Reykjavík, May 17, 2018
To:
Att.

Taskforce on Reviewing Iceland’s Monetary and Currency Policies
The Prime Minister’s Office
Mrs. Asdis Kristjansdottir

From: Analytica ehf.
Yngvi Hardarson, MA, CMT

Re: CPI Formulation and Owner-Occupied Housing User Cost
This note is written at the request of the Taskforce on Reviewing Iceland’s Monetary andCurrency Policies (Taskforce). The aim is to summarize the treatment of housing costs in thecalculation of CPI’s for a few countries where the calculation of CPI’s is based on a “owneroccupied housing user cost approach” and where Central Banks policy is dictated by a pureinflation target.
Three questions have been set forth:a. How do the Statistical Bureaus of Sweden and Canada treat “owner-occupied housing
user cost” in their CPI estimates? Furthermore, how do their methods compare with themethod currently employed with the Statistical Bureau of Iceland?
b. For those European Countries where Central Banks monetary policy is dictated by a pureinflation target which ones employ the “owner occupied user cost approach” for estimating
housing costs within the CPI? Additionally, what method is employed by Statistics New
Zealand for estimating housing costs within the CPI?
c. What is the treatment of housing rental within the CPI of the above countries? Do thecountries employ market based rental measures or calculated measures, e.g. derived
from property prices?
We base our work on information gathered on our own from the Statistical Bureaus of therespective countries, some OECD studies, information gathered by an Economics research
assistant at the Prime ministry during the summer of 2017 and various documents that arereferred to in the References section.
Summary
The owner-occupied housing user cost estimates as determined in Canada and Sweden are
based on the product of two main components: (1) An interest rate index and (2) a component
estimating the impact of changes in home prices. The second component is here referred toas the capital stock index. The interest rate index reflects interest rates corresponding to theperiod when a loan was initiated or renegotiated.
The capital stock indices for both countries are constructed such that recent transaction prices
weigh in line with the ratio of recent transactions to the total stock. This is in contrast with the
Icelandic method where the whole capital stock is re-evaluated in line with recent transaction
prices. This is one of the largest contrasts in the methods employed. Also, Iceland employs areal (CPI-linked) rate while the Canada and Sweden employ nominal interest rates.
Furthermore, Iceland uses an “annuity method” for estimating user cost.

Analytica ehf. · Sidumula 14 · 108 Reykjavik · Iceland · tel. +354 527 8800 · fax +354 568 4998 · www.analytica.isA N A L Y T I CA
Apart from Iceland there are three other inflation targeting countries where the user cost
approach is employed for estimating owner-occupied housing cost within the CPI. These are
Canada, Sweden and Serbia. The Canadian and Swedish cases are studied here.
As regards the treatment of housing rental for calculation of national CPIs then typically ameasure of market rent is employed.
User Cost
The user cost approach to estimating the cost of services generated by a residence concerns
the scenario where the landlord and the tenant are the same person. There are three otherapproaches for estimating the cost of service, i.e. the payment approach, the net acquisition
approach and the rental equivalent approach.1 However, the user cost approach has been
adopted by Sweden, Canada and Iceland, more specifically what has been termed a simple(or partial / truncated) user cost approach.
The user cost includes expenses in the form of payments as well as imputed costs. Actual
expenses may include items like mortgage interest, renovations and repair as well as taxes.
However, it also includes opportunity cost and anticipated capital gain, i.e. the expected pricechange of the residence over the period in question. In this context it is important to keep inmind that in terms of the CPI the aim is to measure the value of services. Some of the user
cost items may not be relevant for that purpose but serve as a measure of investment return.
The user cost measures adopted by Canada, Iceland and Sweden are all referred to as simple
user cost. The term simple refers to a simplification of the theoretical concept of user costwhere some terms are omitted.
The treatment of owner-occupied housing is in the CPI is important as housing generally
represents a considerable part of a household’s budget. Furthermore, a residence generates
service over a long time, much longer than for most other durable goods. However, the impactof owner-occupied housing varies between countries in line with the relative share of owneroccupied housing vs. rental housing.
Canada, Sweden and Iceland – A Comparison
As stated above Canada, Sweden and Iceland all have implemented a simple user cost
approach to valuing the services of owner-occupied housing. However, there are some
important methodological differences.
The method adopted by Statistics Canada has recently been documented in reasonabledetail.2 Also, Statistiska centralbyrån (SCB) of Sweden has documented its CPI methodology
in detail.3 The method adopted by Hagstofa Íslands has also been documented in good detail.4
We base our comparison on the provided documentation in addition to further information
provided by the respective statistical bureaus, where needed.

