Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question of whether REITs compete for scarce capital across geographic space is deserving of attention. In this study, we consider the issue of spatial competition among REITs across U.S. states in terms of the degree of interdependence in financial capital demand. First, we motivate the issue with a theoretical model of cost minimization by using a representative REIT in a given U.S. state and demonstrate that a priori, it is unclear whether the capital demand of a REIT depends on that of the REITs in other states. Then we use spatial econometrics techniques and find empirically that REITs compete for financial capital with REITs in other states. We also find evidence of feedback (or indirect) effects, thus implying amplified crowding out of financial capital when other REITs in nearby states increase financial capital demand. Our findings are aligned with the predation hypothesis, which suggests that REIT managers might exploit the financial distress of neighboring REITs and/or investors as an opportunity to steal their market share. Another key contribution of this study is that we focus on capital liquidity as opposed to stock liquidity.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".