economies

Article
Predicting House Prices Using DMA Method: Evidence
from Turkey
Nuri Hacıevliyagil 1 , Krzysztof Drachal 2, * and Ibrahim Halil Eksi 3

1 Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Inonu University, No. 44210, Battalgazi,
44000 Malatya, Turkey; [email protected]
2 Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, ul. Długa 44/50, 00-241 Warszawa, Poland
3 Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Gaziantep University, Şehitkamil,
27310 Gaziantep, Turkey; [email protected] or [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The aim of this study is to analyze the dynamics of the housing market in Turkey’s economy
and to examine the impact of variables related to housing prices. Preferred by many international
housing investors, Turkey hosts profitable real estate investments as one of the developing countries
with a shining housing market. This study applies the dynamic model averaging (DMA) methodology
to predict monthly house price growth. With the increasing use of information technologies, Google
online searches are incorporated into the study. For this purpose, twelve independent variables, with
the Residential Property Price Index as the dependent variable, were used in the period January
2010–December 2019. According to the analysis results, it was observed that some variables, such as
bond yields, the level of mortgages, foreign direct investments, unemployment, industrial production,
exchange rates, and Google Trends index, are determinants of the Residential Property Price Index.



Keywords: housing price prediction; RPPI; DMA; Google Trends index; Turkey


Citation: Hacıevliyagil, Nuri,
Krzysztof Drachal, and Ibrahim Halil
Eksi. 2022. Predicting House Prices 1. Introduction
Using DMA Method: Evidence from
Housing, an important subbranch of the real estate market, is an important part of
Turkey. Economies 10: 64. https://
the sustainable economy. In several countries having one’s own real estate property is
doi.org/10.3390/economies10030064
perceived as having a high social status and is the aim of young people entering the job
Academic Editors: Robert Czudaj market. On the other hand, the housing market attracts investors, who perceive real estate
and Franklin G. Mixon not only as a consumption good, but also as an asset in which money can be allocated
Received: 25 November 2021
(Gebeşoğlu 2019).
Accepted: 2 March 2022
Although their intentions are different, the parties who want to buy houses enter the
Published: 10 March 2022 real estate market and may benefit from increases in a property’s value. Property value is
related directly to the housing ownership ratio. Especially in developing countries, whether
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
the high rate of housing ownership is sustainable is discussed in the literature. The main
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
question of the sustainability of the housing market is affordability. Housing cannot be
published maps and institutional affil-
sustainable unless it is low-priced and cost-effective. Whether housing is cost-effective also
iations.
affects the sustainability of its use as an investment tool (Nuuter et al. 2014; Wang et al.
2012). The real estate market is more stable than volatile financial markets such as foreign
exchanges, interest rates, and the stock market. In the real estate sector, which has become
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. a very profitable investment tool, especially in the last 15 years1 , housing prices determine
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. the profitability of the sector. At this point, the determination of housing prices has been
This article is an open access article one of the most important subtopics of the sector. This topic has prompted many market
distributed under the terms and players, from residential investors to real estate investment trusts and from individual
conditions of the Creative Commons investors to government officials, to predict the movement of housing prices, and they use
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// a variety of methods for this (Gupta et al. 2011; Ghysels et al. 2013; Yemelina et al. 2018;
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Kishor and Marfatia 2018).
4.0/).

Economies 2022, 10, 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies10030064 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/economies

Economies 2022, 10, 64 2 of 27

The development of new housing price prediction models would greatly assist in the
prediction of future housing prices and the establishment of real estate policies. This paper
implements dynamic model averaging (DMA), a new technique, to predict the movement
of housing prices. DMA is gaining increasing attention in macroeconomic time series
forecasting due to its ability to accommodate time variation in both the parameters as well
as the specification of the optimal forecasting model (Yusupova et al. 2019). In addition to
giving better results with macro variables, one of the advantages of the DMA method is
that it allows the parameters and prediction model to change over time. One other distin-
guishing feature of DMA is that the method captures not only parameter shifts, but also
model changes (Bork and Moller 2015; Wei and Cao 2017). A scarcity of studies using the
DMA technique in other topics connected with finance and economics in the literature has
been observed. This study contributes to the existing literature by allowing the estimation
of housing prices with a new technique (DMA) using macroeconomic data. Moreover,
the lack of an application of DMA to the Turkish housing market, which constitutes the
sample of this study, and the advantages of the model are the main motivations for this
study. It is also worth mentioning that, in the case of housing prices analysis, DMA has
significant prediction gains compared to a linear autoregressive (AR) model, offering a
series of predictions that compete with competitive dynamic and static prediction models
(Yusupova et al. 2019). The dynamic averaging scheme allows us to obtain the probability
that each variable is included over time. This feature was found to be appropriate in this
study as the most functional method that can be used to understand the driving forces of
each housing market and to see and demonstrate the behavior they exhibit over time.
Housing prices can provide important information to stakeholders in the real estate
market, including real estate agents, appraisers, assessors, mortgage lenders, brokers,
property developers, investors and fund managers, and policy makers, as well as to actual
and potential homeowners. It is difficult to accurately estimate housing prices. The reason
for this is that residences are generally a combination of various factors such as location,
environment, and structural features (Bin 2004). It is not clear how to select the factors
involved and how these factors will be taken into account.
In the evaluation of house prices, the use of the RPPI, which measures the change in
the price of houses as a percentage from a certain starting date, is considered. It is also
considered that the housing market demand and supply amounts, the general economic
conditions affecting the sale and purchase of housing, the movements in the financial
market, and the real sector factors affecting commercial life should be included in the study.
Consumers’ perceptions of housing purchases and their reactions to prices through online
searches will also be explored.
With the increasing use of information technologies, online searches have become one
of the important factors that have been increasingly used in academic articles in recent years
(Shimshoni et al. 2009; Ginsberg et al. 2009; Choi and Varian 2012). Internet online searches
also play a role in housing pricing in the real estate sector (Ford et al. 2005; Kulkarni et al.
2009; Hohenstatt et al. 2011; Beracha and Wintoki 2013; Das et al. 2015; Wei and Cao 2017).
Moving from this point, one of the distinguishing features of this study is combining the
DMA method with the Google Trends index, following Wei and Cao (2017).
As seen from different DMA studies (Raftery et al. 2010; Aye et al. 2015; Bork and
Moller 2015; Risse and Kern 2016; Wei and Cao 2017; Sousa 2018; Yusupova et al. 2019), it is
clear that the DMA model is generally applied for the analysis of datasets from developing
countries. Turkey is considered a developing country, and the application of this method in
Turkey is another contribution to the literature.
Increased real estate development over the last 15 years has brought Turkey more to
the attention of international housing investors. The decisive role of the sector, especially
in the economic recession, has caused greater interest in the behavior of the real estate
markets. Foreigners showed an increase in development of 78% compared to the previous
year, buying about 40,000 housing units in 2018 in Turkey (AREREIT 2019b). The lack of
Economies 2022, 10, 64 3 of 27

focus on research mainly on the Turkish real estate market is another motivation for this
study.
This paper is structured as follows: The next section provides a review of the real
estate market and then provides theoretical background and information on the Turkish
real estate market. In the third section, relevant literature is reviewed; the fourth section
gives details about the sample selection and the methodology used. In the last section,
results are discussed and conclusions are formulated.

1.1. Why Housing? Why Housing Prices?

The spread of the 2008 mortgage crisis from the United States to the whole world
caused all countries to become more interested in the real estate sector. (The 1997 Asian
crisis and the boom in asset prices before the 1929 and 2008 crises in the United States are
examples of major financial crises that can be caused by speculative housing price bubbles.)
The importance of monitoring the price movements and loan amounts of the housing
sector became clear after the 2008 global financial crisis, and since that time, its importance
has only increased. Monitoring housing prices, which both reflect developments in the
housing market and provide information about the housing market’s connection to other
macroeconomic variables, has enabled both autonomous and state institutions to follow
the housing sector much more closely. Long-term increases in housing prices, together
with excessive investment, can lead to speculative price movements, which are called
bubbles and have negative effects on sustainable economic growth (Beltratti and Morana
2010). Considering their impact on other sectors of the economy, analysis of housing prices
becomes even more important.
The fact that housing directly and indirectly affects financial stability has made it
mandatory to follow the housing market and home prices (Uyar et al. 2016). The housing
market is one of the leading drivers of the economy due to its forward and backward
effects in both developed and developing countries. Especially for the economic stability of
developing countries, resource allocation is becoming even more important. Developments
in the housing market can play a decisive role in long-term sustainable economic growth,
potentially affecting the allocation of resources used in production (Hongyu et al. 2002).
Excessive investment in the housing market can delay resource allocation and prevent
sufficient investment in areas such as education, industry, and high technology necessary for
sustainable growth. Consequently, developing countries are experiencing serious financing
problems. In other words, the limited productivity of housing investment compared
to other types of investment, and yet excessive investment in housing, can lead to less
investment in areas that are much more productive and vital for sustainable development.
Housing expenditures have a significant weight in total expenditures. For this reason,
housing is related to many macroeconomic variables, including GDP, price indices, interest
rate, and investment (Bilik and Aydin 2019). The construction sector, which provides
employment for many people, is directly related to the housing market and affects impor-
tant economic data such as labor force participation and unemployment, increasing the
importance of the housing sector in the economies of a country.
While housing is considered an alternative to securities in some cases, in others it is
considered a high-profit investment tool. For this reason, it differs from other markets.
The high cost of housing supply, permanent housing, maintaining stable housing (as a
long-term investment), heterogeneous growth in secondary markets, and use of collateral
in financial transactions can be listed as differences between other markets and the housing
market (Afşar et al. 2017). For example, house prices in the Turkish economy have increased
more than 230% since 2003 according to the REIDIN House Price Index, and consumer
prices have increased at a much more severe rate than agricultural and industrial prices,
giving investors very high returns (Yıldırım 2017). In addition, when analyzed, it has the
advantage that nominal housing prices do not fall as sharply as stock and commercial real
estate prices. Therefore, investors tend to buy more houses. On the other hand, housing
investments in Turkey constitute more than half of the net wealth of the private sector
Economies 2022, 10, 64 4 of 27

(Arslan and Kasa 2020). The low return performances of real sector (agricultural, industrial,
etc.) investments and financial investment instruments compared to the housing sector
should be investigated. One of the primary motivations for this study is the relatively small
amount of literature on housing price prediction compared to agricultural, industrial, and
financial assets such as stock prices and exchange rates.
Another dimension of housing prices is housing expenditures. Expenditures for
housing, which are sometimes seen as a consumption good and an investment good by
households, have an important share in total expenditures. Again, to give an example from
Turkey, in the last 15 years, approximately 27% of household consumption expenditures are
allocated to housing and rent expenditures, and these expenditures are the highest share of
household consumption expenditures (Kolcu and Yamak 2018).
Another aspect of the issue is that the housing market is related to the socioeconomic
structure of countries. Turkey has a young population structure; continued urbanization
due to internal migration; continued external growth from different countries, especially
neighboring countries; increased housing purchases by foreigners; and a downsizing
Turkish family structure, and all indicate that long-term housing demand will increase in
Turkey (Bilik and Aydin 2019).
Based on this crucial importance of the housing market, the prediction of housing
prices is also important in that it provides information to all interested parties.

