Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Can Investors Hold More Real Estate? Evidence from Statistical Properties of Listed REIT versus Non-REIT Property Companies in the U.S.

  • Published:
The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We examine the diversification properties of holding listed REITs versus listed property companies (LPCs). If holding LPCs in addition to REITs provides excess diversification benefits, this would imply that investors have a larger pool of real estate assets in which to invest. Preliminary tests, however, show they are not comparable enough to be direct substitutes for each other. In portfolio performance analysis, LPCs alone provide certain diversification benefits, but the gains are slightly lower than those provided by REITs alone. We find little, if any, additional gains from holding both assets simultaneously. Further investigation suggests a long-term cointegration relationship between these two assets that is driven by property market conditions, yield term structure, default risk premium, and institutional money funds flow. In the short horizon, we observe unilateral Granger causality running from REITs to LPCs, suggesting that REITs are the leading index, while LPCs are followers in the system. Overall, our findings suggest that LPCs widen the number of public real estate securities that can be used. However, they are not quite as effective as REITs in terms of diversification benefits.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Institutional Real Estate, Inc. (IREI), Visions, Insights & Perspectives (VIP), Real Estate 101, February 11, 2011.

  2. A comparison of REITs and LPCs is analogous to a comparison of car makers and car dealers. In other words, either one offers an opportunity to invest in the automobile industry. But having both options ensures a wider asset choice for portfolios.

  3. We thank an anonymous referee for proposing tests on these portfolio implications.

  4. The Tax Reform Act (1986) had important implications for REITs that became detectable by 1990.

  5. The S&P Dow Jones US Property index began on July 1, 1989.

  6. The construction process we use is intended to eliminate various forms of undesirable sampling biases. First, the performance of firms subsequently removed or deleted from the indices is retained for all prior periods of inclusion, which mitigates survivorship bias. Second, only live contemporaneous data is used in construction, which assures the indices have no look-ahead bias. Third, thinly traded companies, corporate holdings, private control blocks, government holdings, and legally restricted shares are excluded, which ensures that illiquid securities do not unduly inflate market performance.

  7. Our REIT index exhibits correlations of 99.99% and 99.17% with the Ziman REIT index and the S&P Dow Jones REIT index, respectively, over the sample period.

  8. There is no recognized non-REIT LPC index.

  9. In our sample, 11 firms have a REIT second share code and a non-REIT LPC SIC code. For example, Supertel Hospitality, Inc.’s (Permno =81,087) SHRCD is 18, and its SICCD is 7011. Ziman treats this company as a REIT.

  10. The findings are largely the same. So, for the sake of brevity, we report only the value-weighted results. Full results are available from the authors upon request.

  11. The risk-free rate has zero conditional variance because the return is known at time t-1.

  12. When N approaches infinity large, there will be no difference between using equally or value-weighted indices because the weights of all components approach zero.

  13. We also conduct Ng and Perron (2001) unit root tests with MZ a and MZ t test statistics, and we find consistent results. To conserve space, these results are not tabulated, but are available from the authors upon request.

  14. For studies using unit root tests in the real estate literature, see Okunev and Wilson (1997), Chaudhry et al. (1999b), and Gallo and Zhang (2010).

  15. Engle et al. (1983) provide a detailed explanation of exogeneity.

  16. For robustness, we also obtain the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and the Schwartz Bayesian Criterion (SBC) to calculate lag length. We again find consistent results.

  17. For testing deterministic components of VARs, Johansen (1994) proposes five models:

    1. H0(r): a quadratic trend in the levels of data that is eliminated by the cointegrating relationships.

    2. H0 *(r): a linear trend in the cointegration space that excludes quadratic trends from the data.

    3. H1(r): a model allowing for trends in the levels of data or non-zero means in the differences, but where the trends are eliminated by the cointegrating relationships.

    4. H1 *(r): a model allowing for a non-zero constant in the cointegration space, but excluding all deterministic trends in the levels of data.