1
The purpose of this memorandum is not to describe these various methods but rather to compare the partial user cost
approaches of the Statistical Bureaus of Sweden and Canada to the approach adopted by the Statistical Bureau of Iceland.
However, it may be noted that the methods employed by Sweden and Canada to estimate mortgage interest cost has a strong
resemblance to the payments approach. For the interested reader a brief description of the methods for estimating the cost ofservice can be found in e.g. Soumare, A. (2017).
2
Soumare, A. (2017).
3
Statistiska centralbyrån (2017).
4Guðnason, R. (2004a, 2004b).

2 / 15

A N A L Y T I CA
The simple user cost measures adopted by the respective statistical bureaus include both
estimates on actual payments and imputed cost. Estimates on actual payments include utility
bills and maintenance and in some cases other items. Typically, the imputed term is detailed
separately as based on interest charges and depreciation.
Table 1. Housing Weights in Canadian, Swedish and Icelandic CPI’s
CanadaShelter
Rented accomodation
Owned accomodation
Water, fuel and electricity

26.8%
6.4%
16.1%
4.3%

Sweden04 Housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels
04.4 Owner-occupied housing: Electricty, water and dwelling services
04.5 Electricity and fuels
04.S Rented dwellings: Rent including heating
04.x & 04.y Imputed rent for owner occupiers and housing co-ops
Iceland04 Housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels
041 Actual rentals for housing
042 Imputed rentals for housing
043 Regular maintenance
044 Other serv. relating to the dwelling
045 Electricity, gas and other fuelsNov. 2017
22.6%
1.0%
4.1%
7.1%
10.5%

34.3%
5.7%
20.5%
3.0%
1.5%
3.7%

Sources: Statistics Canada (2017), SCB, Hagstofa Íslands Dec. 2017

Table 1 above depicts the relative shares of housing in the Canadian, Swedish and Icelandic
CPI’s. Part of the difference in weights can be attributed to the large share of owned
accommodation in Iceland. This can be seen in table 2.
Table 2. Share of Owned vs. Rented Accommodation 2016
CanadaSwedenIcelandOwner Rent, market
66.8%
33.2%
65.2%
34.0%
78.8%
10.5%

Rent, reduced
0.8%
10.7%

Sources: Statistics Canada (2017) 2015 data, Eurostat EU-SILC Survey, Hagstofa Íslands (2017)5

CanadaIn Canada the housing costs item is referred to a shelter. The shelter term is split into threemain items, rented accommodation, owned accommodation and water fuel and electricity.
Only the owned accommodation term includes imputed costs. The owned accommodationindex covers six components, mortgage interest cost, replacement cost, property taxes,
homeowners’ home and mortgage insurance, homeowners’ maintenance and repairs andother owned accommodation expenses. Note that the index excludes return to homeowners’
equity. Also, the capital gain is excluded. Both return on homeowners’ equity and capital gains
are considered as investment rather than consumption.

5
Eurostat (2017), "Distribution of population by tenure status, type of household and income group - EU-SILC survey", updated
12.12.17, Statistics Canada (2017), "User Guide for the Survey of Household Spending 2015”, Table 7, Jan. 27, 2017,
Hagstofa Íslands, EU-SILC (2017)3 / 15