1.2. Theoretical Background

The main link between real estate price determination and basic macro variables stems
from the credit growth trend approach. Since the purchase of homes is financed through the
banking system, greater financial depth and accelerated loan growth rate tend to increase
housing demand, possibly by increasing property prices. This situation is called the house
prices channel in theory (Mishkin 2001). The house prices channel can be defined as the
process of changing the total output and price level by a change in monetary policy affecting
real estate prices, such as housing and land, and thus the investments and expenditures
of the household. High interest rates increase household savings and narrow the demand
for investment-oriented housing. However, when interest rates fall, home prices increase.
An increase in house prices increases consumption and investments through wealth and
collateral effects. As a result, total demand increases.
The Modigliani consumption life cycle model is effective in the functioning of the
house prices channel. In this transfer mechanism, direct effects, such as capital use cost
effect and interest rates and wealth effect, and indirect effects, such as housing and rental
wealth and collateral, affect the investments or expenditures of firms or households.
Changes in investments and expenditures change the total output amount (Milcheva
and Sebastian 2010). Wealth effects impact consumption decisions, while collateral effects
impact investment decisions. When house prices increase, the net wealth of the household
increases, increasing consumption and, consequently, positively influencing economic
activity. The opposite happens when house prices fall: consumption decreases as a result
of wealth effects, and economic activity decreases.
Housing prices, which affect economic activity, can directly affect the loan demand of
the real estate sector, which can be used as collateral for mortgage financing in the housing
and loan markets. When housing prices change, the loan demand of both households and
commercial enterprises can change and affect their investments. Housing investment is
considered an indicator of healthy functioning in economies and an important part of the
total investment. Sari et al. (2007) stated that housing market activity is important for
the economy because the increase in housing investments increases employment in the
housing construction sector and related industries that provide housing-related goods and
services. Workers' income increases in the housing sector and industries that supply goods
and services to the housing sector, and the increase in income tends to increase the demand
for housing with its multiplier effect. As a result, employment is assumed to be one of the
leading indicators of future housing investment.
Economies 2022, 10, 64 5 of 27

Banks are willing to ensure the availability of home loans or mortgages in order to
avoid the decline in their capital, which might be determined by the decline in real estate
prices in the market. Friedman and Kuttner (1993) argue that when loans from credit
institutions decrease, investors enter the stock market. Sudden increases and decreases in
the value of assets such as securities and treasury bills, on the other hand, affect the interest
rates and cause fluctuations in the total loan supply. When regular interest rates go up,
the mortgage rate or mortgage payment (including interest and principal) increases and
prevents people from buying houses, so the demand for houses decreases.
Case et al. (2005) show that changes in real house prices can even impact consumption
more strongly than changes in stock market prices, which might be due to the fact that
house ownership is more evenly distributed across households than stock market wealth.
In contrast, stock market wealth is mainly held by rich households. Since the propensity
to consume declines with increasing wealth, an increase in house prices should therefore
have a stronger effect on consumption than an increase in stock prices. Some economists,
however, do not believe in the existence of such wealth effects (Adams and Füss 2010).
One of the biggest problems of developing countries (including Turkey) is the current
account deficit and foreign capital inflows used in financing the deficit and the related
exchange rate volatility. When the increase in exchange rates arises from capital movements,
it causes continuous current account deficits and poses a risk. The very short duration of
capital inflows and high domestic inflation compared to the outside world are the main
reasons that cause the excessive appreciation in exchange rates (Karadaş and Salihoglu
2020). Due to the effect of rising house prices on consumption and imports, an increase in
foreign currency demand can be seen.
At the same time, inflationary effects in developing countries can cause changes in
exchange rates, which can affect house prices and cause price changes. In such countries, it
is assumed that housing demand will increase when the housing loan interest rates and
inflation rates decrease. However, in Turkey, contrary to expectations, when housing prices
increase, housing sales increase rather than decrease. Therefore, it is expected that both
market dynamics and credit trends are important in real estate price prediction, and it is
necessary to first investigate which should be dominant.

1.3. Why Turkey?

We have some interesting reasons for choosing Turkey as a sample. First, the housing
sector in Turkey is important for both domestic and foreign investors. The great develop-
ment in the real estate sector in Turkey over the last 15 years has garnered more attention
from international housing investors. The decisive role of the sector, especially in the eco-
nomic recession, has caused great interest in the behavior of the real estate markets. Foreign
investment showed an increase of 78% compared to the previous year, buying about 40,000
housing units in 2018 from Turkey (AREREIT 2019a). Housing sales to foreigners, as of the
end of the first quarter of 2020, increased to 10,948 units with a growth of 13.8% compared
to the same period of the previous year (see Figure 1) (AREREIT 2020b). According to
balance of payment data, gross foreign direct investment (FDI) into Turkey stood in the
region of USD 8.8 billion for the first 11 months of 2019, of which USD 4.5 billion was gross
real estate acquisition investments (AREREIT 2020a).
Economies 2022, 10,
Economies 2022, 10, 64
x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 6of
of 28
27

Figure 1. Housing sales numbers to foreigners—overall Turkey (source: AREREIT 2020a, 2020b)
Figure 1. Housing sales numbers to foreigners—overall Turkey (source: AREREIT 2020a, 2020b) This
This table shows housing sales to foreigners. Turkey stands out as a center of attraction for invest-
table shows housing sales to foreigners. Turkey stands out as a center of attraction for investment
ment in housing for foreigners. Sales to foreigners in the third quarter of 2018 broke a record, and
in housing
they for flat
remained foreigners.
until theSales
thirdtoquarter
foreigners in the third quarter of 2018 broke a record, and they
of 2019.
remained flat until the third quarter of 2019.
Growth potential in the domestic market in recent years, coupled with an expected
Growth potential in the domestic market in recent years, coupled with an expected
increase in real estate value, has led to growing foreign investor interest in the Turkish
increase in real estate value, has led to growing foreign investor interest in the Turkish real
real estate market. Factors such as legal regulations facilitating the acquisition of property
estate market. Factors such as legal regulations facilitating the acquisition of property by
by foreigners in Turkey, large-scale residential projects, and the phenomenon of migra-
foreigners in Turkey, large-scale residential projects, and the phenomenon of migration-
tion-driven demand have also had a positive impact on investment in the sector
driven demand have also had a positive impact on investment in the sector (AREREIT
(AREREIT 2020a). On the other hand, in a country like Turkey, where foreign financing
2020a). On the other hand, in a country like Turkey, where foreign financing needs are high,
needs are high, the purchasing of houses by foreign investors has a positive effect on the
the purchasing of houses by foreign investors has a positive effect on the balance sheet in
balance sheet in the form of direct foreign capital. For example, approximately 25% (USD
the form of direct foreign capital. For example, approximately 25% (USD 24,708 billion)
24,708 billion) of a total direct capital inflow of USD 97,257 billion in the 2011–2017 period
of a total direct capital inflow of USD 97,257 billion in the 2011–2017 period was realized
was realized as real estate purchases (JLL 2020). It would be appropriate to investigate the
as real estate purchases (JLL 2020). It would be appropriate to investigate the method of
method
coveringofthis covering thisneed
financing financing need
with the with
sale the sale of
of housing onhousing on abasis.
a long-term long-term basis.
Real
Real housing prices in the world, in general, have been on an upward trend
housing prices in the world, in general, have been on an upward since
trend since
1990. Especially after the 2001 crisis, the increase in national income
1990. Especially after the 2001 crisis, the increase in national income per capita thanks per capita thanks to
economic growth on the one hand and the restructuring of the banking
to economic growth on the one hand and the restructuring of the banking and financial and financial sys-
tem
systemthrough a series
through of of
a series reforms
reformsonon the other
the otherhavehaveledledtotothe
therevival
revivalof
ofthe
the housing
housing sector
sector
in
in the Turkish economy.
the Turkish economy. ThisThis revival
revival went
went into
into decline
decline with
with the
the 2008
2008 crisis
crisis but
but has
has risen
risen
again since 2012. The rise in home prices in the Turkish economy
again since 2012. The rise in home prices in the Turkish economy over the mentioned over the mentioned pe-
riod has outstripped most of the United States, Eurozone, Canada,
period has outstripped most of the United States, Eurozone, Canada, United Kingdom, and United Kingdom, and
other
other developed
developed countries
countries (Yıldırım
(Yıldırım 2017).
2017). Istanbul,
Istanbul, Turkey’s
Turkey’s largest
largest and
and most
most important
important
city,
city, is shown as the seventh most attractive residential market in Europe after
is shown as the seventh most attractive residential market in Europe after London,
London,
Paris, Moscow,Milan,
Paris, Moscow, Milan,andandRome.
Rome.Additionally,
Additionally,TurkeyTurkeyisisrecognized
recognized asasthethe best
best perform-
performing
ing residential
residential market
market in the
in the world,
world, with
with anan18.4%
18.4%price
priceincrease,
increase,ahead
ahead of of New
New Zealand,
Zealand,
Australia, and Sweden (JLL 2020). 2020). Therefore,
Therefore, this this situation
situationmakes
makesthe theTurkish
Turkish economy,
economy,
which is the sample of our study, an extremely important field of research in terms of
explaining the rapid rise in housing prices in the world.
Another core motivation for the study is the increasing interest in the real estate sec-
tor in Turkey because it is one of the sectors that are most open to development in Turkey.
Economies 2022, 10, 64 7 of 27

Another core motivation for the study is the increasing interest in the real estate sector
in Turkey because it is one of the sectors that are most open to development in Turkey. The
legendary growth rate of 64.9% in 2013 was followed by growth rates of 10.4% in 2015, 4.0%
in 2016, and 5.1% in 2017 (AREREIT 2019a). In 2018, with 1,375,398 housing units, 2.4%
growth in the real estate sector, net direct international investment inflows of approximately
USD 13 billion are observed (AREREIT 2019c). In 2019, 1,348,729 housing units, compared
to 2018, represented a decline of 1.9%. Based on December 2019 figures, at over 200,000,
house sales for Turkey as a whole broke an all-time record (AREREIT 2020a). This interest
in the real estate sector also brought real estate investment trusts with it. The number of
real estate investment companies (REITs), which were very few in the early 1990s, reached
33 by the end of 2018, especially as a result of the intensive investments and significant
incentives made to the construction sector in recent years. As a result of these figures, real
estate in Turkey reached the point of becoming a USD 400 billion sector. These statistics
indicate the importance of predicting real estate prices (AREREIT 2019c).
The housing sector gained momentum after mortgage regulations made great progress.
Mortgage sales, which have become an important point to be watched carefully both in
terms of the sector and the economy, have started to affect macro data. In 2019, Turkey’s
mortgaged sales recovered to record a 20.1% increase over the previous year (AREREIT
2020a). As of the first quarter of 2019 and the same period of 2020, mortgage sales increased
by 90%. During this period, a decrease in interest rates and its effect on credit costs have
positively affected mortgage sales, which seems to have a positive effect on the economy
(AREREIT 2020b). In other aspects, the growth rate of bank loans, in which the ever-
increasing housing loans have an important place in Turkey, is quite high. According to
Dalkılıç and Aşkın (2018), Turkey ranks third among 44 countries studied in terms of loan
growth. Forty percent of the personal loans provided consist of housing loans. Credit
institutions prefer to allocate housing loans more because they do not have any problems
in collecting the housing loans they provide.
Another reason for Turkey to be chosen as the sample is its high need for housing.
When we look at the home ownership rate of countries in the period of 2007–2017, Turkey
comes after Germany and Austria with a home ownership rate of approximately 60% (Alp
2019). The increase in the rate of home ownership is associated with the increase in welfare
in the society, an increase in wealth and fair distribution of wealth, and increases in total
consumption and economic growth due to the increase in wealth. In addition, there are var-
ious indications that some of the participants in the housing market in Turkey conduct their
home purchases and sales with nonconsumption incentives, such as accumulating wealth
and investing beyond their own housing need. The short return period of the housing
investment has a great effect on this (Alp 2019). High inflation and insufficient efficiency of
the capital market are also counted in buying and selling housing for investment purposes
(Coskun 2016).
When the first quarter of 2019 and the same period of 2020 are analyzed, there has been
an increase of 3.4% in total house sales. The 119% increase in second-hand sales during the
mentioned period indicates that residences in the market are in demand (AREREIT 2020b).
The Turkish construction and housing sector will continue to be one of the economic drivers
of Turkey. When the demographic and economic developments are taken into consideration
and compared with the world, it will be seen that the housing sector contains more potential
than other sectors of the economy. Therefore, as the stability and the dynamic structure of
the Turkish housing sector continue, the trend will be towards growth in the medium and
long term.
In Turkey, due to the high rate of housing ownership and high housing production
costs and therefore housing prices, the determinants of housing prices in terms of economic
stability and sustainable economic growth are worth investigating.
Economies 2022, 10, 64 8 of 27