    5. H2(r): a model that allows no deterministic terms in the vector error correction model.

    Our results indicate that the best-fit deterministic component for each testing window contains a constant with no deterministic trends in the cointegrating relationship. To conserve space, we do not tabulate the results of these five models here, but they are available from the authors upon request.

  18. The linear autoregressive Johansen results may be questionable if equity indices exhibit non-linear dependencies. All data series are log-transformed to mitigate any non-linearity in the data series. We also find no evidence of non-linear dependencies in equity indices, implying no need for non-linear non-parametric rank tests or the cointegration tests of Bierens (1997a, 1997b) and Breitung (2002). We monitor structural breaks by using the likelihood ratio (L-R) test of Johansen et al. (2000). We find no evidence of significant structural breaks in any of our testing windows.

  19. Large shocks are defined as residuals that are statistically significant at a 1% level (input threshold =2.576). We report the following exogenous shocks: 1990:08, 1990:09, 1994:03, 1998:04, 1998:08, 1998:11, 2001:09, 2004:04, 2008:06, 2008:10, 2008:11, 2009:01, 2009:02, 2009:04, 2010:06, 2011:09, and 2011:10. Residual normality is monitored by the chi-square test.

  20. Chen et al. (1986) introduced the first five factors.

  21. Granger causality differs from a test for exogeneity because weak exogeneity implies a long-horizon relationship, while Granger causality implies a short-horizon linkage. For example, a necessary condition for the exogeneity of Y is that current and past values of X do not affect Y. Therefore, over a short horizon, if X Granger-causes Y, then Y is not weak exogenous, and so there is no need to further test whether Y is strong-form weak exogenous. It is possible that the short-horizon causality runs from X to Y, but there is no long-horizon causality between X and Y.

  22. https://www.stlouisfed.org/financial-crisis/full-timeline. On February 27, 2007, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) announced it would no longer buy the riskiest subprime mortgages or mortgage-related securities. On December 24, 2009, the Treasury Department made an unprecedented announcement that it would provide Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with unlimited financial support for the subsequent three years, despite acknowledging that they had experienced losses in excess of $400 billion by that time.

  23. The recursive analysis can be conducted with either the “Z-representation” or “R-representation.” However, Hansen and Johansen (1999) argue that the results from the “R-representation” are more appropriate in the recursive estimation test.

  24. The full unreported cointegration robustness test results are available from the authors upon request.

  25. We test for multicollinearity by calculating the uncentered variance inflation factors (VIFs) for the independent variables. We find that the VIFs (= 1.94) do not indicate multicollinearity.

