MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121828431 · doi:10.1111/1540-6229.00794

Measuring and Explaining Changes in REIT Liquidity: Moving Beyond the Bid–Ask Spread

2000· article· en· W3121828431 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueReal Estate Economics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReal estate investment trustMarket liquidityEquity (law)EconomicsMonetary economicsBoomFinancial economicsBusinessReal estateFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.162 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it