2. Literature Review
In the monetary policy transmission mechanism, the important role of housing markets
and housing investments affects and shapes many macroeconomic variables. Housing
investments in Turkey, which constitute the sample of this study, represent more than
half of the net wealth of the private sector (Arslan and Kasa 2020). This figure shows
how big the housing demand is in the market. The effects of housing demand on the
housing market and the general economy arise in relation to housing prices. In this context,
the increase/decrease effects of the changes in housing supply and demand on housing
prices may affect the actual debt burden, potential return, potential/current consumption,
and savings flows of the mortgage loan holders. On the other hand, changes in housing
prices affect the volumes of credit/securitization institutions and their risks related to these
transactions on the macro level (Coskun 2016). In the context of the global financial crisis,
especially in countries where the housing–finance bond is strong, such as Turkey, it has
been revealed that monitoring changes in housing prices as a key indicator of the housing
market is important for understanding the risk accumulations in the overall economy.
Housing prices are an issue that attracts both researchers and the public. The first
studies of housing prices date back to the 1960s. The ideas that Lancaster (1966a, 1966b) put
forward as consumer theory later evolved into the hedonic pricing model, for which Rosen
(1974) formed the theoretical basis. Harrison and Rubinfeld (1978) then Li and Brown
(1980) investigated housing prices using hedonic methods. Hedonic housing prediction
(Stadelmann 2010; Liu 2013; Fotheringham et al. 2015; Nicholls 2019; Liu et al. 2020; Li
et al. 2021) has remained popular, although various techniques have been applied with
developing econometric methods. In time series, cointegration analyses (Zhang et al. 2012;
Al-Masum and Lee 2019; Stevenson and Young 2014), impact response analyses (Fry et al.
2010), error correction method (Shi et al. 2021), and causality tests (Kulkarni et al. 2009;
Su et al. 2019) have continued to be used. Panel data analyses (Adams and Füss 2010;
Hadavandi et al. 2011; Wu and Brynjolfsson 2015; Glaeser and Nathanson 2017) are also
used to measure the movement of house prices. In the last few years, the dynamic model
averaging (DMA) model has been implemented, which gives better results with macro data
(Wei and Cao 2017).
The use of DMA for housing price prediction began with Bork and Moller (2015) in
the United States. Another of the first studies that used the DMA method, this time among
different countries, is the work of Risse and Kern (2016) that applied it to the six largest
countries of the European Monetary Union between the years 1975 and 2015. Afterward,
Yusupova et al. (2019) developed the adaptive dynamic model averaging (ADMA) method-
ology, stating that DMA is important in macroeconomic time series prediction due to its
ability to accommodate both the time variability in parameters and the specification of
the optimal prediction model. In their work with the United Kingdom’s regional house
price indices from 1982 to 2017, the authors claimed that better prediction results could be
obtained through the ADMA methodology.
Sousa (2018) presented another study applying the DMA methodology to predict
quarterly house price growth in Portugal, Spain, Italy, Ireland, the Eurozone, and the
United States. Despite the increasing globalization of economies and financial markets, the
author concluded that each individual housing market is subject to its own dynamics. In
another application of DMA in the real estate sector, Akinsomi et al. (2016) attempted to
predict the growth rates of U.S. real estate investment trusts (REIT) from January 1991 to
December 2014. They found that indicators, monetary policy instruments, and sensitivity
indicators across the economy are among the strongest determinants of REIT returns.
In another DMA study, Wei and Cao (2017) studied the growth rate of housing prices
for 30 major cities in China. The authors used the Google Trends index as an additional
determinant beyond traditional economic variables to predict changes in Chinese house
prices. In recent years, the Google Trends index has been found to develop higher predictive
success for housing prices in China than key macroeconomic or monetary indicators.
Economies 2022, 10, 64 9 of 27

One of the originalities of this study is the combination of the DMA method and the
Google Trends index. With increasing information technologies becoming more ubiquitous,
online searches have become increasingly inevitable in academic articles. Internet informa-
tion research on products and housing in the real estate sector also plays a critical role in
pricing. In this regard, Das et al. (2015) examined the relationship between online flat rental
searches and basic real estate market variables, vacancy rates, rental rates, and real estate
asset price returns. The authors found that consumer real estate Internet searches were
significantly correlated with market fundamentals after checking the known determinants
of these variables. Another study in this direction is the research by Beracha and Wintoki
(2013), which found that abnormal Internet search intensity for real estate in a given city
could help predict future abnormal house price changes in the city.
The literature review shows that academics have turned to OECD countries and
developing countries to predict house prices. Aizenman and Jinjarak (2014) investigated
the real estate valuation before and after the 2008–2009 crisis in a panel of 36 countries by
introducing the crisis range. They found that there has been a strong positive relationship
between real estate valuation and increases in current account deficits and credit growth
rates in those countries covering the OECD and emerging markets. Anundsen et al. (2016)
examined house prices and credit growth for 20 OECD countries between 1975 and 2014.
They found that bursts of credit to both households and nonfinancial companies affected
the stability of the financial system. Confirming previous studies, Paul (2018) highlighted
that rapid rises in housing prices are strong early warning indicators of financial crises and
their severity. In another study in 2019, Paul (2019) said that the response of housing prices
is strongly in line with the level of housing prices. He found that when house prices are
high, they react less to monetary policy shocks, but when prices are low, they are more
sensitive to monetary policy shocks. He emphasized that bubble-like behaviors in housing
prices are harbingers of crises. These studies have revealed the necessity of investigating
house prices in Turkey, an OECD country and a developing country that has experienced
many financial crises. This study is focused on investigating the house price dynamics
of Turkey and revealing its macroeconomic dimensions, as in other developing country
examples, which simultaneously fills a gap in the literature on this issue.
Although providing better results with macro data on predictions of housing prices, a
study by the DMA implementation in Turkey could not be identified. In Turkey, hedonic
pricing model (Yayar and Gül 2014; Kördiş et al. 2014; Daşkiran 2015; Güler et al. 2019),
artificial neural network method (Yılmazel et al. 2018), cointegration analysis (Sağlam and
Abdioğlu 2020), and causality test (Akkaş and Sayılgan 2015) techniques have been used.
In most of the studies on housing prices in Turkey, it was observed that local house prices
were investigated on a provincial basis rather than on a country basis (Yayar and Gül 2014;
Kördiş et al. 2014; Daşkiran 2015; Yılmazel et al. 2018; İslamoğlu and Nazlıoğlu 2019; Güler
et al. 2019). Another striking feature in the studies is the investigation primarily of the
reflections of house features on prices (Yayar and Gül 2014; Kördiş et al. 2014; Yılmazel
et al. 2018; Güler et al. 2019). Another point that inspires this study is that there are few
studies for the prediction of house prices with macro variables (Akkaş and Sayılgan 2015;
Gebeşoğlu 2019; İslamoğlu and Nazlıoğlu 2019).
Meanwhile, in the literature, it is expected that both inflation rates and housing interest
rates would affect the valuation of national real estate. However, Berry and Dalton (2004)
emphasize that interest rate, investment demand, and the current economic environment
affect housing prices, which they characterize as short-term factors. On the contrary, Luo
et al. (2007) state that the behavior of home buyers is influenced by recent market informa-
tion. Thus, they claim that house prices are raised by the expectations of people rather than
their income. While Sirmans et al. (2005) divided these factors into eight categories, we will
simply examine them under the headings of macroeconomic, financial, and housing market
dynamics. Our regressors include macroeconomic factors (inflation rates, unemployment
rate, Industrial Production Index, foreign direct investments), financial factors (the differ-
ence between bond yields, stock price indices, exchange rates), and housing market factors
Economies 2022, 10, 64 10 of 27

(Residential Property Price Index, home loan interest rates, mortgage amounts, the number
of dwellings) as key indicators that have been studied extensively in the literature.
While investigating the relationship between the real estate sector and the indicators of
countries, inflation rates (Fry et al. 2010; Aizenman and Jinjarak 2014; Risse and Kern 2016;
Wei and Cao 2017; Yusupova et al. 2019; Paul 2019) draw attention as the top macro variable
that affects the housing prices. Home loan interest rates (Arsenault et al. 2013; Aizenman
and Jinjarak 2014; Risse and Kern 2016; Wei and Cao 2017; Sousa 2018; Al-Masum and Lee
2019) and the difference between bond yields (Arsenault et al. 2013; Aizenman and Jinjarak
2014; Bork and Moller 2015; Risse and Kern 2016; Wei and Cao 2017; Sousa 2018; Paul
2019; Yusupova et al. 2019; Shi et al. 2021) are important factors that are found to shape
the house prices in the studies. Unemployment rates (Bork and Moller 2015; Wei and Cao
2017; Sousa 2018; Al-Masum and Lee 2019; Yusupova et al. 2019), Industrial Production
Index (Aizenman and Jinjarak 2014; Bork and Moller 2015; Risse and Kern 2016; Wei and
Cao 2017; Paul 2019; Yusupova et al. 2019), and foreign direct investments (Aizenman and
Jinjarak 2014; Chow and Xie 2016; Guest and Rohde 2017) stand out as the most widely
used economic indicator variables in the literature when investigating housing prices of
countries. To measure the impact of financial markets on housing prices, stock price indices
(Fry et al. 2010; Aizenman and Jinjarak 2014; Risse and Kern 2016; Paul 2019) and exchange
rates (Fry et al. 2010; Risse and Kern 2016; Gebeşoğlu 2019) are the most prominent macro
variables. In the literature, housing demand is generally measured by mortgage amounts
(Arsenault et al. 2013; Aizenman and Jinjarak 2014; Yusupova et al. 2019; Shi et al. 2021),
while the number of dwellings (Sousa 2018; Al-Masum and Lee 2019; Shi et al. 2021) is used
to measure the amount of housing supply. In studies, it is noted that Residential Property
Price Index (RPPI) (Fry et al. 2010; Aizenman and Jinjarak 2014; Bork and Moller 2015;
Risse and Kern 2016; Wei and Cao 2017; Sousa 2018; Al-Masum and Lee 2019; Shi et al.
2021) represents housing prices.
As a result of this literature review, the main purpose of this study is to predict the
right housing prices, to find the right method to catch the right variables and the right
clues, and to reach the most accurate results in the right country by using the available
technological facilities. Combining the macro variables and Google search results with the
DMA method, this study on the Turkish market contributes to the literature by providing
valuable information about the business cycle of the housing sector in order to help govern-
ments and policymakers better regulate the real estate market. To do so, it aims to reveal
the factors affecting the real economy.

3. Data
The analyzed period covers the time span between January 2010 and December
2019. Monthly data were taken. House prices were measured by the Residential Property
Price Index (RPPI), which is published by the Turkish Central Bank (2020). This index is
constructed on a countrywide basis and includes data from the biggest cities. It excludes
from computations any city with an insufficient number of observations.
The selection is also in line with, for example, the work of Wei and Cao (2017). The
level of mortgages (housing finance with loans from banks and financing companies) in
thousands of TRY was taken as an indicator of demand (mortgage). The number of two
or more dwelling residential buildings was taken as an indicator of supply (dwellings).
Residential buildings with two or more dwellings including apartments and multiflat build-
ings. These data have been obtained from TURKSTAT by CBRT according to construction
statistics and building occupancy permits. The Consumer Price Index (cpi), measuring
the inflation level, was also considered. For measuring economic growth and economic
conditions, foreign direct investment (FDI) in real estate activities was considered (fdi).
As an indicator of interest rates, the interest rate for housing was taken (i_rate). The un-
employment rate was denoted by u_rate. The economic conditions were also measured
by Industrial Production Index (ipi). Stock prices were measured by Borsa Istanbul 100
Index (stocks). The exchange rates were measured by USD/TRY (usd) and EUR/TRY (eur).
Economies 2022, 10, 64 11 of 27

The interest rate spread was measured as the difference between the 10-year Turkish bond
yield and 2-year bond yield (ird). Finally, the consumers’ change in interest was measured
by Google Trends index for the search query “ev fiyatları” meaning “house prices” (gt).
Google Trends is a website by Google that analyzes the popularity of top search queries
in Google Search across various regions and languages (Google 2020). The website uses
graphs and datasets to compare the search volume of different queries over time. Table 1
reports the variables used in the research.

Table 1. Variable description table.

Number Abbreviation Variable Name Period Frequency Source

Residential Property Price January 2010–December
1 RPPI Monthly Turkish Central Bank
Index 2019
The level of mortgages in January 2010–December
2 mortgage Monthly Turkish Central Bank
thousands of TRY 2019
Two or more dwelling
January 2010–December
3 dwellings residential buildings (number Monthly Turkish Central Bank
2019
of buildings)
January 2010–December
4 cpi Consumer Price Index Monthly Turkish Central Bank
2019
Foreign direct investment in January 2010–December
5 fdi Monthly Turkish Central Bank
real estate activities 2019
January 2010–December
6 i_rate Interest rate for housing Monthly Turkish Central Bank
2019
January 2010–December
7 ipi Industrial Production Index Monthly Turkish Central Bank
2019
January 2010–December
8 u_rate Unemployment rate Monthly Turkish Central Bank
2019
January 2010–December
9 stocks Borsa Istanbul 100 Index Monthly Stooq
2019
January 2010–December
10 usd The USD/TRY exchange rate Monthly Stooq
2019
January 2010–December
11 eur The EUR/TRY exchange rate Monthly Stooq
2019
Google Trends index for the January 2010–December
12 gt Monthly Google
search query 2019
The difference between the
January 2010–December
13 ird 10-year Turkish bond yield and Monthly Turkish Central Bank
2019
2-year bond yield
Notes: This table reports the abbreviations of the variables names used in the research, as well as the period,
frequency, and source of the data.

The data were collected from the Turkish Central Bank (2020), Stooq (2020), and Google
(2020).
The variables RPPI, mortgage, cpi, stocks, usd, and eur were transformed into logarith-
mic differences. In particular, if yt is the time series to be transformed, then its logarithmic
difference is log(yt )–log(yt−1 ). Following, for example, Koop and Korobilis (2013), both
transformed and untransformed variables were further transformed into approximately
stationary forms by standardization. In particular, if yt is the time series to be standardized,
then the standardized time series is obtained as yt = (yt − µ)/σ, where µ denotes the mean
and σ denotes the standard deviation of the full time-series considered. To prevent the
forward-looking bias, means and standard deviations for standardization were estimated
on the basis of the first three-fourths of the sample. Further on, this period constituted the
in-sample, and further observations were used as pseudo-out-of-sample.
Table 2 reports the descriptive statistics for the whole sample obtained from the trans-
formations described above. Table 3 reports the results of the stationarity tests (statistics
and p-values). In particular, the augmented Dickey–Fuller test (ADF), Phillips–Perron test
Economies 2022, 10, 64 12 of 27

(PP), and Kwiatkowski–Phillips–Schmidt–Shin test (KPSS) were performed. Assuming

10% significance level, all the time series except i_rate can be assumed stationary. How-
ever, it was decided not to transform i_rate further, because of its economic interpretation
and properties. Secondly, in the dynamic model averaging scheme, stationarity is not a
significant obstacle towards inserting a variable into the modeling scheme (Drachal 2019a).

Table 2. Descriptive statistics.

Mean Standard Deviation Median Min Max Skewness Kurtosis

RPPI −0.1906 1.2290 −0.2239 −5.0908 2.1870 −0.9293 2.1066
mortgage 0.0951 1.0070 0.2599 −7.0801 4.1350 −3.1197 23.6074
dwellings 0.1342 1.0450 0.0572 −1.7354 4.4600 0.9342 1.7244
cpi 0.1758 1.2210 0.0086 −2.6676 6.9660 1.5009 6.8408
fdi −0.0527 1.0240 −0.3969 −0.5619 5.3430 3.4792 12.6816
i_rate 0.9390 2.5500 0.3704 −2.2237 11.2270 2.3249 5.7301
u_rate 0.4015 1.2920 0.2995 −2.0652 3.7680 0.6611 −0.0241
ipi 0.4434 1.2160 0.4085 −2.4216 2.9340 −0.0046 −0.8645
stocks −0.0212 1.0170 −0.0040 −2.4438 1.9970 −0.1032 −0.7861
usd 0.0653 1.3380 0.0014 −2.7558 8.3430 1.9337 10.6805
eur 0.0719 1.4320 0.0873 −3.9002 9.1230 1.8965 12.0246
gt 0.3781 1.1830 0.4192 −1.8194 3.6530 0.4235 −0.2234
ird −0.6629 1.9680 −0.3386 −8.9426 2.4740 −2.0566 5.3839
Notes: RPPI denotes the logarithmic differences of Residential Property Price Index, mortgage—logarithmic
differences of the level of mortgages in thousands of TRY, dwellings—the number of two or more dwelling
residential buildings, cpi—logarithmic differences of Consumer Price Index, fdi—foreign direct investment in
real estate activities, i_rate—interest rate for housing, ipi—Industrial Production Index, u_rate—unemployment
rate, stocks—logarithmic differences of Borsa Istanbul 100 Index, usd—logarithmic differences of the USD/TRY
exchange rate, eur—logarithmic differences of the EUR/TRY exchange rate, gt—the Google Trends index for the
search query, ird—the difference between the 10-year Turkish bond yield and 2-year bond yield. All variables
were additionally standardized.

Table 3. Stationarity tests.

ADF Stat. ADF p-val. PP Stat. PP p-val. KPSS Stat. KPSS p-val.
RPPI 0.0596 −50.7374 0.0100 0.3871 0.0827 −3.3898
mortgage 0.0100 −94.9934 0.0100 0.0970 0.1000 −4.8109
dwellings 0.0791 −86.8775 0.0100 1.4020 0.0100 −3.2727
Cpi 0.0100 −78.8405 0.0100 0.5092 0.0396 −5.1756
Fdi 0.0100 −123.2453 0.0100 0.1529 0.1000 −4.6469
i_rate 0.2114 −15.6570 0.2102 1.5098 0.0100 −2.8794
u_rate 0.1506 −19.1973 0.0745 1.8942 0.0100 −3.0256
Ipi 0.0100 −108.0407 0.0100 3.7569 0.0100 −4.0894
Stocks 0.0100 −119.1205 0.0100 0.0276 0.1000 −4.9711
Usd 0.0100 −103.4200 0.0100 0.1196 0.1000 −6.1488
Economies 2022, 10, 64 13 of 27

Table 3. Cont.

ADF Stat. ADF p-val. PP Stat. PP p-val. KPSS Stat. KPSS p-val.
Eur 0.0100 −107.1852 0.0100 0.1655 0.1000 −5.6996
Gt 0.0608 −33.1609 0.0100 2.5500 0.0100 −3.3829
Ird 0.0235 −52.6406 0.0100 1.8035 0.0100 −3.7559
Notes: ADF denotes the augmented Dickey–Fuller test, PP—Phillips–Perron test, KPSS—Kwiatkowski–Phillips–
Schmidt–Shin test. Both statistics values and p-values are reported. RPPI denotes the logarithmic differences
of Residential Property Price Index, mortgage—logarithmic differences of the level of mortgages in thousands
of TRY, dwellings—the number of two or more dwelling residential buildings, cpi—logarithmic differences of
Consumer Price Index, fdi—foreign direct investment in real estate activities, i_rate—interest rate for housing,
ipi—Industrial Production Index, u_rate—unemployment rate, stocks—logarithmic differences of Borsa Istanbul
100 Index, usd—logarithmic differences of the USD/TRY exchange rate, eur—logarithmic differences of the
EUR/TRY exchange rate, gt—the Google Trends index for the search query, ird—the difference between the
10-year Turkish bond yield and 2-year bond yield. All variables were additionally standardized.

4. Methodology
The computations were performed in R (R Core Team 2018) with the help of “fDMA”,
“forecast”, “glmnet”, “MCS”, and “multDM” packages (Bernardi and Catania 2018; Drachal
2018, 2019b; Friedman et al. 2010; Hyndman and Khandakar 2008). A detailed explanation
of the dynamic model averaging (DMA) scheme can be found in the original paper by
Raftery et al. (2010). In order not to repeat the detailed derivation of formulas, but to keep
the paper self-consistent, herein just the underlying ideas are presented.

4.1. The Modeling Scheme

Suppose that, for instance, from the literature review, there are n potentially interesting
time series that might serve as explanatory variables in a linear regression model. Herein,
n = 12 such variables were identified. As a result, K = 2n = 4096 different multilinear
regression models can be constructed, also including the model with the intercept term
only. Let us denote the time index by t, and let yt denote RPPI (after the mentioned
(k)
transformations). Let xt be the vector of explanatory variables in the k-th multilinear
model, where k = 1, . . . , K. As a result, the state-space model is given by the following
equation:
(k) (k) (k)
yt = xt θt + εt ,
(k) (k) (k)
θt = θt−1 + δt ,
(k)
with θt denoting the regression coefficients in the k-th regression model. It is assumed
(k) (k)
that the errors are normally distributed, i.e., εt ~ N(0,Vt (k) ) and δt ~ N(0,Wt (k) ).
The initial variances and covariances V0 (k) and W0 (k) have to be specified. Concerning
the standardization and results from Table 2, it seems reasonable to set V0 (k) = 1 for every k
= 1, . . . , K and to set W0 (k) as the identity matrices of the dimensions equal to the dimension
(k)
of the corresponding vectors xt . Each of these K models is estimated recursively with
the Kalman filter. However, to reduce the computational burden, which can easily lead to
an intractable problem, Raftery et al. (2010) proposed updating W0 (k) with the forgetting
procedure (Karny 2006). Indeed, the number of models K grows exponentially with the
linear increase in n. The forgetting procedure requires the specification of the forgetting
factor λ, which should be a number between 0 and 1. Setting λ = 1 corresponds to no
(k)
forgetting and the assumption that regression coefficients θt are fixed in time. Smaller
values correspond to the higher volatility of these coefficients.
As a result, K time-varying parameter regressions are estimated. Their performance is
approximated with the help of the set of two, recursively updated, weights:
 . 
K
πt|t−1,k = παt−1|t−1,k + c ∑i=1 t−1|t−1,i
π α
+ c , (1)
Economies 2022, 10, 64 14 of 27

h  i.h  i
K
πt|t,k = πt|t−1,k fk yt |Y t−1 ∑i=1 t|t−1,i i t
π f y | Y t−1
(2)

where fk (yt |Yt−1 ) is the predictive density of the k-th model at yt , under the assumption
that the data up to time t are known, and α is the next forgetting factor. This forgetting factor
corresponds to attaching more weight to the k-th model performance in recent periods than
to its performance in the periods more distant in the past. For instance, α = 0.99 means
that for monthly data, the observations from last quarter are given approximately 97% of
weight as those from the last month. Similarly, those from the last year are given only 89%.
The proper setting of the forgetting parameters can be a subtle problem. For example,
too low values might result in overfitting, whereas too high values might not capture
the true volatility and switching in all K models (Baur et al. 2016). Therefore, in this
research the grid of all combinations of α and λ = {1, 0.99, 0.98, . . . , 0.91, 0.90} were tested.
Again, in order not to obtain forward-looking bias, these estimations were done for the
in-sample period, i.e., based on the first three-fourths of observations. However, the DMA
scheme is quite chaotic in the first periods when the scheme “learns” the data. Therefore,
the forecast evaluation serving as a basis for selecting the final combination of forgetting
factors was performed after excluding the first one-fourth of observations from the obtained
forecasts, but the last one-fourth were still also excluded to be in line with the in-sample
and pseudo-out-of-sample division mentioned before.
In Equation (1), a small constant, c = 0.001/K, is added because, during numerical
estimations, it can happen that the weights would be rounded to 0. Such a small constant
can prevent this, and its use was advised in the original paper by Raftery et al. (2010).
To start computations, the initial values π0|0,k have to be set. The noninformative
prior requires setting π0|0,k = 1/K for every k = 1, . . . , K.
Finally, the DMA forecast is computed as

ˆ = K π (ˆk)
yDMA
t ∑k=1 t|t−1,k yt , (3)

(ˆk)
where yt is the forecast obtained by the k-th component regression model. This averaging
scheme can also be used to obtain weighted average values of regression coefficients; i.e.,

K
∑ πt|t−1,k θt
(k)
θDMA
t = (4)
k=1

However, the DMA scheme itself can be easily modified. For instance, instead of
averaging, a selection procedure can be performed. The natural and common one in
(ˆk) (k)
Bayesian econometrics is to modify Equations (3) and (4) by selecting yt and θt from
the k-th model, which maximizes the weight πt|t-1,k over k = 1, . . . , K. In other words,
the model with the highest posterior probability is chosen. This scheme is called dynamic
model selection (DMS).
Barbieri and Berger (2004) noticed that in the case of model selection, focusing on
the highest posterior probability is not always the optimal choice. They suggested the
median probability model (MPM). For this, first, for all explanatory variables, the sum of all
weights πt|t-1,k —but only of those models which contain the given explanatory variable—is
computed. Next, in each period t, the model which contains exactly those variables for
which this sum is greater than or equal to 0.5 is selected. If the model combination scheme
consists of all possible 2n component models, then the existence of such an individual
component model is guaranteed.
Another interesting modification is to keep time-varying parameter regression estima-
tions but to drop the time-varying scheme in the estimation of weights. In other words,
to keep πt|t-1,k = 1/K fixed for all k = 1, . . . , K and for all periods t. Herein, this is called
equal-weighted averaging of time-varying parameter regression (EV-TVP).
Finally, as noticed by Raftery et al. (2010), it is remarked that setting α = 1 = λ recovers
Bayesian model averaging (BMA) in a computationally efficient way. For this combination
Economies 2022, 10, 64 15 of 27

of parameters, DMS and MPM schemes are called Bayesian model selection (BMS) and
Bayesian median probability model (BMPM), respectively.