A N A L Y T I CA
The mortgage interest cost index is the product of two components: a component estimating
the impact of changing house prices and another measuring the impact of changes in interest
rates.
The price associated with a mortgage balance is the average house price in the month of
acquisition of the residence. The interest rate corresponds to the period when the loan was
initiated or renegotiated. The interest owed on a stock of mortgages during the current monthis therefore a function of house prices and interest rates in the current month, as well as thosefor the previous months, aggregated according to the shares of new and existing mortgages.
“Since the total value of houses purchased during a given period is always a small proportionof the total stock of dwellings, the total amount of mortgage interest owed each monthcontinues to reﬂect the impact of past changes in house prices for a very long period. In reality,
the house prices that enter into the estimation of the mortgage interest cost for each month
represent the weighted average house price of the previous 25 years. The weights reﬂect the
distribution of mortgage balances by mortgage vintage, such that older mortgages have arelatively lower weight. This is because newer mortgages generally have a higher principal
owing than older mortgages. Past mortgage interest rates also continue to be reﬂected in thecurrent month index, because new interest rates only affect the index through mortgages
newly initiated or renegotiated. These are generally a rather small proportion of the stock ofexisting mortgages.”6
The replacement or depreciation cost faced by the households who own their dwelling.
Depreciation is derived from data extracted from the Survey of Household Spending.
Respondents are asked how much they would expect to receive for their house if they wereto sell it. This amount is multiplied by a ‘‘house/property’’ ratio to obtain an estimate of thevalue of the house, excluding the land, to which a depreciation rate of 1.5% is applied.
The property tax index measures changes through time in the amount of taxes levied on aconstant sample of dwellings in selected municipalities whereas the homeowners’ home andmortgage insurance index measures changes through time in the cost of insuring a fixed stockof dwellings against a specified combination of perils.
It should be stated that the owned accommodation component of the official Canadian CPI
was not specifically designed to be an indicator of housing prices inflation.
SwedenIn Sweden owner occupied housing includes directly owned homes as well as beginning in2017 indirectly owned homes (flats in housing co-operatives).
Imputed rent for housing contains six different items all of which are associated with capitalcosts (interest cost index, depreciation, building insurance, real estate tax and fee for siteleasehold). Operating costs like heating, refuse collection and water supply are alsomeasured, but are detailed separately.

6

See Soumare (2017).

4 / 15

A N A L Y T I CA
The most important item in terms of imputed rent is the interest cost index which is a productof two sub-indices: the interest rate index and the capital stock index. The interest cost index
is a multiple of the two.
The interest rate index employs nominal interest rates and shows the average change of one
variable interest rate and several fixed interest rates with different maturity dates. The SCB
receives the actual interest rate averages from information providers with the largest
banks/lenders being included in the survey.
The capital stock index shows the change of total invested capital in owner occupied housing
measured at historical purchase prices irrespective of financing. A model is employed to reflect
the change in invested capital. In the model nominal prices are replaced by the real estate
price index. (See Appendix I). According to the SCB the capital stock index resembles a 30year moving average of the real estate price index. Investments in newly produced dwellings
are not considered in the model.
As regards interest cost there is no distinction between borrowed capital and equity. The SCB
applies the same interest rate for both terms whereby the opportunity cost of capital is
assumed equal to the price of borrowed funds. It must also be noted that the acquisition priceof both the structure and the land is included. The reason being that land is a prerequisite forhousing service.
The index for depreciation is equal to the index for repairs and maintenance. The weighting is
calculated as 1.4% of the actual market value of the owner-occupied housing stock.7
It may also be relevant in this context that in September 2017, Riksbanken changed theinflation target measure from CPI to CPI-F. The CPI-F is a version of the Swedish CPI whereinterest rates are being kept fixed.
Iceland
The method of calculation of simple user cost for owner occupied housing in Iceland differs inseveral important points from the methods employed in Sweden and Canada:8(1) The user cost is estimated monthly as an annuity which determines both thedepreciation term as well as the interest cost.
(2) Hagstofa Íslands employs a real interest rate for determining the cost of capital basedon CPI-linked mortgage rates. A one-year moving average of mortgage rates is
employed.9 The cost of equity is priced at a constant real rate of 3%.
(3) The full stock of owner occupied dwellings is priced at the most recent available prices
or more precisely a three-month moving average thereof.
(4) The user cost is based on the total value of the structure and the land.
(5) The price development of both the structure and land is included.

