This paper suggests that the pure‐play technique can be used in conjunction with the capital asset pricing model to determine the cost of equity capital for the divisions of a multidivision firm. Since the beta for a division is unobservable in the marketplace, a proxy beta derived from a publicly traded firm whose operations are as similar as possible to the division in question is used as the measure of the division's systematic risk. To provide empirical support for using the pure‐play technique, a sample of multidivision firms and pure‐play associated with each division is examined. It is shown that an appropriately weighted average of the betas of the pure‐play firms closely approximates the beta of the multidivision firm.

This paper suggests that the pure-play technique can be used in conjunction with the capital asset pricing model to determine the cost of equity capital for the divisions of a multidivision firm. Since the beta for a division is unobservable in the marketplace, a proxy beta derived from a publicly traded firm whose operations are as similar as possible to the division in question is used as the measure of the division's systematic risk. To provide empirical support for using the pure-play technique, a sample of multidivision firms and pure-play associated with each division is examined. It is shown that an appropriately weighted average of the betas of the pure-play firms closely approximates the beta of the multidivision firm.

In this paper, we consider two hypotheses for the recent performance of real estate returns. The first is the random event argument that real estate is positively correlated with unanticipated inflation but that structural change in expected returns due to a change in the perceived sensitivity of returns to unanticipated inflation has not taken place. The second is the hedge demand argument that formulates the structural shift hypothesis. The paucity of real estate and other expectations data as well as the general identification problem make it extremely difficult to distinguish between these hypothesis. Our tests consist of estimates of inflation betas for various asset categories overtime as well as estimates of the hedge vector, . Although some support for the hedge argument is found, the results are not strong enough to reject the random event argument and conclude that a decline in the required return on real estate due to a relative increase in inflation beta drove returns during the 1970's.

In this paper, we consider two hypotheses for the recent performance of real estate returns. The first is the random event argument that real estate is positively correlated with unanticipated inflation but that structural change in expected returns due to a change in the perceived sensitivity of returns to unanticipated inflation has not taken place. The second is the hedge demand argument that formulates the structural shift hypothesis. The paucity of real estate and other expectations data as well as the general identification problem make it extremely difficult to distinguish between these hypothesis. Our tests consist of estimates of inflation betas for various asset categories overtime as well as estimates of the hedge vector, S - 1 C . Although some support for the hedge argument is found, the results are not strong enough to reject the random event argument and conclude that a decline in the required return on real estate due to a relative increase in inflation beta drove returns during the 1970's.