MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121648489 · doi:10.34989/swp-2007-46

Endogenously Segmented Asset Market in an Inventory Theoretic Model of Money Demand

2021· preprint· en· W3121648489 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Chiu

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic theories and models
Canadian institutionsBank of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsMonetary economicsMarket liquidityEndogenous moneyDemand shockShock (circulatory)Inflation (cosmology)EconometricsMonetary policyMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies the effects of monetary policy in an inventory theoretic model of money demand. In this model, agents keep inventories of money, despite the fact that money is dominated in rate of return by interest bearing assets, because they must pay a fixed cost to transfer funds between the asset market and the goods market. Unlike the exogenous segmentation models in the literature, the timings of money transfers are endogenous. By allowing agents to choose the timings of money transfers, the model endogenizes the degree of market segmentation as well as the magnitude of liquidity effects, price sluggishness and variability of velocity. First, I show that the endogenous segmentation model can generate the positive long run relationship between money growth and velocity in the data which the exogenous segmentation model fails to capture. Second, I show that the short run effects of money shocks in an exogenous segmentation model (such as the linear inflation response to money shock, the liquidity effect and the sluggish price adjustment) are not robust. In an endogenous segmentation model, the equilibrium response to money shocks is non-linear and non-monotonic. Moreover, for large money shocks, there is no liquidity effect and no sluggish price adjustment.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicEconomic theories and modelsFrench-language works237,207