Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to show that the best-performing realized measures vary across markets when it comes to forecast real estate investment trust (REIT) volatility. This finding provides little guidance for practitioners on which one to use when facing a new market. The authors attempt to fill the hole by seeking a common estimator, which can study for different markets. Design/methodology/approach The authors do so by drawing upon the general forecasting literature, which finds that combinations of individual forecasts often outperform even the best individual forecast. The authors carry out the study by first introducing a number of commonly used realized measures and then considering several different combination strategies. The authors apply all of the individual measures and their different combinations to three major global REIT markets (Australia, UK and US). Findings The findings show that both unconstrained and constrained versions of the regression-based combinations consistently rank among the group of best forecasters across the three markets under study. None of their peers can do it including the three simple combinations and all of the individual measures. The conclusions are robust to the choice of evaluation metrics and of the out-of-sample evaluation periods. Originality/value The study provides practitioners with easy-to-follow insights on how to forecast REIT volatility, that is, use a regression-based combination of individual realized measures. The study has also extended the thin real estate literature on using high-frequency data to examine REIT volatility.
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 | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".