1. For empirical studies of those relationships see, for example, Linneman & Wachter, (1989) Linneman, P. and Wachter, S. 1989. The impact of borrowing constraints on homeownership. Journal of American Real Estate and Urban Economic Association, 17(4): 389–402.  [Google Scholar]; Jones, (1989) Jones, L. D. 1989. Current wealth and tenure choice. Journal of American Real Estate and Urban Economic Association, 17(1): 17–40.  [Google Scholar]; Zorn, (1989); Haurin (1991) Haurin, D. R. 1991. Income variability, homeownership, and housing demand. Journal of Housing Economics, 1(1): 60–75.  [Google Scholar]; Rosenthal et al., (1991) Rosenthal, S. S., Duca, J. D. and Gabriel, S. A. 1991. Credit rationing and the demand for owner-occupied housing. Journal of Urban Economics, 30(1): 48–63.  [Google Scholar]; Engelhardt, (1994) Engelhardt, G. V. 1994. House prices and the decision to save for down payment. Journal of Urban Economics, 36(2): 209–237.  [Google Scholar]; Duca & Rosenthal, (1994) Duca, J. V. and Rosenthal, S. S. 1994. Borrowing constraints and access to owner-occupied housing. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 24(3): 301–322.  [Google Scholar]; Sheiner, (1995) Sheiner, L. 1995. House prices and the saving of renters. Journal of Urban Economics, 38(1): 94–125.  [Google Scholar]; Lafayette et al., (1995) Lafayette, W. C., Haurin, D. R. and Hendershott, P. H. 1995. Endogenous Mortgage Choice, Borrowing Constraints and the Tenure Decision, Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 5074 [Google Scholar]; Haurin et al., (1996) Haurin, D. R., Hendershott, P. H. and Wachter, S. M. 1996. Expected Home Ownership and Real Wealth Accumulation of Youth, Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER Working Paper 5629 [Google Scholar]; Moriizumi, (2000) Moriizumi, Y. 2000. “House prices and targeted saving of renters in Japan”. In Housing in 21st century: Fragmentation and Reorientation, Gaevle: ENHR.  [Google Scholar]; Rosenthal, (2001) Rosenthal, S. S. 2001. Eliminating Credit Barriers to Increase Homeownership, Washington, DC: Research Institute for Housing America. Working Paper No. 01-01 [Google Scholar].

2. Up until 1997 no mortgage-based financing existed in Slovenia so housing loans were predominantly insured by insurance companies. Also in 2004 only 22% of outstanding housing loans were secured by a mortgage.

3. In Ljubljana only 10 per cent of applicants can be housed within municipal rental housing.

4. The survey was conducted by the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Ljubljana for the National Housing Fund.

5. In Slovenia the rate of the gift tax depends on the relationship between the recipient and the donor and on the gift's market value The tax rate is 5–30 per cent; however, no gift tax is charged if the donor is the recipient's parent or spouse.

6. The bias has also been tested. If the bias were significant, the average size of dwellings would be larger in more distant years. However, statistical tests do not show any significant differences in the average dwelling size.

7. Source of data: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, 2007.

8. Source of data: Slovenian Central Bank, 2007.

9. The influence of loan maturity is excluded from the analysis since no annual data is available. Besides, the average maturity was relatively constant in the range of 10–15 years.

10. Amount of loan (n-repayment period and interest rate r) with a 33 per cent payment-to-income ratio equals INCOME*0.33*[1/r-(1/(r*(1+r) ⁿ ))].