4.2. Benchmark Models

The estimated models were compared for forecast accuracy measures with the auto
ARIMA model (ARIMA), the no-change naïve forecast (NAÏVE), and time-varying param-
eter (TVP) models. Besides, LASSO regression was also used in a recursive manner, as
a penalized regression method, which is also often used for feature selection purposes
(Tibshirani 1996).
First of all, TVP regression is simply the DMA scheme reduced to K = 1 with only one
(1)
model, i.e., k = 1, in which xt = [1, mortgaget , dwellingst , . . . , irdt ] consists simply of all
considered explanatory variables. The forgetting factor λ for this model was taken as the
same, which was obtained for the DMA scheme, in the way described above.
The no-change (NAÏVE) forecast was obtained simply by taking yNAIVE ˆ= y
t t−1 .
For the auto ARIMA model, the recursive estimation proposed by Hyndman and
Khandakar (2008) was taken. In this scheme, models with up to 2 lags are initially consid-
ered, resulting in some prudent variation in ARIMA specification. In the next step, lags
are added or removed until there is an improvement in the Akaike information criterion.
However, to have a stopping criterion, no more than 5 lags are considered.
In the case of LASSO, recursive estimations were also performed. Additionally, the
“lambda” penalty coefficient was selected in each recursive step on the cross-validation
basis, focusing on mean square error (Friedman et al. 2010).
All these benchmark models have, like the initial DMA and its variant schemes, the
recursive property. In other words, the forecast for time t is computed only based on the
information known up to time t − 1.
In the case of ARIMA and NAÏVE methods, the raw, i.e., untransformed, RPPI time
series was inserted. However, all others, i.e., the DMA-based schemes, forecasted stan-
dardized logarithmic differences of the RPPI. In order to obtain consistency between the
outcomes from the several models, these outcomes were finally transposed back in order to
be the forecasts of the raw RPPI time series.

4.3. Forecast Accuracy Evaluation

The forecast evaluation was performed based on the last one-fourth of observations.
For each of the estimated models, the root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute error
(MAE), and mean absolute scaled error (MASE) were computed. The first two measures
are standard and common procedures. On the other hand, Hyndman and Koehler (2006)
suggested a new measure that “relates” the absolute errors with the ones from the no-
change forecast. In short, this measure has some “good” properties if the forecasted values
are near 0. It penalizes both positive and negative errors equally, as well as large and small
values. From the interpretational point of view, when its value is greater than 1, it indicates
that the no-change forecast produces a more accurate forecast.
The obtained forecasts were also compared with the Diebold–Mariano test (Diebold
and Mariano 1995). As noticed by Franses (2016), the loss function corresponding to the
MASE measure fits the statistical procedures of this test.
Finally, the model confidence set (MCS) procedure of Hansen et al. (2011) was per-
formed for all obtained forecasts. This procedure is useful when comparing several forecasts.
This procedure starts with a set of forecasts from all the considered models. Then, it tests if
the equal predictive accuracy (EPA) hypothesis can be rejected for this set of forecasts. If
so, then the “worst” performing forecast is excluded from the set of forecasts. Then, the
procedure is repeated until the EPA cannot be rejected. The significance level was assumed
to be 5%. Moreover, Mariano and Preve (2012) proposed an extension of the mentioned
Diebold–Mariano test for the multivariate background. Their procedure is similar to the
MCS one. To report the technical details, for the MCS procedure, 5000 simulations and the
“Tmax” version of the statistic were taken. For the Mariano and Preve procedure, the “Sc”
Economies 2022, 10, 64 16 of 27

version of the statistic was taken, and 12 lags were taken (due to the use of monthly data
and outcomes from the Tiao–Box procedure recommended in their paper).

4.4. Additional Remarks

All models, except NAÏVE, were estimated in two versions, the first one without the
inclusion of the gt variable and the second one with the inclusion of the gt variable as an
explanatory variable. This was done in order to compare if the Internet search queries can,
indeed, be helpful in improving forecast accuracy.
Secondly, in the original paper, Raftery et al. (2010) updated variances Vt (k) with the
recursive moment estimator. For example, Koop and Korobilis (2011) suggested that the
exponentially weighted moving average method can be more suitable for financial time
series if heteroskedasticity in errors can occur. This method requires the parameter κ to be
selected. Following them, due to the use of monthly data, κ = 0.97 was taken.

5. Results
The prelimary simulations based on the first three-fourths of observations indicated
that out of the considered grid of forgetting factors, the MASE measure is minimized for
the following combination: α = 0.97 and λ = 0.90. As a result, this combination was used
for further estimations of the models.
The results of forecast accuracy measures from the estimated models are reported
in Table 4. The symbol “-GT” is added to the models containing the variable gt, i.e., the
Internet search queries. It can be seen that the EV-TVP-GT model minimized all three
forecast accuracy measures. It can also be seen that the DMA-based model combination
schemes generally produced less accurate forecasts than those from the ARIMA models.
However, the specific version, i.e., the one with averaging with equal weights, was able
to produce more accurate forecasts. On the other hand, all model combination schemes
were able to produce more accurate forecasts than those from the NAÏVE method. Selected
forecasts are visualized in Figure A1 in Appendix A.

Table 4. Forecast accuracy measures for the estimated models.

RMSE MAE MASE

DMA 0.7459 0.5512 0.6349
DMS 0.7828 0.6042 0.6959
MPM 0.8281 0.6388 0.7357
BMA 0.7762 0.6013 0.6926
BMS 0.7916 0.6110 0.7037
BMPM 0.7744 0.5842 0.6729
EV-TVP 0.6682 0.4817 0.5549
TVP 0.8332 0.6504 0.7491
LASSO 0.7796 0.6078 0.7001
ARIMA 0.7370 0.5383 0.6201
DMA-GT 0.7420 0.5337 0.6147
DMS-GT 0.8155 0.5891 0.6785
MPM-GT 0.8089 0.5722 0.6591
Economies 2022, 10, 64 17 of 27

Table 4. Cont.

RMSE MAE MASE

BMA-GT 0.7873 0.5933 0.6834
BMS-GT 0.8087 0.5992 0.6901
BMPM-GT 0.7819 0.5615 0.6467
EV-TVP-GT 0.6524 0.4655 0.5361
TVP-GT 0.7640 0.5999 0.6910
LASSO-GT 0.7660 0.5879 0.6771
ARIMA-GT 0.6711 0.5053 0.5820
NAÏVE 0.9605 0.8682 1.0000
Notes: RMSE denotes root mean square error, MAE—mean absolute error, MASE—mean absolute scaled er-
ror. DMA denotes dynamic model averaging, DMS—dynamic model selection, MPM—median probability
model, BMA—Bayesian model averaging, BMS—Bayesian model selection, BMPM—Bayesian median probability
model, EV-TVP—equal-weighted averaging of time-varying parameter regressions, TVP—time-varying parame-
ter regression, LASSO—lasso penalized regression, ARIMA—autoregressive integrated moving average model,
NAÏVE—the naïve forecast, i.e., no-change one. “-GT” indicates that the model includes the Google Trends index
for the search query.

It is hard, however, to conclude on the basis of RMSE that adding the Internet search
queries as an explanatory variable to the particular model improves its forecast accuracy.
However, from considering MAE, such a conclusion is valid considering MASE leads more
towards the conclusion that Internet search queries can improve the forecast accuracy.
Table 5 reports the p-values from the Diebold–Mariano test comparing forecasts from
the estimated models: those with the variable gt corresponding to the Internet search
queries and those without it. For each row, the null hypothesis is that forecast from the
given model has the same accuracy as that from this model but with added gt variable.
The alternative hypothesis is that forecast accuracies are different. Unfortunately, it cannot
be concluded, even assuming some relatively high significance level, that the forecasts
from the models containing the variable gt are significantly more accurate than those from
the models without this variable. The Diebold–Mariano test was performed with two loss
functions: squared errors (SE) and absolute scaled errors (ASE).

Table 5. The Diebold–Mariano test (forecasts from the models with the Google Trends index for the
search query variable vs. those from the models without it).

SE ASE
DMA 0.9574 0.7630
DMS 0.6622 0.8473
MPM 0.8296 0.3744
BMA 0.7846 0.7399
BMS 0.6546 0.5517
BMPM 0.8614 0.3346
EV-TVP 0.7737 0.6521
TVP 0.5984 0.6074
LASSO 0.8347 0.6395
ARIMA 0.2414 0.2794
Notes: The table reports the p-values from the test. The model names are explained in the text. SE denotes squared
error loss function, ASE—absolute scaled error loss function. DMA denotes dynamic model averaging, DMS—
dynamic model selection, MPM—median probability model, BMA—Bayesian model averaging, BMS—Bayesian
model selection, BMPM—Bayesian median probability model, EV-TVP—equal-weighted averaging of time-
varying parameter regressions, TVP—time-varying parameter regression, LASSO—lasso penalized regression,
ARIMA—autoregressive integrated moving average model.
Economies 2022, 10, 64 18 of 27

Table 6 reports the p-values from the Diebold–Mariano test comparing forecasts from
the selected model EV-TVP-GT and other models. In each row, the forecast from the
corresponding model is compared with the forecast from the EV-TVP-GT model. The null
hypothesis of the test is that both forecasts have the same accuracy, whereas the alternative
hypothesis is that the forecast from the EV-TVP-GT model is more accurate than that from
the competing model. For this test, two versions were performed: one with squared errors
(SE) loss function and one with absolute scaled errors (ASE).

Table 6. The Diebold–Mariano test (forecasts from the EV-TVP-GT model vs. all other estimated
models).

SE ASE
DMA 0.0285 0.0106
DMS 0.0314 0.0163
MPM 0.0048 0.0007
BMA 0.0060 0.0005
BMS 0.0243 0.0017
BMPM 0.0391 0.0040
EV-TVP 0.3868 0.3261
TVP 0.0782 0.0193
LASSO 0.0230 0.0014
ARIMA 0.1882 0.1714
DMA-GT 0.0699 0.0195
DMS-GT 0.0541 0.0482
MPM-GT 0.0649 0.0476
BMA-GT 0.0391 0.0024
BMS-GT 0.0721 0.0118
BMPM-GT 0.1127 0.0328
TVP-GT 0.0455 0.0298
LASSO-GT 0.0155 0.0052
ARIMA-GT 0.3920 0.2943
NAÏVE 0.0055 0.0001
Notes: The table reports the p-values from the test. The model names are explained in the text. SE denotes squared
error loss function, ASE—absolute scaled error loss function. DMA denotes dynamic model averaging, DMS—
dynamic model selection, MPM—median probability model, BMA—Bayesian model averaging, BMS—Bayesian
model selection, BMPM—Bayesian median probability model, EV-TVP—equal-weighted averaging of time-
varying parameter regressions, TVP—time-varying parameter regression, LASSO—lasso penalized regression,
ARIMA—autoregressive integrated moving average model, NAÏVE—the naïve forecast, i.e., no-change one. “-GT”
indicates that the model includes the Google Trends index for the search query.