References

  • Amihud, Y. (2002). Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time-series effects. Journal of Financial Markets, 5, 31–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrew, M. G., & Glenn, M. R. (2003). Public and private real estate in a mixed-asset portfolio. Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, 9, 193–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bai, J., & Perron, P. (2003). computation and analysis of multiple structural change models. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 18, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barkham, R., & Geltner, D. (1995). Price discovery in american and british property markets. Real Estate Economics, 23, 21–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekaert, G., & Harvey, C. R. (1995). Time-varying world market integration. Journal of Finance, 50, 403–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bierens, H. J. (1997a). Nonparametric cointegration analysis. Journal of Econometrics, 77, 379–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bierens, H. J. (1997b). Testing the unit root with drift hypothesis against nonlinear trend stationarity, with an application to the US price level and interest rate. Journal of Econometrics, 81, 29–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breitung, J. (2002). Nonparametric tests for unit roots & cointegration. Journal of Econometrics, 108, 343–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. Y., & Hamao, Y. (1992). Predictable stock returns in the united states and japan: a study of long-term capital market integration. Journal of Finance, 47, 43–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carhart, M. (1997). On persistence of mutual fund performance. Journal of Finance, 52, 57–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Case, B., Yang, Y., & Yildirim, Y. (2012). Dynamic correlations among asset classes: REIT and stock returns. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 44, 298–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K. C., Hendershott, P. H., & Sanders, A. B. (1990). risk and return on real estate: evidence from equity REITs. AREUEA Journal, 18, 431–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, S. H., Leung, W. K., & Wang, K. (2005). Changes in REIT structure and stock performance: evidence from the Monday stock anomaly. Real Estate Economics, 33, 89–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhry, M. K., Christie-David, R. A., & Sackley, W. H. (1999a). Long-term structural price relationships in real estate markets. Journal of Real Estate Research, 18, 335–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhry, M. K., Myer, F. C. N., & Webb, J. R. (1999b). Stationarity and Cointegration in Systems with Real Estate and Financial Assets. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 18, 339–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, N. F., Roll, R., & Ross, S. (1986). Economic forces and the stock market. Journal of Business, 59, 383–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiang, K. C. H., & National, M. L. (2007). Spanning tests on public and private real estate. Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, 13, 7–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciochetti, B., Craft, T., & Shilling, J. (2002). Institutional investors’ preferences for REIT stocks. Real Estate Economics, 30, 567–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conover, C., Friday, H., & Sirmans, G. (2002). Diversification benefits from foreign real estate investments. Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, 8, 17–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickey, D., & Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica, 49, 1057–1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eichholtz, P. M. A. (1996). The Stability of the covariances of international property share returns. Journal of Real Estate Research, 11, 149–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. F., & Granger, C. W. J. (1987). Co-integration & error correction: representation, estimation, & testing. Econometrica, 55, 251–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. F., Hendry, D. F., & Richard, J. F. (1983). Exogeneity. Econometrica, 51, 277–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabozzi, F. J., & Francis, J. C. (1977). Stability tests for alphas and betas over up and declining market conditions. Journal of Finance, 32, 1093–1099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F. (1965). Random walks in stock market prices. Financial Analysts Journal, 21, 55–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1995). Size and book-to-market factors in earnings and returns. Journal of Finance, 50, 131–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F., & Gibbons, M. R. (1984). A comparison of inflation forecasts. Journal of Monetary Economics, 13, 327–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallo, J. G., & Zhang, Y. (2010). Global property market diversification. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 41, 458–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh, C., Miles, M., & Sirmans, C. F. (1996). Are REITs stocks? Real Estate Finance, 13, 46–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giliberto, S. M., & Mengden, A. (1996). REITs and real estate: two markets reexamined. Real Estate Finance, 13, 56–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glascock, J. L., Lu, C., & So, R. W. (2000). Further evidence on the integration of REIT, bond, and stock returns. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 20, 177–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goetzmann, W., & Massa, M. (2003). Index funds & stock market growth. Journal of Business, 76, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goetzmann, W. N., & Wachter, S. M. (2001). The global real estate crash: evidence from an international database. In S. J. Brown & C. H. Liu (Eds.), A global perspective on real estate cycles. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, J., Canter, T., & Webb, J. (1998). The effects of international real estate securities on portfolio diversification. Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, 4, 83–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granger, C. W. J. (1988). Some recent developments in the concept of causality. Journal of Econometrics, 39, 199–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, S., Kin, W., & Wang, K. (1998). Institutional investment in REITs: evidence and implications. Journal of Real Estate Research, 16, 357–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, H., & Johansen, S. (1999). Some tests for parameter constancy in cointegrated VAR-models. The Econometrics Journal, 2, 306–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansz, J., Zhang, Y., & Zhou, T. (2017). An investigation into the substitutability of equity and mortgage REITs in real estate portfolios. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics. doi:10.1007/s11146-016-9572-1.

