MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3179769749 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14070309

Geographic Scope and Real Estate Firm Performance during the COVID-19 Pandemic

2021· article· en· W3179769749 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Xiaoling Chu, Chiuling Lu, Desmond Tsang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiversification (marketing strategy)Scope (computer science)PandemicBusinessLeverage (statistics)Real estateReal estate investment trustCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)FinanceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the effect of geographic scope in mitigating the adverse impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the real estate sector. Utilizing the Chinese setting over the two-month period in 2020 from the beginning of the outbreak to the successful containment of the spread of virus, we show that while the pandemic has negatively impacted real estate firm returns, firms with broader geographic scope and more geographically diversified property allocations have managed to better endure the crisis. We further find that firms with higher leverage report lower returns during the pandemic irrespective of their geographic scope, but larger firms can lessen the adverse impact of the pandemic only if they have adopted a more diversified strategy. Overall, our study provides novel evidence on the benefit of diversification by demonstrating the importance of geographic scope and diversification at times of crises. Specifically, we show corporate diversification could be especially useful to mitigate the negative stock market reactions resulting from the pandemic. Moreover, diversification could even become essential for larger firms that are expected by the market to be more diversified.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactsFrench-language works237,207