Fourth Quarter 2019: 2019 Ends on a Whimper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Onlyhotels in the New England region, and to a lesser extent the Midwest region, experienced a positive price momentum this quarter, although both regions suffered poor performance from a year-over-year perspective. Hotels located in gateway cities outperformed hotels in non-gateway cities. Hotel financial operating performance continued to post positive profit with operating profit exceeding both a hotel property’s operating costs and its financial (borrowing) cost based on economic value analysis (EVA). Although the price of large hotels increased in the fourth quarter (as compared to quarter three), the price of small hotels declined quarter to quarter, and the price of both large and small hotels fell on a year-over-year basis. It appears that the price of both types of hotels is reverting to their moving average. The cost of hotel debt financing remained flat this quarter, while the cost of equity financing declined. In terms of risk premiums, there was no change in the risk premium for hotels compared to the risk-free rate. Besides this, the relative risk premium that lenders require for hotels over and above other commercial real estate has narrowed, indicating that lenders aren’t demanding a higher compensation for originating hotel loans. However, the spread between the 10-year Treasury and the 3-month Treasury was flat in the current period, which continues to raise concerns over its impact on market liquidity as well as its contribution to slower price growth in hotels. A reading of our tea leaves suggests that large hotels should be expected to decline in price. In contrast, the price of smaller hotels is anticipated to rise. This is report number 33 of the index series.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.158 | 0.102 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".