Financial conditions, local competition, and local market leaders: The case of real estate developers
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper studies whether (and how) corporate decisions are affected by internal factors (e.g., the financial conditions of own company) and external factors (e.g., the actions of local competitors) in an imperfectly competitive environment. We study the listed real estate developers in Beijing as a case study. Our hand‐collected dataset includes transaction‐level information booked indicators (e.g., profitability, liability, and liquidity) and unbooked financial indicators (political connections). Our multi‐step empirical model shows that both the firm's financial conditions and its competitors' counterparts are essential but play different roles in the output design, pricing, and the time‐on‐the‐market (TOM). Internal versus external factors' relative importance relates nonlinearly to the degrees of market concentration. Market leaders' existence alters the small firms' strategy and leads to higher selling prices and slower selling pace in the local market. Our comprehensive financial indicators (booked and unbooked) better predict corporate behaviors than traditional measures.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it