Market heterogeneity, investment risk and portfolio allocation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to address the heterogeneity of real estate assets with regard to investment risk measurement, with Paris’ apartment market as a case study. Design/methodology/approach Quantile regression is used to handle the fact that willingness to pay for housing attributes may vary greatly over both space and asset value categories. The method is alternately applied on central and peripheral districts of Paris, or “arrondissements”, with hedonic indices built for nine deciles over a 17-year period (1990-2006). Portfolio allocation is subsequently analysed with deciles being the assets. Findings The findings suggest that during the slump, peripheral districts show better resilience and define the efficient frontier while also exhibiting a lower volatility. In addition, higher returns are observed for lower-priced apartments, both central and peripheral. During the recovery and boom stages of the cycle, the highest returns are experienced for the cheapest apartments in central locations, whereas upper-priced, centrally located units yield the lowest returns. Originality/value The originality of this research resides in the application of quantile regression in a real estate investment and risk management context. The methodology may raise individual investors’ and practitioners’ attention, especially index providers’.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".