Has the Inclusion of Forward-Looking Statements in Monetary Policy Communications Made the Bank of Canada More Transparent?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the extent to which the transparency of the Bank of Canada's monetary policy has improved, the authors examine empirically – over the period 30 October 2000 to 31 May 2007 – the reaction of Canadian financial markets to official Bank communications, and in particular their reaction to the recent inclusion of forward-looking policy-rate guidance in these communications. The authors find evidence that fixed announcement date (FAD) press releases, and, to a lesser extent, speeches by Governing Council members, significantly affect near-term interest rate expectations, indicating that central bank communication conveys important information to market participants. However, the authors' results also show that FAD press releases and speeches do not significantly impact market rates over the more recent period, when forward-looking statements have been used on a regular basis. The authors investigate two explanations for this change in response: (i) market participants better understand the Bank's monetary policy reaction function as they become accustomed to the FAD regime; or, (ii) market participants focus more on the forward-looking statements and less on the Bank's discussion of the economic outlook, and therefore respond less than before to new macroeconomic data releases. The authors find evidence to support the second explanation: forward-looking statements – even though they have been designed to be conditional – have made the Bank's decisions on the policy rate more predictable, but not necessarily more transparent.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".