Cointegration of real estate stocks and REITs with common stocks, bonds and consumer price inflation: an international comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyses the performance of real estate securities and their relationship to other asset classes as well as to consumer price inflation in an international comparison over the period from 1990 to 2004. The analysis focuses on the long run relationships, applying three different cointegration tests. It covers the US, Canada, Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Germany. Results show that real estate securities in most countries had a high performance in nominal and real terms. The average performance over the whole period (1990 – 2004) has been particularly high in capital market oriented countries in the sample (US, Australia), and also in France. Real estate securities have outperformed bond markets on a risk adjusted basis only in the US and in Australia, while an outperformance of stock markets can be observed also in Japan and France. Particularly in the period 2001 to 2004 real estate security market have soared in most countries with the notable exception of Germany. In general, real estate securities seem to represent an asset class distinct from bonds and stocks in most countries. In the long run they seem provide a potential for further diversification of asset portfolios. Additionally, real estate stocks provide a (weak) hedge against consumer price inflation in almost every country.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".