My three-year term as editor of Journal of Marketing concludes with the October 2005 issue. On the basis of my interactions with various people in the marketing community, I believe that marketing science and practice are in transition, bringing change to the content and boundaries of the discipline. Thus, I invited some distinguished scholars to contribute short essays on the current challenges, opportunities, and imperatives for improving marketing thought and practice. Each author chose his or her topic and themes. However, in a collegial process, the authors read and commented on one another's essays, after which each author had an opportunity to revise his or her essay. The result is a thoughtful and constructive set of essays that are related to one another in interesting ways and that should be read together. I have grouped the essays as follows: •What is the domain of marketing? This question is addressed in four essays by Stephen W. Brown, Frederick E. Webster Jr., Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp, and William L. Wilkie. •How has the marketing landscape (i.e., content) changed? This question is addressed in two essays, one coauthored by Jagdish N. Sheth and Rajendra S. Sisodia and the other by Roger A. Kerin. •How should marketing academics engage in research, teaching, and professional activities? This question is addressed in five essays by Debbie MacInnis; Leigh McAlister; Jagmohan S. Raju; Ronald J. Bauerly, Don T. Johnson, and Mandeep Singh; and Richard Staelin. Another interesting way to think about the essays, as Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp suggests, is to group the essays according to whether they address issues of content, publishing, or impact (see Table 1 ). These 11 essays strike a common theme: They urge marketers—both scientists and practitioners—to expand their horizontal vision. What do I mean by horizontal vision? In The Great Influenza, Barry (2004) describes the enormous strides that were made in medical science early in the twentieth century. His depiction of William Welch, an extremely influential scientist who did not (as a laboratory researcher) generate important findings, includes a characterization of the “genius” that produces major scientific achievements. The research he did was first-rate. But it was only first-rate—thorough, rounded, and even irrefutable, but not deep enough or provocative enough or profound enough to set himself or others down new paths, to show the world in a new way, to make sense out of great mysteries…. To do this requires a certain kind of genius, one that probes vertically and sees horizontally. Horizontal vision allows someone to assimilate and weave together seemingly unconnected bits of information. It allows an investigator to see what others do not see and to make leaps of connectivity and creativity. Probing vertically, going deeper and deeper into something, creates new information. (p. 60) At my request, each author has provided thoughtful and concrete suggestions for how marketing academics and practitioners, both individually and collectively (through our institutions), can work to improve our field. Many of their suggestions urge people and institutions to expand their horizontal vision and make connections, thereby fulfilling their potential to advance the science and practice of marketing. In his essay, Richard Staelin writes (p. 22), “I believe that it is possible to influence directly the generation and adoption of new ideas.” I agree. I ask the reader to think about the ideas in these essays and to act on them. Through our actions, we shape our future. —Ruth N. Bolton

PurposeThis study seeks to examine the market returns of five domestic real estate investment trust (REIT) indices to determine whether they exhibit a turn‐of‐the‐month (TOM) effect.Design/methodology/approachA test is carried out for the TOM effect by employing a battery of parametric and non‐parametric statistical tests that address the concerns of distributional assumption violations. An OLS regression model compares the TOM returns with the rest‐of‐the‐month (ROM) returns and an ANOVA model examines the TOM period while controlling for monthly seasonalities. A non‐parametric t‐test examines whether the TOM returns are greater than the ROM returns and a Wilcoxon signed rank test examines the matched‐pairs of TOM and ROM returns.FindingsA TOM effect in all five domestic REIT indices is found: real estate 50 REIT, all‐REIT, equity REIT, hybrid REIT, and mortgage REIT. More specifically, the six‐day TOM period, on average, accounts for over 100 per cent of the monthly return for the three non‐mortgage REITs, while the ROM period generates a negative return. Additionally, the TOM returns are greater than the ROM returns in 75 per cent of the months.Research limitations/implicationsThe data are limited to five‐years of daily returns and five different indices. Thus, the results could be biased on the selected time period.Practical implicationsThese results are important to REIT portfolio managers and investors. Domestic REIT markets experience a TOM effect from which investors and portfolio managers can benefit.Orginality/valueThe daily returns of all five major domestic REIT indices are examined. Data are evaluated which include daily returns after the passage of the REIT Modernization Act of 1999 that resulted in numerous changes for REITs. Whether the TOM effect can be detected with both parametric and non‐parametric tests is examined.

No abstract

We examine the effects of including timberland, farmland and commercial real estate in a mixed asset portfolio with stocks, government bonds and T‐Bills. Using both smoothed and unsmoothed returns (as per Geltner [Geltner, D. (1993). Estimating market values from appraised values without assuming an efficient market. Journal of Real Estate Research, 8, 25–345.]) and both constrained and unconstrained allocation assumptions (as per Eichhorn, Gupta and Stubbs [Eichhorn, D., Gupta, F., & Stubbs, E. (1998). Using constraints to improve the robustness of asset allocation. Journal of Portfolio Management, Spring, 41–48.]), we employ Markowitz portfolio optimization and find widely varying allocation outcomes. However, timberland entered nearly all portfolios, accounting for large percentages in several scenarios, while farmland entered only low‐risk portfolios. At lower risk levels, commercial real estate dominates the real estate allocation but as acceptable risk levels rise, timberland supplants commercial real estate as the primary component of the portfolio's real estate allocation.