7

NIER (2002), p. 34
Additionally, Hagstofa Íslands has summarized some technical differences regarding data collection and calculation incomparing the methods of SCB and Hagstofa in Hagstofa (October 13, 2017).
9
Earlier a five-year moving average was employed. According to information provided by Hagstofa Íslands the moving averagecalculation has now been shortened down to one year. Hagstofa Íslands performs a monthly survey of mortgage rates.
8

5 / 15

A N A L Y T I CA
(6) The depreciation term is calculated based on the sum of value of the structure and theland. The depreciation term is included in the annuity which is based on an estimated67-year lifetime of the average home.10
The most significant difference lies in the re-evaluation of the stock of dwellings every monthas that makes the Icelandic CPI much more responsive to changes in home prices. This is incontrast with an approximate 30-year moving average process for Sweden and an
approximate 25-year moving average process for Canada.
Application of the real interest rate constitutes another major difference as both Canada andSweden employ nominal rates. The Icelandic real rate is an indexed rate linked to the CPI witha two-month lag. The real rate is applied to the fully marked up stock of dwellings.
As regards the cost of equity then Statistics Canada in effect employs a rate of zero, the SCB
applies nominal rates and Hagstofa Íslands employs a 3% CPI-linked rate.
The overall implications of the method employed by Hagstofa Íslands is that: (1) It likely inflates
the user cost measure relative to the methods employed by Statistics Canada and the SCB,
especially when comparing to the methods of Statistics Canada. (2) The responsiveness of
the CPI to changes in home prices is larger in Iceland than for the Canadian and Swedish
CPIs.
Chart 1. Capital Area Home Price Index and Moving Averages 1994-2017 11
Log-index

1000

3 month MA

Home price index

30 year EMA
100

10Source: Registers Iceland, Analytica calculations

One reason for the relatively large user cost measure in Iceland is the use of real interest rates
together with the re-evaluated housing stock measure.12 This involves a relative price change
10This does not imply that a depreciation of land is being included in the depreciation term. A lower rate of depreciation is
employed to reflect the weight of land in the sum, i.e. a rate of 1.25% is employed to the sum instead of a rate of 1.5% for the
structure alone. The value of both the structure and the land is determined by Registers Iceland.
11
The initial value for the 30-year EMA displayed here is estimated based on a trend regression on the relative price of housing
to construction cost. The trend is extrapolated back to 1938, when the construction cost index was first published. The housing
price is back-casted based on a multiple of the trend line and the construction cost index. A 30-year simple moving average iscalculated in 1968 and from there on a 30-year EMA. The EMA value for December 1993 serves as a starting value of the EMA.
12
Other explanations may include e.g. higher construction cost in Iceland and possibly larger homes.

6 / 15

A N A L Y T I CA
of the CPI vs. home prices since home prices have risen relative to the CPI. Another reason
involves what’s included in the user cost definition.
A comparison between a 3-month moving average (MA) and a 30-year exponential average
is shown in chart 1. The underlying price is the capital area home price index as published byRegisters Iceland. Note that this is not the same index as employed by Hagstofa Íslands, but
it is highly correlated with the relevant sub-index employed by Hagstofa.
As expected the 3-month moving average is considerably more volatile than the 30-year EMA.
The average annual rise of the 3-month average over the whole period amounts to 7.7%
whereas the average annual rise of the 30-year EMA amounts to 9%. The underlying
exponential trend of the home price index as determined by a linear regression amounts to
8.3% or the average of the two.
Potential CPI Impact from EMA Based Capital Stock
Given the above information the Taskforce requested a study of the potential impact on CPI
volatility if the current sub-index (042) for owner-occupied housing (OOH), i.e. the imputed
rent index, was replaced by an index based on a 30-year EMA of the capital stock. This isthought of as an approximation of the Swedish treatment of the capital stock. The priorexpectation was that employing the long term EMA would reduce the CPI volatility. However,this was not so. Volatility and correlation calculations are displayed in Table 3. Home pricestands for the Hagstofa home price index.13
Table 3. Annualized Volatilities and Correlation of OOH Cost Sub-Index (042) within CPI
CPIHome priceOOH cost
EMA cost
CPI excl. OOH
CPI w/EMA

CPI Home price
100%
3.45%
100%
11.6%
94.2%
30.0%
-2.7%
95.3%
-24.7%
96.0%-24.0%

St.dev.

