English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 93218/123590 (75%)
Visitors : 27693961      Online Users : 376
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/119094


    Title: 住宅社區大樓價格離散之分析─兼論買貴買便宜與價格離散關係
    Analysis of Price Dispersion of Residential Communities and Dicussing the Relationship bwtween Price Disprersion and Buying High or Low
    Authors: 谷元
    Ku, Yuan
    Contributors: 張金鶚
    江穎慧

    Chang, Chin-Oh
    Chiang, Ying-Hui

    谷元
    Ku, Yuan
    Keywords: 住宅社區
    價格離散
    多項羅吉特迴歸
    買貴買便宜
    Residential community
    Price dispersion
    MNL
    Buy high or low
    Date: 2018
    Issue Date: 2018-07-31 13:47:21 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 受限於房地產之高異質性,對於房地產市場的價格分散狀況的討論一向多集中在消費者的搜尋狀況,而對於房地產特徵與價格分散的討論則較為少見。然而,若房地產趨於相同產品,倘若其仍有較大的價格離散程度,那麼該房地產具有何種特徵及其發生機率為何?這兩個問題是本文所要分析探討的。

    在資料處理上,本研究先將房地產交易實例對應至社區,進行產品品質控制後,再以社區為標的計算變異係數並依照大小進行分組;在資料分析上,採用多項羅吉特迴歸分析(Multiple Logit Regression),分析何種社區特徵較容易有價格離散程度大之現象。本研究發現價位水準越高或者是政府機關所建之社區越不容易有較大的價格離散;相對地,價位水準越低、屋齡越大或者產品坐落在規劃為超過50坪之社區較容易有價格離散大之趨勢。

    價格離散程度大之原因可能源自缺乏調整、無法調整的特徵以及個人議價能力所致;本研究盡力調整後,因此認為個人議價能力影響價格離散程度較大,隱含買貴買便宜之可能性較高,故以好時價之估值為基準,區分價格為買貴與買便宜並討論與價格離散之關係。本研究發現,較大的價格離散之社區有32.8%與買貴買便宜情形有關,而較小價格離散程度的社區則有70%為既不買貴亦不買便宜,可見價格離散程度大小與買貴或者買便宜的關聯性。本文研究提出上述成果以期予以消費者能有更多的資訊作為決策參考,並使房地產研究更趨多元。
    When it comes to the price dispersion of real estate, most discussions, limited by the high heterogeneity of real estate, focused only on the process during which consumers hunt houses. Few paid attention to the relationship between the features of the real estate itself and its price dispersion. What if real estate is classified into the same product and a high level of price dispersion still occurs? The features of the real estate and the probability of the occurrence are what this study is devoted to investigating.

    In dealing with records, this study will firstly link the transaction cases to the communities to which they belong, and then, after controlling the quality of the products, group them according to numerical value of variable coefficient that objected by communities. Multiple Logit Regression will be applied in analyzing the data to identify which characteristic of communities tends to lead to high degree of price dispersion. This study reveals the fact that the degree of price dispersion is small if an estate have a higher price level or it was built by the government. By contrast, if the estate is an aged construction, has a lower price level, or is located in the community planned to be 50 pyeongs or above, the extent of price dispersion is large.

    The degree of dispersion might result from the absence of adjustments, unchangeable features, and personal negotiation skills. With adjustments made as many as possible, personal negotiation skills are considered to be the key factor that affects the price dispersion and makes a transaction at a reasonable price. With Houseplus evaluation as the standard to estimate the transaction price and discuss its relation to the price dispersion, this study has observed that in communities with a high degree of price dispersion occurs 32.8% of the transactions at an unreasonable price, and that in those with a low degree of price dispersion occurs 70% of the transactions at a price unrelated to reasonability. The percentages clearly indicate the connection of unreasonable prices to price dispersion—combining which with the features pointed out aforesaid, this study was carried out in the hope of providing a useful reference for consumers on the one hand and an alternative perspective on the study of real estate on the other hand.
    Reference: 王冠斐、邊泰明,2010,「企業在地再投資區位選擇之研究」,『建築與規劃學報』,11(3):193-220。

    王濟川、郭志剛,2003,『Logistic迴歸模型─方法及應用』,台北:五南。

    朱芳妮、張金鶚,2014,「台北與香港集合住宅管理維護績效之比較分析」,『都市與計劃』,41(2):199-227。

    江穎慧,2009,「不動產自動估價與估價師個別估價之比較─以比較法之案例選取、權重調整與估值三階段差異分析」,『住宅學報』,18(1):39-62。

    李文傑、甯方璽、黃雅祺,2014,「集合式住宅房價泡沫形成之研究─以台中市為例」,『建築與規劃學報』,15(2/3):155-174。

    李泓見、張金鶚、花敬群,2006,「台北都會區不同住宅類型價差之研究」,『台灣土地研究』,9(1):63-87。

    沈中華、王健安、林昆立,2014,「房價偏離值與銀行績效關係的研究:跨國的實證分析」,『證券市場發展季刊』,26(4):1-37。

    沈育生、林秋瑾,「不同人工神經網路架構在不動產大量估價之應用與比較」,『台灣土地研究』,15(1):1-29。

    房孝如,2016,『多少錢才合理?百萬筆房屋交易的教訓』,新北:城邦印書館。

    林士彥、林卓民、李俊彥,2007,「應用多項羅吉特模型分析消費支出與服務品質之研究─以溫泉旅館為例」,『戶外遊憩研究』,20(2):39-57。

    林秋瑾、楊宗憲、張金鶚,1996,「住宅價格指數之研究─以台北市為例」,『住宅學報』,4:1-30。


    林祖嘉,1994,「價格分散與搜尋均衡:在台灣地區住宅市場上之驗證」,『經濟論文叢刊』,22(4):237-267。

    林祖嘉、馬毓駿,「特徵方程式大量估價法在台灣不動產市場之應用」,『住宅學報』,16(2):1-22。

    梁心禎、王伯頎,2014,「集合式住宅社區駐衛保全人員工作滿意度因素研究─以大台北地區為例」,『犯罪學期刊』,17(1):63-84。

    許淑媛、袁淑媚、張金鶚,2011,「住宅個案價格分散之研究:房價水準、景氣時機與區位條件之分析」,『都市與計劃』,38(4):403-426。

    張金鶚、范垂爐,1993,「房地產真實交易價格之研究」,『住宅學報』,1:75-97。

    張欣民、陳奉瑤,2003,「自動估價系統(AVM)算不算是估價」,『土地問題研究季刊』,2(2):72-77。

    陳佳甫、張金鶚、謝博明,2012,「知人知面不知心:購屋者房價預期之分析」,『都市與計劃』,39(4):349-373。

    陳虹伶、周行一、徐苑玲、黃寬彥,2010,「台灣股票市場的長期績效」,『台灣金融財務季刊』,11(3):89-111。

    陳妍如、張金鶚、陳淑美,2014,「集合住宅面積混和對社區維護影響之線性結構分析」,『住宅學報』,23(2):77-108。

    陳淑美、林佩萱,2013,「住宅社區管理維護服務品質、滿意度與不動產價值關係之研究」,『建築學報』,86:191-205。

    郭志剛,2015,『社會統計分析方法─SPSS軟件應用』,北京:中國人民大學出版社。

    彭建文、楊宗憲,2007,「自動估價系統對不動產估價師之潛在衝擊分析」,『住宅學報』,16(1):79-98。

    楊宗憲、蘇倖慧,2011,「迎毗設施與鄰避設施對住宅價格影響之研究」,『住宅學報』,20(2):61-80。

    鄒欣樺、張金鶚、花敬群,2007,「建商不動產表價與議價策略之探討─景氣時機、個案區位及建商類型分析」,『管理評論』,26(3):47-69。

    黃錦川、朱美珍、留秀娟,2010,「國內組合型基金之風險與效率前緣分析」,『輔仁管理評論』,18(2):103-120。

    廖仲仁、張金鶚,2004,「搜尋成本與定錨行為對於購屋者價格貼水之影響」,『住宅學報』,13(2):47-62。

    廖仲仁、張金鶚,2008,「仲介服務對於住宅價格搜尋之影響」,『都市與計劃』,35(2):155-173。

    賴碧瑩,2007,「應用類神經網路於電腦輔助大量估價之研究」,『住宅學報』,16(2):43-65。

    Borenstein, Severin, Rose, Nancy L., 1994, “Competition and Price Dispersion in the United States Airline Industry”, Journal of Political Economy, 102(4):653-683.

    Burdett, Kenneth, Judd, Kenneth L., 1983, “Equilibrium price dispersion”, Econometrica, 51(4):955-969.

    Cerasa, Andrea, Buscaglia, Daniela, 2017, “Do the EU countries import at the same price? The case of coffee”, Agricultural Economics, 48:397-408.

    Chandra, Ambarish, Gulati, Sumeet, Sallee, James M, 2017, “Who loses when prices are negotiated? An analysis of the new car market”, The Journal of Industrial Economics, 90:235-274.

    Cheung, L.H. Li, D., Sun, H., 2015, “Does size matter? The dynamics of housing sizes and prices in Hong Kong”, J Hous and the Built Environ, 30:109-124.

    Dang, Vinh Q. T., Yang, Yu(ALAN), 2017, “Assessing market integration in ASEAN with retail price data”, Pacific Economic Review, 22(4):510-532.

    Deng, Yongheng, Gabriel, Stuart A. , Nishimura, Kiyohiko G, 2012, “Optimal Pricing Strategy in the Case of Price Dispersion: New Evidence from the Tokyo Housing Market”, Real Estate Economics, 40:234-272.

    Goodman, A. C. and T. G. Thibodeau, 2003, “Housing Market Segmentation and Hedonic Prediction Accuracy”, Journal of Housing Economics, 12:181-201.

    Harding, John P. Harding, Sirmans, John R. Knight C.F, 2003, “Estimating Bargaining Effects in Hedonic Models: Evidence from the Housing Market”, Real Estate Economics, 4:601-622.

    Heil, O. and Helsen, K, 2001, “Toward an understanding of price wars: Their nature and how they erupt”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 181(1-2):83-98.

    Hillery G.A, 1955, ‘Definitions of community: areas of agreement”, Rural Sociology, 20(2):111-123.

    Hui, Sam K., Cheung, Alvin, and Pang, Jimmy, 2010, “A hierarchical Bayesian approach for residential property valuation: application to Hong Kong housing market”, International Real Estate Review, 13(1):1-29.

    Hui, Eddie C.M., Zhong, Jia Wei , Yu, Ka Hung, 2012, “The impact of landscape views and storey levels on property prices”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 105:86-93.

    Lancaster, K., 1965, “The theory of qualitative linear systems”, Econometrica, 33(2):395-409.

    Leung, Tin Cheuk , Tsang, Kwok Ping, 2013, “Can Anchoring and Loss Aversion Explain the Predictability of Housing Prices?”, Pacific Economic Review, 18(1):41-59.

    Leung, Charles Ka Yui, Leong, Youngman Chun Fai, Wong, Siu Kei, 2006, “Housing Price Dispersion: An Empirical Investigation”, J Real Estate Finan Econ, 32:357-385.

    Loans, D., 1990, The Variance in Valuations, London: Investment Property Databank.

    Londerville, Jane, 1996, “A Test of a Buying Rule for “Underpriced” Apartment Buildings”, Real Estate Economics, 26(3):537-553.

    Matysiak, G. and P. Wang., 1995, “Commercial Property Market Prices and Valuation: Analyzing the Correspondence”, Journal of Property Research, 12:181-202.

    Mcfadden, D., 1975, “The Revealed Preference of Government Bureaucracy: Theory”, The Bell Journal of Economics, 6(2):410-416.

    Nieuwerburgh, Stijn Van, Weill, Pierre-Olivier, 2010, “Why has house price dispersion gone up?”, Review of Economic Studies, 77:1567-1606.

    Oh, Kyushi , Lee, Wangkey, 2002, “Estimating the value of landscape visibility in apartment housing prices”, Journal of Arcitectural and Planning Research, 19(1):1-11.

    Pratt, J., Wise, D., Zeckhauser, R., 1979, “Price differences in almost competitive market”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 93(2):189-211.

    Read, Colin, 1991, “A price dispersion equilibrium in a spatially differentiated housing market with search costs”, AREUEA Journal, 19(4):532-547.

    Rosen, S., 1974, “Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition”, Journal of Political Economy, 82(1):34-55.

    Salop, S. , Stiglitz, J. E., 1982, “The Theory of Sales: A simple Model of Equilibrium Price Dispersion with Identical Agents”, American Economic Review, 72(5):1121-1130.

    Sirmans, G. S., Macpherson, D. A., and Zietz, E. N., 2005, “The Composition of Hedonic Pricing Models”, Journal of Real Estate Literature, 13(1):3-44.

    Steiner, Robert, 1978, “Understanding the Consumer Good Monopoly”, mimeo., 1978.

    Tang, Bo-sin, Chung, Yim Yiu, 2010, “Space and scale: A study of development intensity and housing price in Hong Kong”, Landscape and Urban Planning, 96:172-182.

    Vania Ceccato, Mats Wihelmsson, 2011, “The Impact of crime on apartment prices: Evidence from Stockhol,.Sweden”, Geografiska Annaler:Series B, Human Geogrpahy 93(1):81-103.

    Wong, S.K., Chau, K.W. , Yau, Y., and Cheung, A.K.C., 2011, “Property price gradients: the vertical dimension”, J Hous and the Built Environ, 26:33-45.

    Yasser Alhenawi, Sudha Krishnaswami, 2015, “Long-term impact of merger synergies on performance and value”, The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 58:93-118.

    Yiu, C.Y., Wong, S.K., and Chau, K. W., 2009, “Transaction volume and price dispersion in the presale and spot real estate market”, Journal of Real Estate Economics and Finance, 38(3):241-253.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    地政學系
    105257024
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1052570241
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/THE.NCCU.LE.012.2018.A05
    Appears in Collections:[地政學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    024101.pdf1583KbAdobe PDF172View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback