Working Papers: Paul Anglin
These papers can be read using
Some of my papers include:
Integrating illiquid assets into the portfolio decision process" (forthcoming Real Estate Economics, with Y. Gao, 2010)
A theory of local contagion (August 2006)
An empirical study of local dynamics and contagion in real estate markets (2010, with J. Zhou)
Econophysics and the distribution of wealth: An extended comment (April 2005)
The selling process: If at first you don't succeed, try try try again (July 2004)
Pricing in an illiquid real estate market (2009, with R. Wiebe)
I have also written about how to write. While written in hopes that my students would benefit, I would welcome any comments from a wider audience. Part 1 deals with the more technical aspects of writing. Part 2 discusses why good writing represents good research skills and offers a different interpretation of why plagiarism is a bad thing.
After writing about how to write, some conversations with students indicated the benefits of writing something which focuses on what to write. Mostly, this paper aims to help students with writing good answers on tests and assignments by focusing on what not to do. The main text is probably more interesting to most readers while the two long appendices help in different ways to demonstrate the points made in the main text.
One topic which is hard to write about accurately is personal judgment. This topic is important, especially when applied to situations wherein the data are limited and confusing, but there is also abundant evidence that the judgment of many people is not as good as they hope and that the consequences of poor judgment are serious. This paper offers some insights and some tests which you can use to judge how well you are able to judge what you think you know. As with all of these papers, comments and suggestions will be welcomed.
Finally, since many of us have experienced rejection, you may be interested in seeing a "good" rejection letter (quoted in the Globe and Mail Aug. 10/02, p. D9 from a Chinese economic journal):
"We have read your manuscript with boundless delight. If we publish your paper, it would be impossible for us to publish any work of lower standard. And as it would be unthinkable that in the next thousand years we shall see its equal, we are, to our regret, compelled to return your divine composition, and to beg you a thousand times to overlook our short sight and timidity."
February 2011