Assuming a 10% significance level, it can be seen that in most cases the forecast from
the EV-TVP-GT model can be assumed to be statistically significantly more accurate than
the forecast from the competing model. Unfortunately, this cannot be said when compared
with the EV-TVP model. It also cannot be said when compared with the BMPM-GT model.
Unfortunately, the selected model cannot produce significantly more accurate forecasts than
the ARIMA and ARIMA-GT models. However, it produces a significantly more accurate
forecast than the NAÏVE method.
Finally, it can be concluded that the other variable selection method, i.e., LASSO regres-
sion, does not seem to be a competitive variable selection method against the considered
model averaging scheme if forecast accuracy is stressed.
Economies 2022, 10, 64 19 of 27

However, it is worth remarking that the obtained results are generally in complete
opposition to those of Wei and Cao (2017). Whereas they concluded that for real estate mar-
kets DMA-based schemes produce significantly more accurate forecasts than benchmark
models, they also observed that ARIMA models and the equal-weighted scheme perform
poorly compared with the DMA scheme. Herein, a vice versa observation was found. In
addition, Bork and Moller (2015) found that DMA performs better in the sense of forecast
accuracy than the equal-weighted scheme.
The outcomes from the Diebold–Mariano test are consistent with the model confidence
set (MCS) procedure. Indeed, with the squared errors (SE) loss function, this procedure did
not eliminate any of the models (p-value = 0.6360). Assuming a 10% significance level, it
can be assumed that all the considered models produced forecasts of the same accuracy.
If absolute scaled errors (ASE) loss function is considered, then the conclusions are the
same (p-value = 0.3222). On the other hand, the Mariano and Preve procedure was able to
eliminate one model, i.e., BMPM, if the SE loss function was considered (p-value = 0.9850).
For ASE loss function, this procedure did not eliminate any model (p-value = 0.5854). The
details are reported in Table A1 in Appendix A.
The findings of our study coincide with a limited number of studies (Wei and Cao
2017; Sousa 2018; Risse and Kern 2016) in which house prices are estimated by the DMA
method by utilizing macroeconomic variables. However, even Wei and Cao (2017) found
such conclusions, but only for their selected city—not the country’s house price index.
Indeed, they have found that the DMA scheme performs best in the city with the lowest
growth rate, whereas all models performed similarly in the city with the highest growth
rate. Therefore, the explanation of the findings in the current research may be that there is a
high growth of the real estate market in Turkey which has less origin in stable fundamentals
but more origin in overall market expansion and market trend.
Finally, Figure 2 presents the expected values of regression coefficients from the EV-
TVP-GT model. The time-varying properties can be identified.
The results of the analysis show that the effects of dwellings, i_rate, stocks, and usd
quotation variables on RPPI differ. The mentioned variables often affect RPPI in a mixed
way that is not clear and generally follows a fluctuating course. After the 2008 crisis, the
Turkish government and the Central Bank of Turkey implemented many policies (especially
those aimed at housing loans) to stimulate supply and demand in the real estate market.
Consequently, those policies caused many macro and micro data to give unbalanced and
unstable reactions.
Another reason for the unbalanced reactions can be cited as the increasing number
of Internet users day by day. The research carried out by Internet users on housing prices
literally increases the competition. Accordingly, increasing competition is thought to cause
more price fluctuations. Based on this, the effect of the gt (Google Trends index) variable
included in the model on the RPPI (housing price index) was found negative. As a result,
this finding can be interpreted in two different ways. Firstly, the research carried out
by millions of Internet users on housing increases competition among firms that supply
housing. Increased competition leads to price cuts among housing firms, and this may
allow consumers to buy houses at lower prices. Secondly, this counterintuitive occurrence
can be in line with the findings that the Internet search queries do not improve the forecast
accuracy of RPPI within the considered modeling framework.
 Economies
Economies 2022,
2022, 10,10,64x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 28 20 of 27

Expectedvalues
Figure2.2. Expected
Figure valuesofof regression
regressioncoefficients
coefficientsfrom
fromthetheEV-TVP-GT
EV-TVP-GTmodelmodel(i.e.,
(i.e.,equal-
equal-weighted
averaging
weighted of time-varying
averaging parameter
of time-varying regressions
parameter with with
regressions the Google Trends
the Google index
Trends for for
index thethe
search query
search queryRPPI
variable). variable). RPPIthe
denotes denotes the logarithmic
logarithmic differences
differences of Residential
of Residential Property
Property Price
Price Index,mortgage—
Index,
mortgage—logarithmic
logarithmic differences differences of theoflevel
of the level of mortgages
mortgages in thousands
in thousands of TRY,
of TRY, dwellings—thenumber of
dwellings—the
number of two or more dwelling residential buildings, cpi—logarithmic differences of Consumer
two or more dwelling residential buildings, cpi—logarithmic differences of Consumer Price Index,
Price Index, fdi—foreign direct investment in real estate activities, i_rate—interest rate for housing,
fdi—foreign direct
ipi—Industrial investment
Production Index, in real estate activities, i_rate—interest
u_rate—unemployment rate for housing,
rate, stocks—logarithmic differencesipi—Industrial
of
Production Index, u_rate—unemployment rate, stocks—logarithmic differences of Borsa Istanbul
100 Index, usd—logarithmic differences of the USD/TRY exchange rate, eur—logarithmic differences
of the EUR/TRY exchange rate, gt—the Google Trends index for the search query, ird—the difference
between the 10-year Turkish bond yield and 2-year bond yield. All variables were additionally
standardized.
Economies 2022, 10, 64 21 of 27

Another result can be interpreted from the analysis that government bond yields (ird)
around 2012 had a positive impact on RPPI and in 2016 had a negative impact. According
to the theory, during periods when interest rates rise, investors often invest their savings
either by buying government bonds or by investing in banks to generate interest income.
Therefore, investments do not turn into either commercial or residential investments. In
Turkey, this scenario took place after 2008, with interest rates declining in 2011 and then,
around 2012, yields on government bonds declining also. Accordingly, the shift of investors'
interest and investment in the housing market rather than government bonds was reflected
in the analysis results. Moreover, this situation may also cause an increase in housing prices.
Another finding of the analysis was in relation to mortgage lending. Notably, the
mortgage loans used have a positive effect on RPPI at regular intervals. It is thought
that credit standards, loan conditions, down payment amounts, and mortgage amounts
differ or change over time, preventing the reflection of mortgage loans on the RPPI from
continuing stably. Loan options that allow payment with long-term mortgage loans in
housing purchases positively affect the amount of housing demand. According to the
analysis results, the mortgage system, which came into force in 2006 but was affected by
the 2008 crisis, had a positive impact on house prices in Turkey after 2010.
A further novel finding is that the effect of inflation on RPPI is often positive, except
for some short-term characteristics. As expected economically, a similar direction occurred
between inflation and housing prices. The positive relationship between inflation and
house prices is thought to be related to Turkey's inflationary environment. According to
this environment, housing is seen as a mechanism of protection against inflation and a safe
investment tool. Therefore, a positive relationship between inflation and house prices in
Turkey is not surprising.
The positive effect of FDI on RPPI has been seen since the impact of the crisis decreased.
This period coincides with the year 2014. This is thought to have the effect of facilitating the
acquisition of real estate in Turkey by non-Turkish citizens coming from abroad through
legal arrangements.
The results cast a light on the findings of u_rate and ipi variables of the study. The
u_rate effect was positive, while the ipi effect was often negative. This result provides
evidence that these two variables act together. When industrial production drops, unem-
ployment will increase and household income will decrease. Consequently, this slowdown
in the economy will also negatively affect the construction sector. This economic slowdown,
which has caused housing stocks to decline eventually, has triggered an increase in housing
prices.
The findings pointed to a similar expected result, with the euro effect on RPPI often
being negative. In particular, Turkey’s export revenues, which trade in the European Union,
are generally realized in euros. In fact, realized euro valuations against Turkish liras (TL)
cause less income and loss of wealth. As a result, the demand for housing for consumers
suffering from income and wealth is decreasing. The results of the analysis confirm this
relationship and show the negative relationship of the euro with RPPI.

6. Conclusions, Limitations, and Recommendations

Especially after the global financial crisis of 2008, the importance of the housing market
for the macro economies of countries increased the academic interest in housing markets. As
exemplified by this study, Turkey’s unique economic and sociocultural structural changes
(such as migration from the countryside to the city, urban renewal projects, and mortgage
lending) have further increased this importance. Accordingly, determining the factors
affecting housing prices can be useful in guiding the strategies of both the house seekers
and investors. Moreover, identifying the key driving forces behind real estate prices could
help market authorities to safeguard stability in real estate markets and prevent the creation
of future bubbles therein.
In this study, unlike previous experimental studies, the factors affecting house prices
were composed by adding the Google Trends index variable and by using the DMA
Economies 2022, 10, 64 22 of 27

technique, which has different advantages and has not been used in Turkey before. Dynamic
model averaging (DMA) is gaining increasing attention in macroeconomic time series
forecasting due to its ability to accommodate time variation in both the parameters as
well as the specification of the optimal predicting model. Moreover, various statistical
methods have been applied by comparing the prediction performance of DMA with that
of other benchmark models. Additionally, this analysis uses the Google Trends index as a
supplementary predictor beyond the traditional economic variables to predict changes.
In this study, the analyzed period covers the time period between January 2010 and
December 2019 in Turkey. According to the results, ird, mortgage, fdi, u_rate, ipi, eur, and
gt variables were used to predict the price of housing in Turkey. Therefore, this study gives
an idea about which macro data can be estimated with housing prices in Turkey. However,
the same situation is not the case for dwellings, i_rate, stocks, and usd variables. According
to analysis results, it can be seen that around 2012 the impact of ird was positive on RPPI,
whereas around 2016 it was negative. The impact of mortgage was positive around 2011,
2014, and in recent periods. The impact of dwellings has been negative recently, whereas
around 2015 it was mostly positive. The impact of cpi is positive most of the time, except
for some short-term peculiarities. Similarly, the impact of fdi has been positive since 2014,
but before it was quite often negative. The impact of i_rate is highly time-varying. Recently,
it has been negative. It is also interesting that for many periods the impact of u_rate was
positive. The impact of ipi was negative most of the time. The impact of stocks was positive
around 2016, but recently it has been negative, similar to 2011 and 2012. The impact of
the EUR exchange rate was negative most of the time, but the relationship with the USD
exchange rate is more volatile. Finally, the impact of the gt variable is negative most of
the time.
It is necessary to underscore several important issues as the limitations of the research.
First, data constraints blocked the way for this research to be conducted more broadly.
For example, variables such as GDP and household income, which may have an impact
on housing prices, could not be included in the model due to their limited publication
frequency. Moreover, many factors, such as credit conditions and standards, the variability
of down payment amounts, and differing mortgage rates, are among the limitations of
the research. Another limitation is the Google Trends index variable used. The Google
Trends index variable is not a variable that can be directly controlled and presented by the
government like any other received variable. To increase the eligibility and quality of the
housing price statistics, the presentation of such an index by the government will increase
the reliability of the work to be done in this regard.
In conclusion, this research shows that the housing market has an important role in
transferring macroeconomic variables and macro policy decisions to the real economy.
Moreover, the analysis in this article can be expanded by making various country compar-
isons. Thus, not only can house prices be analyzed, but the interaction with benchmarking
in different countries can also be examined. In addition to the countries, it is necessary
to emphasize the need for city officers to monitor house prices. Determining the impact
of housing affordability and housing price on the economic and social development of
a city will inform policymakers about important development indicators and, in return,
help them develop sustainable appropriate strategies. The most important suggestion to be
given as a result of this study is that researchers, consumers, and, most importantly, policy-
makers should use housing prices as a leading indicator and should constantly monitor the
housing market.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.H., K.D. and I.H.E.; Data curation, K.D. and I.H.E.;
Formal analysis, N.H., K.D. and I.H.E.; Funding acquisition, K.D.; Investigation, N.H., K.D. and I.H.E.;
Methodology, K.D.; Project administration, I.H.E.; Resources, I.H.E.; Software, K.D.; Supervision,
I.H.E.; Validation, K.D.; Visualization, N.H., K.D. and I.H.E.; Writing—original draft, N.H., K.D. and
I.H.E.; Writing—review & editing, N.H., K.D. and I.H.E.. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Economies 2022, 10, 64 23 of 27

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement: Data are available upon a request. Data collection and pre-processing
is described in details in the paper allowing for replication of the results. Data are publicly provided
by the original sources cited in the paper. Due to the copyright issues the collected data are not
published in a separate form publicly.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. The MCS test.