  • Hartzell, J. C., Mühlhofer, T., & Titman, S. D. (2010). Alternative Benchmarks for Evaluating Mutual Fund Performance. Real Estate Economics, 38, 121–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, L. T. (1998). Cointegration and price discovery between equity and mortgage REITs. Journal of Real Estate Research, 16, 327–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoesli, M., & Oikarinen, E. (2012). Are REITs real estate? Evidence from international sector level data. Journal of International Money and Finance, 31, 1823–1850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jobson, J. D., & Korkie, B. (1981). performance hypothesis testing with the sharpe and treynor measures. Journal of Finance, 36, 889–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansen, S. (1988). Statistical Analysis of Cointegrating Vectors. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12, 231–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansen, S. (1991). Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointegrating vectors in gaussian vector autoregressive models. Econometrica, 59, 1551–1580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansen, S. (1992). Testing weak exogeneity and the order of cointegration in UK money demand data. Journal of Policy Modeling, 14, 313–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansen, S. (1994). The Role of Constant and Linear Terms in Cointegration Analysis of Nonstationary Variables. Econometric Reviews, 13, 205–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansen, S. (2000). A Bartlett correction factor for tests on the cointegration relations. Econometric Theory, 16, 740–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansen, S. (2002). A small sample correction for the test of cointegrating rank in the Vector autoregressive model. Econometrica, 71, 1929–1961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansen, S., & Juselius, K. (1990). Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration with applications to the demand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52, 169–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansen, S., Mosconi, R., & Nielsen, B. (2000). Cointegration analysis in the presence of structural breaks in the deterministic trend. The Econometrics Journal, 3, 216–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karolyi, G. A., & Sanders, A. B. (1998). The variation of economic risk premiums in real estate returns. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 17, 245–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleiman, R. T., Payne, J. E., & Sahu, A. P. (2002). Random walks and market efficiency: evidence from international real estate markets. Journal of Real Estate Research, 24, 279–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolari, J. W., Fraser, D. R., & Anari, A. (1998). The effects of securitization on mortgage market yields: A cointegration analysis. Real Estate Economics, 26, 677–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C. B., Schmidt, P., & Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root. Journal of Econometrics, 54, 159–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. L., & Chiang, K. C. H. (2004). Substitutability between equity REITs and mortgage REITs. Journal of Real Estate Research, 26, 95–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. M. C., Shleifer, A., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Investor sentiment & the closed-end fund puzzle. Journal of Finance, 46, 75–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., & Wang, K. (1995). The predictability of REIT returns and market segmentation. Journal of Real Estate Research, 10, 471–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ling, D. C., & Naranjo, A. (1997). Economic risk factors and commercial real estate returns. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 15, 283–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ling, D. C., Naranjo, A., & Ryngaert, M. (2000). The predictability of equity REIT returns. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 20, 117–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, C. H., & Mei, J. (1992). The predictability of returns on equity REITs and their co-movement with other assets. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 5, 401–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., & Zhang, L. (2008). Momentum profits, factor pricing, and macroeconomic risk. Review of Financial Studies, 21, 2417–2448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, G. H., & Al Zaman, A. (2009). Real estate for the long term: the effect of return predictability on long-horizon allocations. Real Estate Economics, 37, 117–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCue, T. E., & Kling, J. L. (1994). Real estate returns and the macroeconomy: some empirical evidence from real estate investment trust data, 1972–1991. Journal of Real Estate Research, 9, 277–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooradian, R. M., & Yang, S. X. (2001). Dividend policy and firm performance: hotel REITs vs. non-REIT hotel companies. Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, 7, 79–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myer, F. C. N., Chaudhry, M. K., & Webb, J. R. (1997). Stationarity and co-integration in systems with three national real estate indices. Journal of Real Estate Research, 13, 369–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelling, E., & Gyourko, J. (1998). The Predictability of equity REIT returns. Journal of Real Estate Research, 16, 251–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, G., & Webb, J. (1996). Assessing risk for international real estate investments. Journal of Real Estate Research, 11, 103–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng, S., & Perron, P. (2001). lag length selection and the construction of unit root tests with good size and power. Econometrica, 69, 1519–1554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oikarinen, E., Hoesli, M., & Serrano, C. (2011). The long-run dynamics between direct and securitized real estate. Journal of Real Estate Research, 33, 73–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okunev, J., & Wilson, P. (1997). Using nonlinear tests to examine integration between real estate and stock markets. Real Estate Economics, 25, 487–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okunev, J., Wilson, P., & Zurbruegg, R. (2000). The Causal relationship between real estate and stock markets. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 21, 251–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagliari Jr., J. L., Scherer, K. A., & Monopoli, R. T. (2003). Public versus private real estate equities. Journal of Portfolio Management, 29, 101–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2000). Structural analysis of vector error correction models with exogenous I (1) variables. Journal of Econometrics, 97, 293–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, P. C. B., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a Unit Root in Time Series Regression. Biometrika, 75, 335–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quan, D., & Titman, S. (1997). Commercial real estate prices & stock market returns: an international analysis. Financial Analysts Journal, 53, 21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, A. B. (1997). The historical behavior of reit returns: a capital market perspective. In R. Garrigan & J. Parsons (Eds.), The handbook of real estate investment trusts. New York, McGraw Hill: Irwin Publishing Co.

