Measuring and Explaining Changes in REIT Liquidity: Moving Beyond the Bid–Ask Spread
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates changes in REIT liquidity since the REIT boom of 1993. We use trade‐by‐trade data for REITs traded on the major U.S. exchanges to estimate and compare Kyle's (1985) measure of inverse liquidity for the 1993 and 1996 time periods. For our full sample of equity REITs, there is a significant increase in REIT liquidity in terms of the median price impact of trades. The increasing importance of the self‐advised, self‐managed organizational structure is found to be a major factor driving increased REIT liquidity. Our results imply a decline in the asymmetric information faced by market‐makers. Our investigation of the changes in the size distribution and resulting price impacts of REIT trades over the 1993–1996 period yields evidence of increased importance of informed traders to REIT price dynamics. Our findings of increased liquidity indicate that the increase in adverse‐selection costs due to the presence of more informed traders is more than offset by the increase in market thickness as a result of an increase in the number of uninformed (liquidity) traders.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".