SE ASE
DMA −0.6579 −1.0477
DMS 0.1261 0.3598
MPM 1.3425 1.1648
BMA −0.0381 0.4697
BMS 0.4229 0.8635
BMPM −0.1054 −0.1416
EV-TVP −1.4743 −2.2625
TVP 0.4537 0.9888
LASSO 0.0398 0.6405
ARIMA −0.9485 −1.7138
DMA-GT −1.1835 −2.4125
DMS-GT 0.5049 0.0296
MPM-GT 0.3762 −0.2659
BMA-GT −0.2509 0.2031
BMS-GT 0.5187 0.3719
BMPM-GT 0.0739 −0.9252
EV-TVP-GT −3.3681 −5.0890
TVP-GT −0.3203 0.3534
LASSO-GT −0.4915 0.0192
ARIMA-GT −2.1890 −2.2108
NAÏVE 1.1984 1.9412
Notes: The table reports the “Tmax” statistics. The model names are explained in the text. SE denotes squared error
loss function, ASE—absolute scaled error loss function. DMA denotes dynamic model averaging, DMS—dynamic
model selection, MPM—median probability model, BMA—Bayesian model averaging, BMS—Bayesian model
selection, BMPM—Bayesian median probability model, EV-TVP—equal-weighted averaging of time-varying
parameter regressions, TVP—time-varying parameter regression, LASSO—lasso penalized regression, ARIMA—
autoregressive integrated moving average model, NAÏVE—the naïve forecast, i.e., no-change one. “-GT” indicates
that the model includes the Google Trends index for the search query.
Economies 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 28

Economies 2022, 10, 64 24 of 27

Figure A1. Real observed values and forecasts from DMA-GT and EV-TVP-GT models. The model
names are explained in the text. DMA denotes dynamic model averaging, EV-TVP—equal-weighted
Figure A1. Real observed values and forecasts from DMA-GT and EV-TVP-GT models. The model
averaging of time-varying parameter regressions. “-GT” indicates that the model includes the Google
names are explained in the text. DMA denotes dynamic model averaging, EV-TVP—equal-weighted
Trends index
averaging of for the search query.
time-varying parameter regressions. “-GT” indicates that the model includes the
Google Trends index for the search query.
Note
1NoteAREREIT (2019a) reported in Turkey and in the world construction sector consistent acceleration and profitability that occur in
1. the real estate
AREREIT sector.
(2019a) reported in Turkey and in the world construction sector consistent acceleration and profitability that occur
in the real estate sector.
References
References
Adams, Zeno, and Roland Füss. 2010. Macroeconomic determinants of international housing markets. Journal of Housing Economics 19:
(Adams and[CrossRef]
38–50. Füss 2010) Adams, Zeno, and Roland Füss. 2010. Macroeconomic determinants of international housing markets. Journal
Afşar,ofAsli, Özgur
Housing Yılmazel,19:
Economics and Sibel Yılmazel. 2017. Konut fiyatlarini etkileyen faktörlerin hedonik model ile belirlenmesi: Eskişehir
38–50.
Örne ği. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal
(Afşar et al. 2017) Afşar, Asli, Özgur Yılmazel, Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi
and Sibel 37: 195–205.
Yılmazel. 2017. Konut fiyatlarini etkileyen faktörlerin hedonik model ile
Akinsomi, Omolokolade, Aye Godness, C. Babalos Vassilios,
belirlenmesi: Eskişehir Örneği. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler FotiniEnstitüsü
Economou, and37:Rangan
Dergisi Gupta. 2016. Real estate returns
195–205.
predictability
(Akinsomi et al. 2016)revisited:
Akinsomi, Novel evidence from
Omolokolade, Ayethe US REITs
Godness, BabalosEmpirical
C.market. Vassilios,Economics
Economou, 51:Fotini,
1165–90.
and[CrossRef]
Rangan Gupta. 2016. Real
Aizenman,
estate Jashua,
returns and Yothin Jinjarak.
predictability 2014.
revisited: Real evidence
Novel estate valuation,
from thecurrent
US REITsaccount andEmpirical
market. credit growth patterns,
Economics before and after the
51: 1165–90.
2008–9 crisis. Journal of International Money and Finance 48: 249–70. [CrossRef]
(Aizenman and Jinjarak 2014) Aizenman, Jashua, and Yothin Jinjarak. 2014. Real estate valuation, current account and credit growth
Akkaş, Murat Engin,
patterns, beforeandandGüven Sayılgan.
after the 2008–9 2015.
crisis.Fiyatlari
Journal ofveInternational
konut kredisi faizi:and
Money Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik testi. Journal of Economics,
Finance 48: 249–70.
Finance and Accounting 2: 572–83.
(Akkaş and Sayılgan 2015) Akkaş, Murat Engin, and Güven Sayılgan. 2015. Fiyatlari ve konut kredisi faizi: Toda-Yamamoto neden-
Al-Masum, Md Abdullah,
sellik testi. and Lin Chyi
Journal of Economics, Lee. and
Finance 2019. Modelling
Accounting 2: housing
572–83. prices and market fundamentals: Evidence from the Sydney
housing market. International Journal of
(Al-Masum and Lee 2019) Al-Masum, Md Abdullah, and Lin Chyi Housing Markets and Analysis 12: 746–62.
Lee. 2019. [CrossRef]
Modelling housing prices and market fundamentals:
Evidence from the Sydney housing market. International Journal of Housing Markets andDergisi
Alp, Esra. 2019. Macroeconomic Determinants of Rental House Prices In Turkey. Bankacılar 30:12:
Analysis 94–113.
746–62.
Anundsen,
(Alp 2019) Alp,Andre K.,2019.
Esra Karsten Gerdrup, Frank
Macroeconomic Hansen, andofKasper
Determinants RentalKragh-Sørensen.
House Prices In 2016.
Turkey.Bubbles and crises:
Bankacılar DergisiThe
30: role of house prices
94–113.
(Anundsen et al. Journal
and credit. of Applied Econometrics
2016) Anundsen, 31: 1291–311.
Andre K., Karsten Gerdrup, [CrossRef]
Frank Hansen, and Kasper Kragh-Sørensen. 2016. Bubbles and crises:
AREREIT.
The role2019a. Restate
of house Turkey:
prices and A CloseJournal
credit. Look toofComparable Markets. 31:
Applied Econometrics The1291–311.
Association of Real Estate and Real Estate Investment
Companies Report, Issue: 2. İstanbul: AREREIT.
(AREREIT 2019a) AREREIT. 2019a. Restate Turkey: A Close Look to Comparable Markets. The Association of Real Estate and Real Estate
AREREIT. Gyoder Gösterge:
2019b. Companies
Investment Report,Türkiye
Issue:Gayrimenkul
2. İstanbul: Sektörü
AREREIT. 2019 3. Çeyrek Raporu. The Association of Real Estate and Real Estate
Investment Companies Report, Sayı: 18. İstanbul: AREREIT.
(AREREIT 2019b) AREREIT. 2019b. Gyoder Gösterge: Türkiye Gayrimenkul Sektörü 2019 3. Çeyrek Raporu. The Association of Real Estate
AREREIT. 2019c.
and Real Türkiye’de
Estate InvestmentA’danCompanies
Z’ye Mülk Edinme
Report,Rehberi.
Sayı: 18.The Association
İstanbul: AREREIT. of Real Estate and Real Estate Investment Companies
Report. İstanbul: AREREIT.
(AREREIT 2019c) AREREIT. 2019c. Türkiye’de A’dan Z’ye Mülk Edinme Rehberi. The Association of Real Estate and Real Estate Invest-
AREREIT.
ment 2020a.
Companies Restate Turkey:
Report, A Close
İstanbul: Look to Comparable Markets. The Association of Real Estate and Real Estate Investment
AREREIT.
Companies
(AREREIT 2020a)Report,
AREREIT. Issue: 3. İstanbul:
2020a. AREREIT.
Restate Turkey: A Close Look to Comparable Markets. The Association of Real Estate and Real Estate
AREREIT. 2020b. Gösterge: Türkiye Gayrımenkul
Investment Companies Report, Issue: 3. AREREIT. Sektörü 2020. The Association of Real Estate and Real Estate Investment Companies
İstanbul.
Report, Sayı: 20. İstanbul: AREREIT.
(AREREIT 2020b)AREREIT. 2020b. Gösterge: Türkiye Gayrımenkul Sektörü 2020. The Association of Real Estate and Real Estate Invest-
Arsenault,
ment Marcel,
Companies Jim Clayton, and Liang
Report, Sayı: Peng. 2013.
20. AREREIT. Mortgage fund flows, capital appreciation, and real estate cycles. The Journal of
İstanbul.
Real Estate Finance and Economics 47: 243–65. [CrossRef]
Economies 2022, 10, 64 25 of 27

Arslan, Gözde, and Hicran Kasa. 2020. The Importance of Land, Housing, and Property Prices in Asset Prices Channel. Third Sector
Social Economic Review 55: 758–71.
Aye, Goodness, Rangan Gupta, Shawkat Hammoudeh, and Woon Joong Kim. 2015. Forecasting the price of gold using dynamic model
averaging. International Review of Financial Analysis 41: 257–66. [CrossRef]
Barbieri, Maria, and James Berger. 2004. Optimal predictive model selection. The Annals of Statistics 32: 870–97. [CrossRef]
Baur, Dirk, Joscha Beckmann, and Robert Czudaj. 2016. A melting pot—Gold price forecasts under model and parameter uncertainty.
International Review of Financial Analysis 48: 282–91. [CrossRef]
Beltratti, Andrea, and Claudio Morana. 2010. International house prices and macroeconomic fluctuations. Journal of Banking & Finance
34: 533–45.
Beracha, Eli, and Babajide M. Wintoki. 2013. Forecasting residential real estate price changes from online search activity. Journal of Real
Estate Research 35: 283–312. [CrossRef]
Bernardi, Mauro, and Leopoldo Catania. 2018. The model confidence set package for R. International Journal of Computational Economics
8: 144–58. [CrossRef]
Berry, Mike, and Tony Dalton. 2004. Housing prices and policy dilemmas: A peculiarly Australian problem? Urban Policy and Research
22: 69–91. [CrossRef]
Bilik, Mustafa, and Üzeyir Aydin. 2019. Konut sahibi olma kararlarını etkileyen faktörler: Lojistik regresyon ve destek vektör
makinelerinin karşılaştırılması. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 62: 184–99.
Bin, Okmyung. 2004. A prediction comparison of housing sales prices by parametric versus semi-parametric regressions. Journal of
Housing Economics 13: 68–84. [CrossRef]
Bork, Lasse, and Stig V. Moller. 2015. Forecasting house prices in the 50 states using dynamic model averaging and dynamic model
selection. International Journal of Forecasting 31: 63–78. [CrossRef]
Case, Karl E., John M. Quigley, and Rober J. Shiller. 2005. Comparing wealth effects: The stock market versus the housing market.
Advances in Macroeconomics 5: 1–32. [CrossRef]
Choi, Huyunyoung, and Hal Varian. 2012. Predicting the present with Google Trends. Economic Record 88: 2–9. [CrossRef]
Chow, Hwee Kwan, and Taojun Xie. 2016. Are House Prices Driven by Capital Flows? Evidence from Singapore. Journal of International
Commerce, Economics and Policy 7: 1–21. [CrossRef]
Coskun, Yener. 2016. Property Prices and Investment: An Analysis for Turkey. Nigde Universitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakultesi Dergisi
9: 201–17.
Dalkılıç, Bahadır, and Mustafa Aşkın. 2018. Gayrimenkul ve konut sektörüne bakış. Emlak Konut: GYO.
Das, Prashant, Alan Ziobrowski, and Edward N. Coulson. 2015. Online information search, market fundamentals and apartment real
estate. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 51: 480–502. [CrossRef]
Daşkiran, Filiz. 2015. Denizli Kentinde Konut Talebine Etki Eden Faktörlerin Hedonik Fiyatlandirma Modeli İle Tahmin Edilmesi.
Journal of International Social Research 8: 850–57. [CrossRef]
Diebold, Francis X., and Roberto S. Mariano. 1995. Comparing predictive accuracy. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 13: 253–63.
Drachal, Krzysztof. 2018. multDM: Multivariate Version of the Diebold-Mariano Test. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/
package=multDM (accessed on 22 March 2020).
Drachal, Krzysztof. 2019a. Determining time-varying drivers of spot oil price in a Dynamic Model Averaging framework. Energies 11:
1207. [CrossRef]
Drachal, Krzysztof. 2019b. Dynamic Model Averaging in economics and finance with fDMA: A package for R. Signals 1: 4. [CrossRef]
Ford, James Scott, Ronald C. Rutherford, and Abdullah Yavas. 2005. The effects of the internet on marketing residential real estate.
Journal of Housing Economics 14: 92–108. [CrossRef]
Fotheringham, A. Steward, Ricardo Crespo, and Jing Yao. 2015. Exploring, modelling and predicting spatiotemporal variations in
house prices. The Annals of Regional Science 54: 417–36. [CrossRef]
Franses, Philip Hans. 2016. A note on the Mean Absolute Scaled Error. International Journal of Forecasting 32: 20–22. [CrossRef]
Friedman, Benjamin M., and Kenneth N. Kuttner. 1993. Economic Activity and The Short Term Credit Markets: An Analysis of Prices
and Quantities. Brookings Paper on Economic Activities 2: 193–285. [CrossRef]
Friedman, Jerome, Trevor Hastie, and Rob Tibshirani. 2010. Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent.
Journal of Statistical Software 33: 1–22. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Fry, Renee A., Vance L. Martin, and Nicholas Voukelatos. 2010. Overvaluation in Australian housing and equity markets: Wealth
effects or monetary policy? The Economic Record 86: 465–85. [CrossRef]
Gebeşoğlu, Pinar Fulya. 2019. Housing Price Index Dynamics in Turkey. Journal of Yaşar University 14: 100–7.
Ghysels, Eric, Alberto Plazzi, Roseen Valkanov, and Walter Torous. 2013. Forecasting real estate prices. In Handbook of Economic
Forecasting. Edited by Graham Elliott and Allan Timmermann. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 509–80.
Ginsberg, Jeremy, Matthew H. Mohebbi, Rajan S. Patel, Lynnette Brammer, Mark S. Smolinski, and Larry Brilliant. 2009. Detecting
influenza epidemics using search engine query data. Nature 457: 1012–14. [CrossRef]
Glaeser, Edward L., and Charles G. Nathanson. 2017. An extrapolative model of house price dynamics. Journal of Financial Economics
126: 147–70. [CrossRef]
Google. 2020. Available online: https://trends.google.com/trends (accessed on 22 March 2020).
Economies 2022, 10, 64 26 of 27

