Bibliographic record
Abstract
The foreign property rule (FPR) requires that no more than 30% of the assets held in tax-deferred retirement savings accounts be foreign property. The FPR is supposed to increase the value of the dollar and reduce its volatility and decrease the cost of capital and promote investment in Canada as well as decrease the extent of inequality inherent in these plans. On the basis of evidence from the easing of this regulation from 20% to 30% over the period 2001/02 we find that it accomplishes none of these objectives. There was no measurable impact on the exchange rate predicted from the Bank of Canada's forecasting equation; the capital outflow from the change amounted to no more than two days trade in the foreign exchange market over the period 2000/01; Canada's equity markets did significantly better internationally when the FPR was eased than in the prior two-year period. Finally, closer inspection reveals that the rule exacerbates income inequality by imposing the largest costs on lower middle-income groups. We estimate that the increase in the FPR from 20% to 30% increased Canadians expected income by between 500 million and one billion dollars annually by permitting greater portfolio diversification. The complete removal of the FPR would increase income by an estimated additional 1.5 billion to 3 billion dollars annually.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 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".