Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

Are rent rates influenced by the student population in a college town? Let rent be the average monthly rent paid on rental units in a college town in the United States. Let pop denote the total city population, avginc the average city income, and pctstu the student population as a percentage of the total population. One model to test for a relationship is $$\log (\text {rent})=\beta_{0}+\beta_{1} \log (p o p)+\beta_{2} \log (\text {avginc})+\beta_{3} p c t s t u+u$$ i. State the null hypothesis that size of the student body relative to the population has no ceteris paribus effect on monthly rents. State the alternative that there is an effect. ii. What signs do you expect for \(\beta_{1}\) and \(\beta_{2} ?\) iii. The equation estimated using 1990 data from RENTAL for 64 college towns is $$\begin{aligned} &\widehat{\log (\text {rent})}=.043+.066 \log (\text {pop})+.507 \log (\text {avginc})+.0056 \text { pctstu}\\\ &\begin{aligned} (.844)(.039) &(.081) \\ n=64, R^{2}=.458 \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$ What is wrong with the statement: "A 10\% increase in population is associated with about a \(6.6 \%\) increase in rent"? iv. Test the hypothesis stated in part (i) at the \(1 \%\) level.

Short Answer

Expert verified
1. \(H_0: \beta_3 = 0\); \(H_1: \beta_3 \neq 0\). 2. \(\beta_1 > 0\), \(\beta_2 > 0\). 3. Correct interpretation: 10% increase in pop ≈ 0.66% rent increase. 4. Do not reject \(H_0\) at 1% level.

Step by step solution

01

State the Hypotheses

In part (i), we are asked to state the null and alternative hypotheses. The null hypothesis (\(H_0\)) is that the student population percentage, \(\beta_3\), has no effect on rent: \(H_0: \beta_3 = 0\). The alternative hypothesis (\(H_1\)) is that the student population percentage does have an effect on rent: \(H_1: \beta_3 eq 0\).
02

Predict Signs for β1 and β2

In part (ii), we need to predict the signs of \(\beta_1\) and \(\beta_2\). - \(\beta_1\), the coefficient of \(\log(\text{pop})\), is expected to be positive, as an increase in population usually causes demand for housing to rise, which can increase rent.- \(\beta_2\), the coefficient of \(\log(\text{avginc})\), is also expected to be positive because higher average income often allows people to afford higher rents.
03

Analyze the Interpretation of β1

In part (iii), we evaluate the interpretation of \(\beta_1 = 0.066\). The error in the statement "A 10\% increase in population is associated with about a 6.6\% increase in rent" is assuming a linear percentage increase. The log-log model implies elasticity, so a 10\% increase in population leads to a 0.066 * 10\% = 0.66\% increase in rent.
04

Hypothesis Testing at 1% Level

In part (iv), we test the null hypothesis \(H_0: \beta_3 = 0\). - Given \(\beta_3 = 0.0056\) with a standard error of 0.081, the t-statistic is \(t = \frac{0.0056}{0.081} = 0.069\).- With \(n = 64\), the degrees of freedom is \(n - 4 = 60\).- At a 1% significance level, the critical t-value for a two-tailed test is approximately 2.660 (from t-distribution tables).- Because \(0.069 < 2.660\), we do not reject \(H_0\). Thus, we conclude that there is no statistically significant effect of the student population percentage on rent at the 1% level.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Student Population
The concept of 'Student Population' is crucial in understanding how the demographic composition of a college town might influence various economic factors, such as rent rates. The student population, often composed of young adults seeking higher education, can have significant effects on local housing markets. In our context, 'pctstu,' which stands for the percentage of the student population relative to the total city population, is the key variable. An increase in the student population could lead to higher demand for rental accommodations, potentially driving up rent prices as a result.

When analyzing economic models like the one in our exercise, understanding the student population's impact allows us to assess whether local policies or economic conditions might need adjustments to accommodate changes in demand.
Rent Rates
Rent rates are a vital component of the housing market, particularly in college towns where students form a substantial market segment. In econometrics, analyzing rent rates involves understanding various influencing factors such as population size, average income, and the student population percentage.

