Jump to content

User:Berlinuno/sandbox: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Berlinuno (talk | contribs)
307 edits
No edit summary
Berlinuno (talk | contribs)
307 edits
Line 27: Line 27:


==Empirical test of the Skyscraper Index hypothesis==
==Empirical test of the Skyscraper Index hypothesis==
2015년 미츠라흐와 문드라의 연구는 마천루의 높이와 경제성장간의 상관관계에 초점 맞추었다.<ref name="MizrachMundra">{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1080/00036846.2014.967380| title = Skyscraper height and the business cycle: Separating myth from reality| journal = Applied Economics| volume = 47| issue = 2| pages = 148–160| year = 2015| last1 = Barr | first1 = J.| last2 = Mizrach | first2 = B.| last3 = Mundra | first3 = K.}}</ref> The study looks at two types of data. First, the paper looks at the announcement and completion dates of the world's tallest buildings and the peaks and troughs of the United States business cycle, as measured by the National Bureau of Economic Research. They find that there is virtually no relationship between the timing of record-breaking buildings and the business cycle. Second, the authors investigate height and economic growth using the time series techniques of [[vector autoregression]] and [[cointegration]] tests. They investigate the time series relationship between the tallest building completed each year and the level of per capita GDP for the United States, Canada, China, and Hong Kong. The authors find that the two series are co-integrated, which means that they move together over time. That is to say, the tallest building completed each year in these countries does not systematically move away from the underlying income of the country, which provides evidence that, in general, skyscraper height is not fundamentally based on height competition among builders. Finally, the vector autoregression methods allow the authors to see if skyscraper height can predict changes in gross domestic product (GDP) (i.e., if heights predict recessions). The authors find that height cannot, in fact, be used to predict changes in GDP. However, GDP can be used to predict changes in height. In other words, the study finds that extreme height is driven by rapid economic growth, but that height cannot be used as an indicator of recessions.
2015년 미츠라흐와 문드라의 연구는 마천루의 높이와 경제성장간의 상관관계에 초점 맞추었다.<ref name="MizrachMundra">{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1080/00036846.2014.967380| title = Skyscraper height and the business cycle: Separating myth from reality| journal = Applied Economics| volume = 47| issue = 2| pages = 148–160| year = 2015| last1 = Barr | first1 = J.| last2 = Mizrach | first2 = B.| last3 = Mundra | first3 = K.}}</ref> 연구는 두 가지 유형의 데이터를 분석하였다. 첫번째로, 연구는 내용과 세계의 높은 빌딩의 완성된 자료와 미국 전국경제조사국에서 조사한 미국 경제 순환의 최고점과 최저점간의 골 (파동)을 조사하였다. 그들은 경제순환과 가장 높은 빌딩간의 시각적인 상관관계는 존재하지 않는다는 것을 찾아냈다. 두번째로, 저자들은 건물의 높이와 경제적인 성장을 시간 벡터 자기회귀와 공적분 기술을 활용하여 분석하였다. 그들은 매년 가장 높은 빌딩과 미국, 캐나다, 중국 그리고 홍콩의 일인당 GDP과의 시계열 상관관계를 조사하였다. 저자들은 두 가지 사실 간의 상호관계성 즉, 그것들은 시간에 따라 함께 움직인다는 사실을 찾아냈다. 미국, 캐나다, 중국, 홍콩 등에 있는 매년 가장 높은 빌딩은 그 나라의 수입으로부터 시스템적으로 도출되지 않는다. 이와 같은 근거로 일반적으로, 마천루의 높이는 근본적으로 빌딩들 간의 높이 경쟁에 기초하고 있지 않다. 마지막으로, 벡터 자기회귀 방법은 저자들로 하여금 마천루의 높이가 GDP변화를 예측 할 수 있는가에 대한 것에 대한 이해를 제공하였다. 저자들은 높이는 GDP 변화를 예상하는데 사용 될 수 없다는 것을 발견 하였다. 그러나, GDP는 마천루의 높이 변화를 예상하는데 이용 될 수 있다. 즉, 연구는 급격한 마천루의 높이는 급격한 경제성장 때문이라는 것이라는 것을 찾아냈다. 그러나, 높이는 불황의 지표로 여겨 질 수는 없다.


==See also==
==See also==

Revision as of 07:11, 15 November 2016

For the skyscraper named "The Index" (under construction) in Dubai, see The Index (Dubai).