1.93%

3.90%

OOH cost EMA cost

CPI excl. OOH CPI w/EMA

100.0%
28.7%-18.4%-14.0%

100%
20.9%
32.9%

100%
99.2%

100%

3.96%

1.63%

2.32%

2.04%

Source: Hagstofa Islands, Analytica calculations based on month on month log changes

The EMA term shown in table 3 is an EMA based OOH Cost Index where the OOH cost term
has been replaced by a 30-year EMA14. The CPI w/EMA stands for the CPI as modified using
an EMA for the capital stock. Due to the negative correlation of the current owner-occupied
housing cost sub-index (042) with other sub-indices the current method of encompassing
owner-occupied housing costs into the CPI results in lower volatility (standard deviation)
relative to the EMA approach. The difference is even clearer when employing quarterly data.
The negative correlation between the Hagstofa Imputed Rent Index (OOH Cost) and the CPI
excl. Imputed Rent (OOH) is such that it can be clearly seen in Chart 2 displaying quarterly
changes in both indices.

13
The study covers the period August 2002 through December 2017 and is limited by monthly weights data available on
Hagstofa’s portal.
14
An EMA is employed with L=356.2 (months). This value minimizes the RMSE between a 30-year EMA of the home priceindex as published by Registers Iceland and a long term EMA of the 3-month average home price index employed by HagstofaÍslands. The EMA term is then augmented by adding the log difference between changes in the 042 sub-index and PHHI inorder to approximate the impact of changes in interest rates.

7 / 15

A N A L Y T I CA
Chart 2. Changes in Hagstofa OOH Index and CPI excl. OOH Cost
Quarter on Quarter Changes 2002:4-2017:4

10%
8%
6%

Imputed rent (OOH)

4%
2%
0%
CPI excl.
imputed rent

-2%
-4%
-6%
-8%
-10%

The reason for the negative correlation isn’t clear but the possibility of it having something to
do with Central Bank inflation targeting can’t be excluded. Chart 3 depicts the quarter onquarter changes in the Imputed Rent Index (OOH Cost) as compared with the EMA based
OOH housing cost index.
Chart 3. Changes in Hagstofa OOH Cost Index (042) Compared with EMA Based Cost
Quarter on Quarter Changes 2002:4-2017:4
10%
8%Imputedrent (OOH)

6%
4%

EMA

2%
0%
-2%
-4%
-6%
-8%
-10%

Sources: Hagstofa Íslands, Analytica

8 / 15

A N A L Y T I CA
Chart 4 displays the CPI as compared to a synthetic CPI where the Imputed Rent Index (OOH)
is based on an EMA housing stock index. As can be seen there is a variation in the timing ofprice changes, but it is hard to discern the volatility difference from the chart.
Chart 4. CPI Compared with a Synthetic CPI based on EMA - Monthly data 2002-2017
450
CPI w/EMAOOH Index
400

CPI

350

300

250

200

Source: Hagstofa Íslands, Analytica calculations

An attempt was also made to approximate the Canadian method of CPI calculation. This isdone by employing a 25-year EMA as an approximation to the housing stock in addition toomitting an estimated average share of land price from the total valuation. The price of land
weighs around 17% on average.15 Furthermore, we omit the cost of equity, based on theassumption that the share of equity funding is around 30%. Omitting the price of land and thecost of equity reduces the weight of imputed rent (OOH cost) by almost 40% or from around
20% for December 2017 to 12.4%.16 The impact is to reduce the annual inflation measure byaround 0.2% or by around 3% in total for the period August 2002 through December 2017.
However, the annualized volatility increases to around 2.1% from 1.9%.
One important thing to keep in mind in case a switch is to be made to a measure of housing
stock index like the Swedish or Canadian indices. Notably, that such measures resemble amoving average of historical prices. A moving average delays information in line with aroundhalf its length. The implication is that care needs to be taken regarding the starting point of thecapital stock calculation to avoid the double counting of historical price increases to enter the
CPI calculation. One way to avoid this would be to start the capital stock index calculation fromthe most recent period rather than starting from a historical date.
Inflation Targeting in Europe and the User Cost Approach
The European Central Bank (ECB) targets Eurozone inflation based on the HICP index. The
HICP index only includes rented dwellings with the rent measure being market rent as
observed by Eurostat and the respective statistical agencies. Also, the Bank of Englandcurrently targets inflation based on the UK HICP.

