MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2257268986

Growth and Capital Structure of the Listed Chinese Real Estate Firms: An Empirical Investigation

2010· article· en· W2257268986 on OpenAlexaff
Doğan Tırtıroğlu, Harjeet S. Bhabra, Lei Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReal estateBoomChinaReal estate investment trustBusinessPosition (finance)Period (music)PoliticsFinanceState (computer science)AccountingEconomicsPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Chinese economy has posted an average annual growth rate of around 10% for at least a decade now. The boom in real estate is one of the most visible symbols of China’s steps to become an economic and political giant in this century. This paper examines empirically the determinants of capital structure of all the listed real estate companies in China between 1992 and 2001. We find evidence that is remarkably consistent with Myers (1977) growth options arguments. The listed real estate companies are large, mature, and formerly state-owned enterprises in which the State still maintains a large and illiquid ownership position. Yet, evidence for the Myers model on them is stronger than that on the listed entrepreneurial private firms, which are young and without direct state ownership. The macroeconomic boom, especially in real estate development, is offering the listed real estate firms significantly valuable growth opportunities in China. (A Note to the Members of the Conference Committee: The submitted version of our paper covers the period of 1992-2001.) We have just completed data collection for the period of 2002-2009 and are in the process of incorporating new results from this period into our paper. Thus, reported results and discussions in this version are preliminary though hold for the period of 1992-2001. The updated version will still report the current results under a sub-period analysis. We are totally confident that we will have a complete paper for the entire period of 1992-2009 within a few months.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicHousing Market and Economics→French-language works237,207→