The Skyscraper Index is a whimsical concept put forward by Andrew Lawrence, a property analyst at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein, in January 1999,[1][2] which showed that the world's tallest buildings have risen on the eve of economic downturns.[3] Business cycles and skyscraper construction correlate[4] in such a way that investment in skyscrapers peaks when cyclical growth is exhausted and the economy is ready for recession.[5] Mark Thornton's Skyscraper Index Model successfully sent a signal of the late-2000s financial crisis at the beginning of August 2007.[6][7]

The buildings may actually be completed after the onset of the recession or later, when another business cycle pulls the economy up, or even cancelled.[5] Unlike earlier instances of similar reasoning ("height is a barometer of boom"),[8] Lawrence used skyscraper projects as a predictor of economic crisis, not boom.

Careful statistical study has found that the height of buildings cannot be used to accurately predict recessions or other aspects of the business cycle, but that GDP can predict the height of building construction.[9]

Details

Lawrence started his paper, The Skyscraper Index: Faulty Towers, as a joke (emphasized by a title referencing a comedy show[1]) and based his index on a comparison of historical data, primarily from the United States' experience. He dismissed overall construction and investment statistics, focusing only on record-breaking projects.[4] The first notable example was the Panic of 1907. Two record-breaking skyscrapers, the Singer Building and the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Tower, were launched in New York before the panic and completed in 1908 and 1909, respectively. Met Life remained the world's tallest building until 1913. Another string of supertall towers – 40 Wall Street, the Chrysler Building, the Empire State Building – was launched shortly before the Wall Street Crash of 1929.

The next record holders, the World Trade Center towers and the Sears Tower, opened in 1973, during the 1973–1974 stock market crash and the 1973 oil crisis. The last example available to Lawrence, the Petronas Twin Towers, opened in the wake of the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis and held the world height record for five years. Lawrence linked the phenomenon to overinvestment, speculation, and monetary expansion but did not elaborate on these underlying issues.[4] The concept was revived in 2005, when Fortune warily observed five media corporations investing in new skyscrapers in Manhattan[3] (none of them, including the tallest, the New York Times Building, broke any records).

The intuitively simple concept, publicized by the business press in 1999,[10][11] has been cross-checked within the framework of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, itself borrowing on Richard Cantillon's eighteenth-century theories.[4] Mark Thornton (2005) listed three Cantillon effects that make the skyscraper index valid. First, a decline in interest rates at the onset of a boom drives land prices.[12] Second, a decline in interest rates allows the average size of a firm to increase, creating demand for larger office spaces. Third, low interest rates provide investment to construction technologies that enable developers to break earlier records. All three factors peak at the end of the growth period.[13]

Critics dismissed the skyscraper index as an unreliable tool: the post-World War I recession, the recession of 1937, and the early 1980s recession were not marked by any record-breaking projects.[5][14] Construction of the Woolworth Building (world height record 1913–1930) was marked by a local overbuilding crisis in New York City in 1913–1915[15] concurrent with a record construction boom in Chicago.[16] Thornton argues that completion of the Woolworth Building was followed by a third-worst-ever quarterly decline in gross domestic product, thus it should not be considered an exception from the rule (as Lawrence himself did).[14]

Cyclical patterns in real estate have been thoroughly studied before Lawrence, notably by Homer Hoyt in the 1930s.[17] A 1995 analysis of New York and Chicago's experience by Carol Willis estimated that historically, two-thirds to three-quarters of skyscrapers were conceived for rent alone;[18] corporate "edifices" imposing their owners' brand name (including most historical record-holders) were a minority, and they too leased space to tenants.[19] Speculative real estate markets cycle between the two different behavior patterns.[20]

In normal times when the value of resources is predictable, performance of a building project can be estimated reliably through well-tested formulae. In boom times, rational pricing gives way to irrational buyers' behavior; buyers bet on ever-increasing demand and rents and are willing to pay more than they would normally.[20] Willis said that "height is a barometer of boom",[8] "the tallest buildings generally appear before the end of a boom, their height driven up by the speculative fever that affects both developers and lenders",[18] citing cyclically inflated land values as the principal factor for increases in building height,[21] but did not elevate this fact to become an "index".

A related concept, Skyscraper Indicator, was popularized by Ralph Nelson Elliott in the 1930s.[22][23]

In some ways this appears to be an elaboration of C. Northcote Parkinson's theory that only organizations in decline have sleek, well-planned buildings. His favorite example was not a skyscraper, but the city of New Delhi (particularly the area now referred to as Lutyen's Delhi) – built shortly before India became independent of the British builders.

The recently constructed Burj Dubai may join this list. In October 2009, the construction company Emaar announced that it had completed the exterior of the building; within two months, the Dubai government came close to defaulting on its loans. Stephen Bayley from The Daily Telegraph commented, "For all the ambition of its construction, Dubai's new Dubai Tower is a frightening, purposeless monument to the subprime era".[24]

Empirical test of the Skyscraper Index hypothesis

2015년 미츠라흐와 문드라의 연구는 마천루의 높이와 경제성장간의 상관관계에 초점 맞추었다.[9] 연구는 두 가지 유형의 데이터를 분석하였다. 첫번째로, 연구는 내용과 세계의 높은 빌딩의 완성된 자료와 미국 전국경제조사국에서 조사한 미국 경제 순환의 최고점과 최저점간의 골 (파동)을 조사하였다. 그들은 경제순환과 가장 높은 빌딩간의 시각적인 상관관계는 존재하지 않는다는 것을 찾아냈다. 두번째로, 저자들은 건물의 높이와 경제적인 성장을 시간 벡터 자기회귀와 공적분 기술을 활용하여 분석하였다. 그들은 매년 가장 높은 빌딩과 미국, 캐나다, 중국 그리고 홍콩의 일인당 GDP과의 시계열 상관관계를 조사하였다. 저자들은 두 가지 사실 간의 상호관계성 즉, 그것들은 시간에 따라 함께 움직인다는 사실을 찾아냈다. 미국, 캐나다, 중국, 홍콩 등에 있는 매년 가장 높은 빌딩은 그 나라의 수입으로부터 시스템적으로 도출되지 않는다. 이와 같은 근거로 일반적으로, 마천루의 높이는 근본적으로 빌딩들 간의 높이 경쟁에 기초하고 있지 않다. 마지막으로, 벡터 자기회귀 방법은 저자들로 하여금 마천루의 높이가 GDP변화를 예측 할 수 있는가에 대한 것에 대한 이해를 제공하였다. 저자들은 높이는 GDP 변화를 예상하는데 사용 될 수 없다는 것을 발견 하였다. 그러나, GDP는 마천루의 높이 변화를 예상하는데 이용 될 수 있다. 즉, 연구는 급격한 마천루의 높이는 급격한 경제성장 때문이라는 것이라는 것을 찾아냈다. 그러나, 높이는 불황의 지표로 여겨 질 수는 없다.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ a b Lawrence, Andrew (1999). "The Skyscraper Index: Faulty Towers". Property Report. Dresdner Kleinwort Waserstein Research, January 15, 1999. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. ^ Berthelseh, John (2008). "The Return of the Skyscraper Index". Asia Sentinel, November 28, 2008. Retrieved 2009-01-01.
  3. ^ a b Leonard, Devin (September 5, 2005). "Curse of the Skyscraper". Fortune (magazine), September 5, 2005. Retrieved May 23, 2010.
  4. ^ a b c d Thornton, p. 51 Cite error: The named reference "T52" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b c Thornton, p. 53
  6. ^ Mark Thornton (August 7, 2007). "New Record Skyscraper (and depression?) in the making". Mises Institute.
  7. ^ Kevin Voigt (January 8, 2010). "As skyscrapers rise, markets fall". CNN.
  8. ^ a b Willis, p. 167
  9. ^ a b Barr, J.; Mizrach, B.; Mundra, K. (2015). "Skyscraper height and the business cycle: Separating myth from reality". Applied Economics. 47 (2): 148–160. doi:10.1080/00036846.2014.967380.
  10. ^ Thornton, p. 53, reviews 1999 press coverage
  11. ^ Koretz, Gene (1999). "Do Towers Rise Before a Crash". Business Week, May 17, 1999. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) p. 26
  12. ^ Thornton, p. 62
  13. ^ Thornton, p. 63
  14. ^ a b Thornton, p. 71
  15. ^ Willis, p. 168
  16. ^ Willis, p. 170
  17. ^ Hoyt, Homer (2000). One Hundred Years of Land Values in Chicago (originally printed in 1933). Beard Books. ISBN 978-1-58798-016-9.
  18. ^ a b Willis, p. 155–156
  19. ^ Willis, pp. 152–153
  20. ^ a b Willis, p. 157
  21. ^ Willis, p. 166
  22. ^ Downes, John; Goodman, Jordan (2003). Barron's Finance & Investment Handbook. Barron's. ISBN 978-0-7641-5554-3. pp. 375–376
  23. ^ Downes, John; Goodman, Jordan (2006). Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms. Barron's. ISBN 978-0-7641-3416-6., pp. 212–213
  24. ^ Bayley, Stephen (January 5, 2010). "Burj Dubai: The new pinnacle of vanity". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved May 23, 2010.

References

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Berlinuno/sandbox&oldid=749607354"