Economic theory suggests that factors affecting rent rates include:
  • Supply and demand dynamics: If there is a larger population, demand for housing usually rises, leading to higher rent prices.
  • Income levels: Higher average city incomes often correlate with the capacity to pay more for housing, thereby increasing rent rates.
  • Specific local demographics: A high student population can create a unique housing demand, as students usually rent rather than own homes.

In the exercise, the model predicts how these factors might influence rents using a regression analysis framework. Understanding these economic relationships thoroughly helps policymakers and stakeholders make informed decisions.
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis testing is a statistical method used to make inferences or draw conclusions about a population based on sample data. This method involves stating a null hypothesis, which represents a statement of no effect or no difference, and an alternative hypothesis, which is what the researcher aims to support.

In our exercise, the hypothesis testing focuses on the student population percentage's (\(\beta_3\)) effect on rent rates. We start with the null hypothesis (\(H_0\)), stating that the student population has no effect on rent, \(\beta_3 = 0\), and the alternative hypothesis (\(H_1\)), suggesting an effect exists, \(\beta_3 eq 0\).

To test these hypotheses, we calculate a t-statistic. A calculated t-statistic lower than the critical value from the t-distribution implies that we fail to reject the null hypothesis. In our analysis, this means concluding that there's no significant measurable effect of the student population percentage on rent at the 1% level of significance. Hypothesis testing thus provides a structured approach to determine statistical significance.
Regression Analysis
Regression analysis is a statistical tool used to explore relationships between variables. It helps in understanding how the typical value of a dependent variable (e.g., rent) changes when any one of the independent variables (e.g., population, income, student percentage) is varied while the others are held fixed.

The given model employs a particular kind of regression: a log-linear model. This involves taking the logarithm of the variables, which can make relationships easier to interpret as elasticities. In this case, elasticity refers to the percentage change in rent resulting from a 1% change in the independent variables.
  • \(\beta_1\) and \(\beta_2\) are coefficients interpreted as elasticities for population and income, suggesting how these changes proportionally influence rent.
  • \(\beta_3\) represents the linear effect of the student percentage on rent.

Understanding regression analysis allows us to quantify these influences, helping in forecasting and planning. Proper interpretation of the regression coefficients helps policymakers and economists devise better strategies to manage housing markets efficiently.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Regression analysis can be used to test whether the market efficiently uses information in valuing stocks. For concreteness, let return be the total return from holding a firm's stock over the four-year period from the end of 1990 to the end of \(1994 .\) The efficient markets hypothesis says that these returns should not be systematically related to information known in \(1990 .\) If firm characteristics known at the beginning of the period help to predict stock returns, then we could use this information in choosing stocks. For \(1990,\) let \(d k r\) be a firm's debt to capital ratio, let \(e p s\) denote the earnings per share, let netinc denote net income, and let salary denote total compensation for the CEO. i. Using the data in RETURN, the following equation was estimated: $$\begin{aligned} &\begin{array}{r} \text { retum }=-14.37+.321 d k r+.043 \text { eps }-.0051 \text { nentinc }+.0035 \text { salary } \\ (6.89)(.201) \quad(.078) \quad(.0047) \end{array}\\\ &n=142, R^{2}=.0395 \end{aligned}$$ Test whether the explanatory variables are jointly significant at the \(5 \%\) level. Is any explanatory variable individually significant? ii. Now, reestimate the model using the log form for netinc and salary: $$\begin{aligned} \widehat{\text {return}}=&-36.30+.327 \mathrm{dkr}+.069 \text { eps }-4.74 \log (\text {netinc})+7.24 \log (\text {salary}) \\ &(39.37)(.203) \quad(.080) \\ n &=142, R^{2}=.0330 \end{aligned}$$ Do any of your conclusions from part (i) change? iii. In this sample, some firms have zero debt and others have negative earnings. Should we try to use \(\log (d k r)\) or \(\log (e p s)\) in the model to see if these improve the fit? Explain. iv. Overall, is the evidence for predictability of stock returns strong or weak?

