MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171732571 · doi:10.3846/ijspm.2021.14958

U.S. REIT INDUSTRY PROFITABILITY: A BENNET DECOMPOSITION OF INDUSTRY DYNAMICS

2021· article· en· W3171732571 on OpenAlex
Zhilan Feng, Stephen M. Miller, Doğan Tırtıroğlu

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

VenueInternational Journal of Strategic Property Management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReal estate investment trustEquity (law)Profitability indexReturn on equityIndex (typography)BusinessEconomicsSample (material)Financial economicsEconometricsReal estateFinanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers the aggregate profitability performance of the REIT industry. The aggregate performance depends on the underlying microeconomic dynamics within an industry – the growth of individual REITs (the within effect), the reallocation between existing REITs (the between effect), the entry of new REITs (the entry effect), and the exit of the existing REITs (the exit effect). We apply an extended Bennet (1920) dynamic decomposition on the REIT industry’s return on equity (ROE) and study the annual data on U.S. Equity REITs for the 1989 to 2015 period and various REIT industry specific sub-sample periods. Bailey et al.’s (1992) and Haltiwanger’s (1997) dynamic industry performance decompositions are special cases of the Bennet decomposition. The “within” and “between” effects dominate the annual changes in this industry’s ROE. To the extent that our Equity REIT sample proxies for the FTSE NAREIT All Equity Index, our conclusions also relate to this index’s profitability performance between 1989 and 2015.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.225 · 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