15
The 17% is an average for all housing on a national basis but not only residential housing. Also, the ratio varies from year toyear but seems to have been trending down.
16
The exact weight reduction varies by period and ranges between 32-38%.

9 / 15

A N A L Y T I CA
Even though the HICP measures currently exclude owner-occupied housing the EU has
published a “Methodological manual referred to in Commission Regulation (EU) No 93/2013– Owner-Occupied Housing Price Indices – House Price Indices” dated February 2013.
According to the manual the EU will adopt the “net acquisition approach” for the measurementof owner-occupied housing rather than the user cost approach.17 “The weight for the net
acquisitions approach are the net purchases of the household sector of dwellings from otherinstitutional sectors in the base period (flows) and not the value of the total housing stock.”18
Before moving on to CPI measures and inflation targeting we would like to highlight a principal
difference between the HICP and CPI measures. This involves the HICP being a pure inflation
measure while the CPI indices in general are considered cost of living indices where consumer
substitution effects may play a significant role.
Table 4. Overview of inflation targeting countries employing user cost (UC) approach

Using OOH Rental eq. UC Net acq.
Albania
BelarusCanadaCzeck RepublicEuro area
Hungary
Iceland
Moldova
New Zealand
NorwayPolandRomania
RussiaSerbiaSwedenSwitzerland

x
x
x
x
x
x

x
x
x

x
x
x
x
x
x

x
x
x

Source: IMF (2017), The Prime Minister’s Office, OECD (2002)

As can be seen in table 4 there are four countries in our sample that target inflation and employ
the user cost approach to CPI owner-occupied housing (OOH). In addition to Iceland, Canada
and Sweden have already been mentioned while little information has been obtained on
Serbia. Altogether nine countries take owner-occupied housing into account for their CPI’s.
As concerning New Zealand then Statistics New Zealand has adopted the net acquisitions
approach to owner-occupied housing while using actual rentals for rental housing.

Treatment of rental housing for the CPI’s
Overall a measure of market rent is employed for the calculation of national CPI’s. The useof imputed rent is intended for estimating owner-occupied housing.

17
18

European Commission (2013), paragraph 5, p. 3.
European Commission (2013), paragraph 64, p. 19.

10 / 15

A N A L Y T I CA

Appendix I – The Swedish Capital Stock Index19
In Sweden changes in interest cost are measured by an index calculated as a product of two
factors: The interest rate index and the capital stock index. The second factor, i.e. the capitalstock index, measures the development of the original investments made by the current
owners. Essentially the capital stock index mirrors the development in property prices. The
capital stock index valuation is based on the historical acquisition price of homes. This involves
an addition to the capital stock in line with the turnover in the market at each point in time.
The calculation of the current (year=0) capital stock index is based on the following formula:
(1)

