Bias or rationality? The case of UK commercial real estate investment

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to test the hypothesis that investment decision making in the UK direct property market does not conform to the assumption of economic rationality underpinning portfolio theory. Design/methodology/approach – The developing behavioural real estate paradigm is used to challenge the idea that investor “man” is able to perform with economic rationality, specifically with reference to the analysis of the spatial dispersion of the entire UK “investible stock” and “investible locations” against observed spatial patterns of institutional investment. Location quotients are derived, combining different data sets. Findings – Considerably greater variation in institutional property holdings is found across the UK than would be expected given the economic and stock characteristics of local areas. This appears to provide evidence of irrationality (in the strict traditional economic sense) in the behaviour of institutional investors, with possible herding underpinning levels of investment that cannot be explained otherwise. Research limitations/implications – Over time a lack of distinction has developed between the cause and effect of comparatively low levels of development and institutional property investment across the regions. A critical examination of decision making and behaviour in practice could break this cycle, and could in turn promote regional economic growth. Originality/value – The entire “population” of observations is used to demonstrate the relationships between economic theory and investor performance exploring, for the first time, stock and local area characteristics.

Robust evaluation of fixed-event forecast rationality

In this paper we introduce a new testing procedure for evaluating the rationality of fixed-event forecasts based on a pseudo-maximum likelihood estimator. The procedure is designed to be robust to departures in the normality assumption. A model is introduced to show that such departures are likely when forecasters experience a credibility loss when they make large changes to their forecasts. The test is illustrated using monthly fixed-event forecasts produced by four UK institutions. Use of the robust test leads to the conclusion that certain forecasts are rational while use of the Gaussian-based test implies that certain forecasts are irrational. The difference in the results is due to the nature of the underlying data. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Unpacking insanity defence standards: an experimental study of rationality and control tests in criminal law

The present study investigated the impact of different legal standards on mock juror decisions concerning whether a defendant was guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity. Undergraduate students (N = 477) read a simulated case summary involving a murder case and were asked to make an insanity determination. The cases differed in terms of the condition of the defendant (rationality deficit or control deficit) and the legal standard given to the jurors to make the determination (Model Penal Code, McNaughten or McNaughten plus a separate control determination). The effects of these variables on the insanity determination were investigated. Jurors also completed questionnaires measuring individualism and hierarchy attitudes and perceptions of facts in the case. Results indicate that under current insanity standards jurors do not distinguish between defendants with rationality deficits and defendants with control deficits regardless of whether the legal standard requires them to do so. Even defendants who lacked control were found guilty at equal rates under a legal standard excusing rationality deficits only and a legal standard excluding control and rationality deficits. This was improved by adding a control test as a partial defence, to be determined after a rationality determination. Implications for the insanity defence in the Criminal Justice System are discussed.

A Novel Range Test

In a range test, one party holds a ciphertext and needs to test whether the message encrypted in the ciphertext is within a certain interval range. In this paper, a range test protocol is proposed, where the party holding the ciphertext asks another party holding the private key of the encryption algorithm to help him. These two parties run the protocol to implement the test. The test returns TRUE if and only if the encrypted message is within the certain interval range. If the two parties do not conspire, no information about the encrypted message is revealed from the test except what can be deduced from the test result. Advantages of the new protocol over the existing related techniques are that it achieves correctness, soundness, °exibility, high e±ciency and privacy simultaneously.