Guest, Ross, and Nicholas Rohde. 2017. The contribution of foreign real estate investment to housing price growth in Australian capital
cities. Abacus 53: 304–18. [CrossRef]
Gupta, Rangan, Alain Kabundi, and Stephan M. Miller. 2011. Using large data sets to forecast house prices: A case study of twenty U.S.
states. Journal of Housing Research 20: 161–90. [CrossRef]
Güler, İsmet, Uğur Başer, and Mehmet Bozoğlu. 2019. Rize İli Merkez İlçesinde Konut Fiyatlarının Hedonik Fiyat Modeliyle
Değerlemesi. Iğdır Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi 9: 2294–302.
Hadavandi, Esmaeil, Arash Ghanbari, S. Mohsen Mirjani, and Salman Abbasian. 2011. An econometric panel data-based approach for
housing price forecasting in Iran. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis 4: 70–83. [CrossRef]
Hansen, Peter R., Asger Lunde, and James M. Nason. 2011. The model confidence set. Econometrica 79: 453–97. [CrossRef]
Harrison, David, Jr., and Daniel L. Rubinfeld. 1978. Hedonic housing prices and the demand for clean air. Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management 5: 81–102. [CrossRef]
Hohenstatt, Ralf, Manuel Käsbauer, and Wolfgang Schäfers. 2011. “Geco” and its potential for real estate research: Evidence from the
US housing market. Journal of Real Estate Research 33: 471–506. [CrossRef]
Hongyu, Liu, Yun W. Park, and Zheng Siqi. 2002. The Interaction Between Housing Investment and Economic Growth in China.
International Real Estate Review 5: 40–60.
Hyndman, Rob J., and Anne B. Koehler. 2006. Another look at measures of forecast accuracy. International Journal of Forecasting 22:
679–88. [CrossRef]
Hyndman, Rob, and Yeasmin Khandakar. 2008. Automatic time series forecasting: The forecast package for R. Journal of Statistical
Software 26: 1–22.
İslamoğlu, Bahar, and Şaban Nazlıoğlu. 2019. Enflasyon ve Konut Fiyatları: Istanbul, Ankara ve Izmir için panel veri analizi. Siyaset,
Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi 7: 93–99.
JLL. 2020. The Real Estate Sector in Turkey Report, Republic of Turkey Prime Minister Investment Support. Available online:
https://www.invest.gov.tr/en/library/publications/lists/investpublications/real-estate-industry.pdf (accessed on 5 June 2021).
Karadaş, Hüseyin Ali, and Esengül Salihoglu. 2020. The Effect of Selected Macroeconomıc Varıables on Housıng Prıces: The Case of
Turkey. The International Journal of Economic and Social Research 16: 63–80.
Karny, Miroslav, ed. 2006. Optimized Bayesian Dynamic Advising. Berlin: Springer.
Kishor, Kundan N., and Hardik A. Marfatia. 2018. Forecasting house prices in OECD economies. Journal of Forecasting 37: 170–90.
[CrossRef]
Kolcu, Fatma, and Nebiye Yamak. 2018. Gelir ve Faiz Oranlarının Konut Fiyatları Üzerindeki Kısa ve Uzun Dönem Etkileri. Uluslararası
İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, 141–52. [CrossRef]
Koop, Garry, and Dimitris Korobilis. 2011. UK macroeconomic forecasting with many predictors: Which models forecast best and
when do they do so? Economic Modelling 28: 2307–18. [CrossRef]
Koop, Garry, and Dimitris Korobilis. 2013. Large time-varying parameter VARs. Journal of Econometrics 177: 185–98. [CrossRef]
Kördiş, Gizem, Sayım Işık, and Mehmet Mert. 2014. Antalya’da Konut Fiyatlarını Etkileyen Faktörlerin Hedonik Fiyat Modeli ile
Tahmin Edilmesi. Akdeniz İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi 28: 103–32.
Kulkarni, Rajenda, Kingsley E. Haynes, Roger R. Stough, and Jean H. Paelinck. 2009. Forecasting housing prices with Google
econometrics. GMU School of Public Policy Research Paper 10: 1–37. [CrossRef]
Lancaster, Kelvin J. 1966a. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 74: 132–57. [CrossRef]
Lancaster, Kelvin J. 1966b. Change and innovation in the technology of consumption. The American Economic Review 56: 14–23.
Li, Mingche M., and H. James Brown. 1980. Micro-neighborhood externalities and hedonic housing prices. Land Economics 56: 125–41.
[CrossRef]
Li, Sheng, Yi Jiang, Shuisong Ke, Ke Nie, and Chao Wu. 2021. Understanding the Effects of Influential Factors on Housing Prices by
Combining Extreme Gradient Boosting and a Hedonic Price Model (XGBoost-HPM). Land 10: 533. [CrossRef]
Liu, Tian, Wejyan Hu, Yang Song, and Anlu Zhang. 2020. Exploring spillover effects of ecological lands: A spatial multilevel hedonic
price model of the housing market in Wuhan, China. Ecological Economics 170: 1–9. [CrossRef]
Liu, Xiaolong. 2013. Spatial and temporal dependence in house price prediction. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 47:
341–69. [CrossRef]
Luo, Zhenqiang, Chunlu Liu, and David Picken. 2007. Granger causality among house price and macro-economic variables in Victoria.
Pacific Rim Property Research Journal 13: 234–56. [CrossRef]
Mariano, Roberto S., and Daniel Preve. 2012. Statistical tests for multiple forecast comparison. Journal of Econometrics 169: 123–30.
[CrossRef]
Milcheva, Stanimira, and Steffen Sebastian. 2010. Housing channels of monetary policy transmission in European industrial and
transition countries. European Real Estate Society 159: 1–67.
Mishkin, Frederic S. 2001. The Transmission Mechanism and the Role of Asset Prices in Monetary Policy. NBER Working Paper 8617.
Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Nicholls, Sarah. 2019. Impacts of environmental disturbances on housing prices: A review of the hedonic pricing literature. Journal of
Environmental Management 246: 1–10. [CrossRef]
Nuuter, Tiina, Irene Lill, and Laura Tupenaite. 2014. Ranking of housing market sustainability in selected European Countries. WSEAS
Transactions on Business and Economics 11: 778–86.
Economies 2022, 10, 64 27 of 27

Paul, Pascal. 2018. Historical Patterns of Inequality and Productivity around Financial Crises. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
Working Paper 2017-23. San Francisco: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
Paul, Pascal. 2019. The Time-Varying Effect of Monetary Policy on Asset Prices. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Working Paper
2017-09. San Francisco: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. [CrossRef]
R Core Team. 2018. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available
online: https://www.R-project.org (accessed on 22 March 2020).
Raftery, Adrian, Miroslav Karny, and Pavel Ettler. 2010. Online prediction under model uncertainty via dynamic model averaging:
Application to a cold rolling mill. Technometrics 52: 52–66. [CrossRef]
Risse, Marian, and Martin Kern. 2016. Forecasting house-price growth in the Euro area with dynamic model averaging. The North
American Journal of Economics and Finance 38: 70–85. [CrossRef]
Rosen, Sherwin. 1974. Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy 82:
34–55. [CrossRef]
Sağlam, Can, and Zehra Abdioğlu. 2020. Türkiye’de Tüketici Fiyatları ile Hedonik Konut Fiyatları Arasındaki İlişki: Panel Veri Analizi.
Journal of Yasar University 15: 117–28.
Sari, Ramazan, Bradley T. Ewing, and Bahar Aydin. 2007. Macroeconomic variables and the housing market in Turkey. Emerging
Markets Finance and Trade 43: 5–19. [CrossRef]
Shi, Song, Vince Mangioni, Xin Janet Ge, Shanaka Herath, Fethi Rabhi, and Rachida Ouysse. 2021. House Price Forecasting from
Investment Perspectives. Land 10: 1009. [CrossRef]
Shimshoni, Yair, Niv Efron, and Yossi Matias. 2009. On the Predictability of Search Trends. Israel Labs: Google.
Sirmans, Stacy, David Macpherson, and Emily Zietz. 2005. The composition of hedonic pricing models. Journal of Real Estate Literature
13: 1–44. [CrossRef]
Sousa, Diogo. 2018. Forecasting House Prices Using Dynamic Model Averaging. Ph.D. dissertation, Finance from the NOVA—School
of Business and Economics, Lisbon, Portugal.
Stadelmann, David. 2010. Which factors capitalize into house prices? A Bayesian averaging approach. Journal of Housing Economics 19:
180–204. [CrossRef]
Stevenson, Simon, and James Young. 2014. A multiple error-correction model of housing supply. Housing Studies 29: 362–79. [CrossRef]
Stooq. 2020. Available online: https://stooq.com (accessed on 22 March 2020).
Su, Chi-Wei Su, Xiao-Qing Wang, Ran Tao, and Hsu-Ling Chang. 2019. Does money supply drive housing prices in China? International
Review of Economics and Finance 60: 85–94. [CrossRef]
Tibshirani, Robert. 1996. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B 58: 267–88.
[CrossRef]
Turkish Central Bank. 2020. Available online: https://www.tcmb.gov.tr (accessed on 22 March 2020).
Uyar, Kangallı, Sinem Güler, and Nihal Yayla. 2016. Konut Fiyatlarının Hedonik Fiyatlama Yaklaşımına Göre Mekânsal Ekonometrik
Modeller ile Tahmini: İstanbul Konut Piyasası Örneği. Social Sciences (NWSASOS) 3C0153 11: 326–42.
Wang, Zhimin, Jung Hoon, and Benson Lim. 2012. The impacts of housing affordability on social and economic sustainability in Beijing.
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building-Conference Series 1: 47–55. [CrossRef]
Wei, Yu, and Yang Cao. 2017. Forecasting house prices using dynamic model averaging approach: Evidence from China. Economic
Modelling 61: 147–55. [CrossRef]
Wu, Lynn, and Eric Brynjolfsson. 2015. The future of prediction: How Google searches foreshadow housing prices and sales. In
Economic Analysis of the Digital Economy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Yayar, Rüştü, and Deniz Gül. 2014. Mersin Kent Merkezinde Konut Piyasası Fiyatlarının Hedonik Tahmini. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal
Bilimler Dergisi 14: 87–100.
Yemelina, Natalya, Ainura Omarova, and Anara Kurmanalina. 2018. Analysis and forecast of prices of the housing market. Journal of
Applied Economic Sciences 13: 843–51.
Yıldırım, Mustafa Ozan. 2017. Türkiye Ekonomisinde Konut Piyasası Dinamiklerinin Analizi. Ph.D. dissertation, Pamukkale
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Denizli, Turkey.
Yılmazel, Özgür, Aslı Afşar, and Sibel Yılmazel. 2018. Konut Fiyat Tahmininde Yapay Sinir Ağları Yönteminin Kullanılması.
International Journal of Economic and Administrative Studies 20: 285–300. [CrossRef]
Yusupova, Alisa, Nicos G. Pavlidis, and Efthymios G. Pavlidis. 2019. Adaptive Dynamic Model Averaging with an Application to
House Price Forecasting. arXiv arXiv:1912.04661.
Zhang, Yanbing, Xiuping Hua, and Liang Zhao. 2012. Exploring determinants of housing prices: A case study of Chinese experience in
1999–2010. Economic Modelling 29: 2349–61. [CrossRef]