  • Sharpe, W. F. (1966). Mutual fund performance. Journal of Business, 39, 119–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shumway, T. (1997). The delisting bias in CRSP data. Journal of Finance, 52, 327–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, S. (2000). International real estate diversification: empirical tests using hedged indices. Journal of Real Estate Research, 19, 105–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarbert, H. (1998). The long-run diversification benefits available from investing across geographical regions and property type: evidence from cointegration tests. Economic Modelling, 15, 49–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toda, H. Y., & Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. Journal of Econometrics, 66, 225–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuluca, S. A., Myer, F. C. N., & Webb, J. R. (2000). Dynamics of private and public real estate markets. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 21, 279–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, J. R., Curcio, R. J., & Rubens, J. H. (1988). Diversification gains from including real estate in mixed-asset portfolios. Decision Sciences, 19, 434–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheaton, W. C. (2003). Real estate “cycles”: Some fundamentals. Real Estate Economics, 27, 209–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yunus, N. (2009). Increasing convergence between us and international securitized property markets: evidence based on cointegration tests. Real Estate Economics, 37, 383–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zivot, E., & Andrews, D. W. K. (1992). Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 10, 251–270.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Katsiaryna Salavei Bardos, William J. Crowder, J. David Diltz, John G. Gallo, J. Andrew Hansz, (Grace) Qing Hao, Xin (James) He, Walter F. Hlawitschka, Gregory D. Koutmos, Valeria Martinez, John McDermott, Emmanuel Morales-Camargo, David Rakowski, Sanjiv Sabherwal, Salil K. Sarkar, Simon Stevenson, and Le Wang for their comments. We thank John G. Gallo for providing Ziman REITs and S&P Dow Jones data. We also thank Xiaolei (Laura) Liu for providing CRR five-factor data. We thank seminar participants at the 2013 Global Chinese Real Estate Congress (GCREC) Annual Conference, the 5th International Conference on Financial Risk and Corporate Finance Management (FRCFM) in 2013, the 2015 World Finance & Banking Symposium. We also thank seminar participants at Fairfield University and the University of Texas at Arlington for a number of insightful comments. All remaining errors are our own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Finance and Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics Studies, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, 06269, USA

    John L. Glascock

  2. Department of Finance, College of Business Administration, California State University, Long Beach, CA, 90802, USA

    Wikrom Prombutr

  3. Department of Finance, Dolan School of Business, Fairfield University, Fairfield, CT, 06824, USA

    Ying Zhang

  4. Department of Finance, John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada

    Tingyu Zhou

Authors
  1. John L. Glascock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wikrom Prombutr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ying Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tingyu Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ying Zhang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Glascock, J.L., Prombutr, W., Zhang, Y. et al. Can Investors Hold More Real Estate? Evidence from Statistical Properties of Listed REIT versus Non-REIT Property Companies in the U.S.. J Real Estate Finan Econ 56, 274–302 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-017-9601-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-017-9601-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation