Long memory in REIT volatility revisited: genuine or spurious, and self-similar?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper revisits the Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) long-memory literature and addresses two important research questions: one, whether the observed long memory in REIT volatility is genuine or spurious (that is, caused by structural changes); and, two, a related one – whether the long memory is self-similar. Regarding the first question, we find strong evidence for the coexistence of pure long memory and structural breaks in all developed countries under study when daily data are used. But for the emerging markets under study some show coexistence while others show only pure long memory. Such a finding is also shared by both developed and emerging markets when it comes to using lower frequency data (weekly and monthly). As for the second question, we find support for self-similarity when we compare the daily and weekly long-memory estimates for the developed markets, implying that long memory is an intrinsic feature of the data. However, the support is not strong enough to completely rule out the possibility of structural breaks. Moreover, the support is found reduced when we consider the emerging markets and the monthly estimates from the developed markets. This is possibly due to the small sample size in both cases. Overall our findings have important implications for volatility modeling and forecasting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it