the performance of 500 large companies listed on stock exchanges in the United States. This variable represents the value of the S&P 500 index from 1980 to present. Industrial Production: This variable measures the output of industrial establishments in the manufacturing, mining, and utilities sectors. It reflects the overall health of the manufacturing industry, which is a key component of the US economy.

2. INDPRO: Industrial production measures the output of the manufacturing, mining, and utility sectors of the economy. It provides insights into the overall health of the economy, as a decline in industrial production can indicate a slowdown in economic activity. This data can be used by policymakers and investors to assess the state of the economy and make informed decisions.

3. CPI: CPI stands for Consumer Price Index, which measures the change in the prices of a basket of goods and services that consumers purchase. CPI inflation represents the rate at which the prices of goods and services in the economy are increasing.

4. Treasure Bill rate (3 month to 30 Years): Treasury bills (T-bills) are short-term debt securities issued by the US government. This variable represents the interest rates on T-bills with maturities ranging from 3 months to 30 years. It reflects the cost of borrowing money for the government and provides an indication of the overall level of interest rates in the economy.

5. GDP: GDP stands for Gross Domestic Product, which is the value of all goods and services produced in a country. This dataset is taking into account only the Nominal GDP values. Nominal GDP represents the total value of goods and services produced in the US economy without accounting for inflation.

6. Rate: The Federal Funds Rate is the interest rate at which depository institutions lend reserve balances to other depository institutions overnight. It is set by the Federal Reserve and is used as a tool to regulate the money supply in the economy.

7. BBK_Index: The BBKI are maintained and produced by the Indiana Business Research Center at the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University. The BBK Coincident and Leading Indexes and Monthly GDP Growth for the U.S. are constructed from a collapsed dynamic factor analysis of a panel of 490 monthly measures of real economic activity and quarterly real GDP growth. The BBK Leading Index is the leading subcomponent of the cycle measured in standard deviation units from trend real GDP growth.

8. Housing Index: This variable represents the value of the housing market in the US. It is calculated based on the prices of homes sold in the market and provides an indication of the overall health of the housing market.

9. Recession binary column: This variable is a binary indicator that takes a value of 1 when the US economy is in a recession and 0 otherwise. It is based on the official business cycle dates provided by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Graph and download economic data for All-Transactions House Price Index for Reno, NV (MSA) (ATNHPIUS39900Q) from Q2 1978 to Q2 2025 about Reno, NV, appraisers, HPI, housing, price index, indexes, price, and USA.

With the collapse of the U.S. housing market and the subsequent financial crisis on Wall Street in 2007 and 2008, economies across the globe began to enter into deep recessions. What had started out as a crisis centered on the United States quickly became global in nature, as it became apparent that not only had the economies of other advanced countries (grouped together as the G7) become intimately tied to the U.S. financial system, but that many of them had experienced housing and asset price bubbles similar to that in the U.S.. The United Kingdom had experienced a huge inflation of housing prices since the 1990s, while Eurozone members (such as Germany, France and Italy) had financial sectors which had become involved in reckless lending to economies on the periphery of the EU, such as Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Other countries, such as Japan, were hit heavily due their export-led growth models which suffered from the decline in international trade. Unemployment during the Great Recession As business and consumer confidence crashed, credit markets froze, and international trade contracted, the unemployment rate in the most advanced economies shot up. While four to five percent is generally considered to be a healthy unemployment rate, nearing full employment in the economy (when any remaining unemployment is not related to a lack of consumer demand), many of these countries experienced rates at least double that, with unemployment in the United States peaking at almost 10 percent in 2010. In large countries, unemployment rates of this level meant millions or tens of millions of people being out of work, which led to political pressures to stimulate economies and create jobs. By 2012, many of these countries were seeing declining unemployment rates, however, in France and Italy rates of joblessness continued to increase as the Euro crisis took hold. These countries suffered from having a monetary policy which was too tight for their economies (due to the ECB controlling interest rates) and fiscal policy which was constrained by EU debt rules. Left with the option of deregulating their labor markets and pursuing austerity policies, their unemployment rates remained over 10 percent well into the 2010s. Differences in labor markets The differences in unemployment rates at the peak of the crisis (2009-2010) reflect not only the differences in how economies were affected by the downturn, but also the differing labor market institutions and programs in the various countries. Countries with more 'liberalized' labor markets, such as the United States and United Kingdom experienced sharp jumps in their unemployment rate due to the ease at which employers can lay off workers in these countries. When the crisis subsided in these countries, however, their unemployment rates quickly began to drop below those of the other countries, due to their more dynamic labor markets which make it easier to hire workers when the economy is doing well. On the other hand, countries with more 'coordinated' labor market institutions, such as Germany and Japan, experiences lower rates of unemployment during the crisis, as programs such as short-time work, job sharing, and wage restraint agreements were used to keep workers in their jobs. While these countries are less likely to experience spikes in unemployment during crises, the highly regulated nature of their labor markets mean that they are slower to add jobs during periods of economic prosperity.

To improve estimates of household consumption behavior, we extend a widely-used model by allowing for dynamic consumption elasticities with respect to transitory income shocks. Applying our model to biennial household survey data, we find a significant structural break in marginal propensities to consume from before to after the housing market boom and bust just prior to the Great Recession, with the average level for all households estimated to have increased by more than 40%. There is important heterogeneity across households grouped by different balance sheet characteristics and our results suggest the increase for all households was driven by higher short-run consumption elasticities for homeowners with low liquid wealth. The change appears to be related to tighter borrowing constraints for homeowners more than a shift in wealth distributions.

We investigate the effect of house prices on household borrowing using administrative mortgage data from the United Kingdom and a new empirical approach. The data contain household-level information on house prices and borrowing in a panel of homeowners, who refinance at regular and quasi-exogenous intervals. The data and setting allow us to develop an empirical approach that exploits house price variation coming from the idiosyncratic and exogenous timing of refinance events around the Great Recession. We present two main results. First, there is a clear and robust effect of house prices on borrowing. Second, the effect of house prices on borrowing can be explained largely by collateral effects. We study the collateral channel through a multivariate and nonparametric heterogeneity analysis of proxies for collateral and wealth effects.

The Great Recession (2008-2009) was an economic recession largely caused by the collapse of the U.S. housing market and the subsequent financial crisis on Wall Street. The administration of President George W. Bush took unprecedented measures to backstop the U.S. financial system and wider economy in 2008 with its Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). This program was designed to purchase non-performing assets from financial institutions, such as subprime mortgage loans and related financial instruments, which had been responsible for the crisis. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and his department were given an initial authorization to spend up to 700 billion U.S. dollars on the program, although this was later lowered to 475 billion. From 2008 to 2012, the TARP program disbursed 417.6 billion U.S. dollars to purchase troubled assets and equity in the companies which held such assets. Of these funds, the majority was spent on the bank support programs, while significant amounts also went to bailouts of the car manufacturing industry and to the insurance giant American International Group (AIG).

FOCUSONLONDON2011: HOUSING:AGROWINGCITY With the highest average incomes in the country but the least space to grow, demand for housing in London has long outstripped supply, resulting in higher housing costs and rising levels of overcrowding. The pressures of housing demand in London have grown in recent years, in part due to fewer people leaving London to buy homes in other regions. But while new supply during the recession held up better in London than in other regions, it needs to increase significantly in order to meet housing needs and reduce housing costs to more affordable levels. This edition of Focus on London authored by James Gleeson in the Housing Unit looks at housing trends in London, from the demand/supply imbalance to the consequences for affordability and housing need. PRESENTATION: How much pressure is London’s popularity putting on housing provision in the capital? This interactive presentation looks at the effect on housing pressure of demographic changes, and recent new housing supply, shown by trends in overcrowding and house prices. Click on the start button at the bottom of the slide to access. View Focus on London - Housing: A Growing City on Prezi FACTS: Some interesting facts from the data… ● Five boroughs with the highest proportion of households that have lived at their address for less than 12 months in 2009/10:

Legislation aimed at stabilizing housing markets since the recession has focused on providing funding to acquire and remediate foreclosed and abandoned homes or providing financial assistance and incentives to purchase homes. Cuyahoga County has received over $100 million in such funds since 2008. We investigate the impact of these funds on vacancy rates. We examine neighborhoods in Cuyahoga County where National Stabilization Program dollars were spent and find that the program helped reduce vacancies in neighborhoods where properties were primarily purchased for consumption purposes.

This project will explore the impact of the economic recession on cities and households through a systematic comparison of the experiences of two English cities, Bristol and Liverpool.The research will use both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Interviews will be held in both cities with stakeholders from across the public, private and voluntary and community sectors. A social survey of 1000 households will also be conducted in the two cities covering 10 specific household types. A series of in-depth qualitative interviews will then be held with households drawn from the survey and chosen to illustrate the spectrum of experience.In the context of globalisation and the rescaling of cities and states, the research aims to develop our understanding of the relationship between economic crisis, global connectivity and the transnational processes shaping cities and the everyday lives of residents. It will explore the 'capillary-like' impact of the crisis and austerity measures on local economic development, and local labour and housing markets, as well as highlight the intersecting realities of everyday life for households across the life course.The research will document the responses and coping strategies developed across different household types and evaluate the impact and effectiveness of 'anti-recession' strategies and policies.