Macroeconomic risk factors and Chinese FDIs in real estate: evidence from the Asia-Pacific public real estate markets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this study is to shed light on the relative importance of Chinese (Mainland China and Hong Kong: CH-HK) foreign direct investments (FDIs) in real estate (FDIRE) on the dynamics of Asia-Pacific (APAC) public real estate markets after the Global Financial Crisis. Design/methodology/approach Using a parsimonious real estate asset-pricing model including macroeconomic risk factors, the authors develop a metric to measure FDIs in the real estate sector. The authors use a panel VAR approach based on robust econometric methodology (generalized method of moments) and deal with potential endogeneity and an eventual causality problem. The authors also compute multiple metrics to measure the Chinese, US and Japanese FDIs in the real estate sector. Findings The study results report a positive significant impact of CH-HK FDIRE on APAC public real estate returns, while FDIRE originating from outside China are not significant. The authors also show that Chinese investors use the channel of FDIs in Diversified Listed Property Companies (LPCs) and Hotel and Family LPCs to gain exposure to the APAC real estate markets. The study results suggest that APAC property markets are mainly impacted and emphasize the importance of an intercontinental diversification strategy for investors in LPCs in the APAC region. Practical implications Contrary to Bond et al . (2003) who identified that APAC public real estate markets were overwhelmingly idiosyncratic in the decade preceding China's WTO membership (1990–2001), the study findings underline that Chinese FDIRE became a common factor affecting all eight markets in this study in the decade following the global financial crisis (2007–2017). The results emphasize the importance of an intercontinental diversification strategy for investors in LPCs in the APAC region. Originality/value The authors use a parsimonious model, introduce metrics to measure FDIRE and apply a panel VAR approach based on a robust econometric methodology to shed light on China's economic globalization strategy on Asia-Pacific public real estate markets after the GFC. The study results highlighting the major impact of CH-HK FDIRE on securitized real estate market returns dynamics, identify the existence of an Asian common factor driven by Chinese FDI inflows into neighbouring countries.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".