=

∑
∑

,
,

K0m stands for the capital stock index in month m of the current year
N i-2,B-j stands for the number of residences in year i-2
I stands for the home price index
i stands for the current year
i-2 stands for the reference year of the ownership structure. (Note: Available with a two-yearlag). The ownership structure refers to the distribution of the stock of residences according to
the length of time the current owner of the residence has owned it. Data on this distribution is
obtained from the apartment registry.
j stands for the current owner's holding time since acquisition, counted in number of quarters.
B stands for the fourth quarter of the year i-2 (with quarters continuously numbered for all
years in a row)q stands for the quarter when the latest home price index is published, calculated for monthm (with quarters continuously numbered for all years in a row). (Note: The home price index
is available with a 1 to 2 quarter lag.)m stands for the current month, 1 to 12
k stands for how many quarters the index is calculated. This is calculated from the most recent
quarter (j=0) and back to the beginning. Statistics on holdings and the home price index goback to 1961.
The formula provides an estimate for the capital which serves as the basis for the calculationof interest cost in month m, relative to December of the previous year. The calculation reveals
the change in the cost of loan financing and the fall in return on capital as home prices change.
It is our interpretation that the above process (1) representing the capital stock index can beapproximated by an exponential moving average where the weight of current prices is in linewith the turnover of homes relative to the existing stock. Formally this can be written as follows:
(2)
19

≈

+ (1 −)

See Statistiska centralbyrån, 2017, “Konsumentprisindex (KPI)”, p. 27-28.

11 / 15

A N A L Y T I CA
where the parameter t represents the turnover of homes relative to the existing stock at timet, Kt represents the capital stock index employed at time t and It represents transaction prices
at time t. If we define the parameter by:20(3)=

then the exponential moving average resembles a simple moving average of length Lt.
According to Statistics Sweden the process represented by (1) resembles a 30-year moving
average. Based on the approximation of (2) and (3) that would imply a relative turnover t ofaround 6.45% per year. When using monthly data Lt equals 360 implying a relative turnovert of 0.554% per month.

20

Se e.g. Nau, R. (2014), p. 9.

12 / 15

A N A L Y T I CA

References
European Central Bank (2011), “The Monetary Policy of the ECB”,
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/monetarypolicy2011en.pdf
European Central Bank (2016), “Assessing the impact of housing costs on HICP inflation”,
ECB Economic Bulletin, Issue 8 / 2016 – Boxes,
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/eb201608_focus04.en.pdf?72a3f0b653d68f4c780a
ebda7602a95e
European Commission (2013), “Methodological manual referred to in Commission Regulation(EU) No 93/2013 – Owner-Occupied Housing Price Indices – House Price Indices”
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/272892/272983/Methodological_manual_referred_in_Reg_93_2013.pdf
Eurostat (2017), "Distribution of population by tenure status, type of household and income
group - EU-SILC survey", [ilc_lvho02], updated 12.12.17
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_lvho02&lang=en
Goodhart, C. (2001), “What Weight Should be Given to Asset Prices in the Measurement of
Inflation?”, De Nederlandsche Bank Staff Report Nr. 65.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.202.7875&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Guðmundsdóttir, H.E., Guðnason, R., Hagstofa Íslands, 13. október 2017, “Nokkur atriði umútreikning á eigin húsnæði í vísitölu neysluverðs á Íslandi og í Svíþjóð, Fundur með nefnd um
endurskoðun á ramma peninga- og gjaldmiðilsstefnu Íslands”
https://hagstofa.is/media/50711/20171013_um_reiknada_leigu_i_vnv_a_islandi_og_i_svithjo
d.pdfGuðnason, R. (2004a), “Hvernig mælum við verðbólgu?”, Fjármálatíðindi, 51. árg. fyrra hefti
2004, 33-54, https://hagstofa.is/media/49648/hvernig_maelum_vid_verdbolgu_2004.pdf
Guðnason, R. (2004b), “Market price approach to simple user cost”, Statistical Journal of theUnited Nations, ECE21 (2004) 147-155, IOS Press
https://www.hagstofa.is/media/49647/market_price_approach_2004.pdf
Hagstofa Íslands (2017) EU-SILC
Hagstofa Íslands (2017), „Nokkur atriði um úteikning á eigin húsnæði í vísitölu neysluverðs áÍslandi og í Svíþjóð – Fundur með nefnd um endurskoðun á ramma peninga- og
gjaldmiðlastefnu Íslands“, October 13, 2017https://hagstofa.is/media/50711/20171013_um_reiknada_leigu_i_vnv_a_islandi_og_i_svithjo
d.pdf
IMF Staff Country Reports, November 2005, IMF Country Report No. 05/414, “Iceland: Reporton the Observance of Standards and Codes –Data Module, Response by the Authorities, andDetailed Assessments Using the Data Quality Assessment Framework”
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/CR/Issues/2016/12/31/Iceland-Report-on-theObservance-of-Standards-and-Codes-ROSC-Data-Module-18715