In Section \(4-5 .\) we used as an example testing the rationality of assessments of housing prices. There, we used a log-log model in price and assess [see equation ( \(4.47)\) ]. Here, we use a level-level formulation. i. In the simple regression model $$\text { price }=\beta_{0}+\beta_{1} \text { assess }+u$$ the assessment is rational if \(\beta_{1}=1\) and \(\beta_{0}=0 .\) The estimated equation is $$\begin{aligned} \widehat{\text {price}} &=-14.47+.976 \text { assess} \\ &(16.27)(.049) \\ n &=88, \mathrm{SSR}=165,644.51, R^{2}=.820 \end{aligned}$$ First, test the hypothesis that \(\mathrm{H}_{0}: \beta_{0}=0\) against the two- sided alternative. Then, test \(\mathrm{H}_{0}: \beta_{1}=1\) against the two- sided alternative. What do you conclude? ii. To test the joint hypothesis that \(\beta_{0}=0\) and \(\beta_{1}=1\), we need the SSR in the restricted model. This amounts to computing \(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left(\text {price}_{i}-\text {assess}_{i}\right)^{2},\) where \(n=88,\) because the residuals in the restricted model are just price \(_{i}\) - assess \(_{i}\). (No estimation is needed for the restricted model because both parameters are specified under \(\mathrm{H}_{0}\).) This turns out to yield \(\mathrm{SSR}=209,448.99\) Carry out the \(F\) test for the joint hypothesis. iii. Now, test \(\mathrm{H}_{0}: \beta_{2}=0, \beta_{3}=0,\) and \(\beta_{4}=0\) in the model $$\text { price }=\beta_{0}+\beta_{1} \text { assess }+\beta_{2} \text { lotsize }+\beta_{3} \text { sqr } f t+\beta_{4} b d r m s+u$$ The \(R\) -squared from estimating this model using the same 88 houses is .829 iv. If the variance of price changes with assess, lotsize, sqrft, or bdrms, what can you say about the F test from part (iii)?

Consider an equation to explain salaries of CEOs in terms of annual firm sales, return on equity (roe, in percentage form), and return on the firm's stock (ros, in percentage form): $$\log (\text {salary})=\beta_{0}+\beta_{1} \log (\text {sales})+\beta_{2} \text {roe}+\beta_{3} r o s+u$$ i. In terms of the model parameters, state the null hypothesis that, after controlling for sales and roe, ros has no effect on CEO salary. State the alternative that better stock market performance increases a CEO's salary. ii. Using the data in CEOSAL1, the following equation was obtained by OLS: $$\begin{aligned} \widehat{\log (\text {salary})}=& 4.32+.280 \log (\text {sales})+.0174 \mathrm{roe}+.00024 \mathrm{ros} \\ &(.32)(.035) \\ n=& 209, R^{2}=.283 \end{aligned}$$ By what percentage is salary predicted to increase if ros increases by 50 points? Does ros have a practically large effect on salary? iii. Test the null hypothesis that ros has no effect on salary against the alternative that ros has a positive effect. Carry out the test at the \(10 \%\) significance level. iv. Would you include ros in a final model explaining CEO compensation in terms of firm performance? Explain.

Consider the estimated equation from Example 4.3 , which can be used to study the effects of skipping class on college GPA: $$\begin{aligned} \widehat{\text {colGPA}} &=1.39+.412 \mathrm{hsGPA}+.015 \mathrm{ACT}-.083 \text { skipped} \\ &(.33)(.094) \\ n &=141, R^{2}=.234 \end{aligned}$$ i. Using the standard normal approximation, find the \(95 \%\) confidence interval for \(\beta_{h, G P A}\). ii. Can you reject the hypothesis \(\mathrm{H}_{0}: \beta_{h s, G P A}=.4\) against the two-sided alternative at the \(5 \%\) level? iii. Can you reject the hypothesis \(\mathrm{H}_{0}: \beta_{h_{h} G P A}=1\) against the two-sided alternative at the \(5 \%\) level?

Which of the following can cause the usual OLS \(t\) statistics to be invalid (that is, not to have \(t\) distributions under \(\mathrm{H}_{0}\) )? i. Heteroskedasticity. ii. A sample correlation coefficient of .95 between two independent variables that are in the model. iii. Omitting an important explanatory variable.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on History Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free