The relative importance of economic policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk on U.S. REITs returns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Our aim in this study is to investigate the relative importance of the economic policy uncertainty and of the geopolitical risk on U.S. REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts) returns with a special focus on the different real estate sectors. Design/methodology/approach We use an augmented Fama-French (1993)’s asset pricing model, including economic policy uncertainty indices (EPU), introduced by Baker et al. (2016), and geopolitical risk indices (GPR) recently developed by Caldara and Iacoviello (2022), to price the potential risk factors for U.S. Nareit indices returns. To obtain robust economic results, we correct for the problems of errors-in-variables in linear asset pricing models; we advocate the use of higher moments estimators as instruments in a generalized method of moments (GMM) framework. Findings Our results report that economic policy uncertainty (EPU), and geopolitical risk (GPR) are priced for the different Nareit sectors for the last three decades. The GPR index stands as a relevant risk factor. The coefficient estimates are low compared to Fama-French risk factors. They are higher for Shopping Centers, Retail and Region Malls and lower for Health Care and Lodging/Resorts. EPU indices are also priced and less statistically significant. Health Care sector, followed by Shopping Centers and Retail are the most policy-sensitive sectors. Practical implications In their “2023–2024 Top Ten Issues Affecting Real Estate” “political unrest and global economic health” is ranked 1 issue by the Counselors of Real Estate. Our results report that economic policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk are priced for the different Nareit sectors. They suggest implications for investors, insurers, bankers, policymakers and other stakeholders. The geopolitical risk index (GPR) stands as a relevant and significant risk factor for REITs returns. Originality/value Based on parsimonious robust asset pricing models, the results shed a new light on the relative importance of geopolitical risk and economic policy uncertainty in the real estate sector, with a special focus on the different U.S. REITs sectors. They suggest possible implications for investors, insurers, bankers, policymakers and other stakeholders in a context marked by higher uncertainty shocks and geopolitical risks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".