13 / 15

A N A L Y T I CA
Jahan, S, “Inflation Targeting: Holding the Line”, IMF, Updated July 29, 2017
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/basics/target.htm
Nau, R., “Forecasting with Moving Averages”, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University,
August 2014
https://people.duke.edu/~rnau/Notes_on_forecasting_with_moving_averages-Robert_Nau.pdf
NIER, Stockholm, 2002, “Owner-occupied housing in the consumer price index – An
examination of The CPI Investigation Committee’s proposal”, Special study No. 2, May 2002
https://www.konj.se/download/18.2a47cd83155bc502c5475048/1467880433912/owner%20
occupied%20housing%20in%20consumer%20price%20index.pdf
OECD (2016), “HM1.3Housing Tenures”, Affordable Housing Database
https://www.oecd.org/els/family/HM1-3-Housing-tenures.pdf
OECD (2002), “Main Economic Indicators – Comparative Methodological Analysis: Consumer
and Producer Price Indices Volume, 2002 Supplement 2, OECD Paris, September 2002
Riksbanken (2017), “CPIF target variable for monetary policy and band to illustrate variationsin inflation”,
http://www.riksbank.se/Documents/Protokollsbilagor/Direktionen/2017/probil_dir_A_170906_
eng.pdf
Riksbanken (2016), “The Riksbank’s inflation target – target variable and interval”,
http://www.riksbank.se/Documents/Rapporter/Riksbanksstudie/2016/rap_riksbanksstudie_16
0914_eng.pdf
Riksbanken (2015), “How is inflation measured?”, Economic Commentaries, no. 5, 2015,
http://www.riksbank.se/Documents/Rapporter/Ekonomiska_kommentarer/2015/rap_ek_kom_nr5_150519_eng.pdf
Sabourin, P. Duguay, P. (2015), “Measuring Durable Goods and Housing Prices in the CPI:
An Empirical Assessment”, Bank of Canada Review, Autumn 2015,
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/boc-review-autumn15sabourin.pdf
Soumare, A. (2017), “Shelter in Canadian CPI: An Overview”, Statistics Canada, September
22, 2017, Catalogue no. 62F0014F2017001,
https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/62f0014m/62f0014m2017001-eng.htm
Statistics Canada (2017), "User Guide for the Survey of Household Spending", 2015, Jan. 27,
2017, http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/62f0026m/62f0026m2017001-eng.pdf
Statistics New Zealand (2014), “Purchase of housing and rentals”, April 2014
http://archive.stats.govt.nz/tools_and_services/newsletters/price-index-news/Apr%2014/purchase-of-housing-and-rentals-in-the-cpi.aspx
Statistics New Zealand (2008), “Rented dwellings in the CPI”, April 2018
http://archive.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/economic_indicators/CPI_inflation/renteddwellings-in-the-cpi.aspx
14 / 15

A N A L Y T I CA
Statistiska centralbyrån (2017), “Konsumentprisindex (KPI)”, PR0101, SCBDOK 4.0,
https://www.scb.se/contentassets/a1e257bb3a574420b9d3f2ff59851c0a/pr0101_do_2017.p
df
Statistiska centralbyrån (2017), “Changes in CPI as of 2017”,
https://www.scb.se/contentassets/6dc31ffdd808460eb498b66419042afb/andringar-i-kpi-fran2017-en-editetr_feb_mt.pdf
Statistiska centralbyrån (2014), “Frågor i boendeposten”,
https://www.scb.se/contentassets/1b48f2064ebd46a78eda4d68d51c0403/11-pm---fragor-iboendeposten.pdf
Statistisk sentralbyrå (2009), “Owner-Occupied Housing in the Norwegian HICP”,
https://www.ssb.no/en/priser-og-prisindekser/artikler-og-publikasjoner/owner-occupiedhousing-in-the-norwegian-hicp?fane=om#content

15 / 15