MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123461872

Liquidity, Assets and Business Cycles

2011· preprint· en· W3123461872 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shouyong Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2011
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic theories and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBusiness cycleMarket liquidityShock (circulatory)Monetary economicsEconomicsLiquidity crisisEquity (law)RecessionBoomDynamic stochastic general equilibriumFinancial economicsMacroeconomicsMonetary policy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Equity price is cyclical and often leads the business cycle by one or two quarters. These observations lead to the hypothesis that shocks to equity market liquidity are an independent source of the business cycle. In this paper I construct a model to evaluate this hypothesis. The model is easy for aggregation and for the construction of the recursive competitive equilibrium. After calibrating the model to the US data, I find that a negative liquidity shock in the equity market can generate large drops in investment and output but, contrary to what one may conjecture, the shock generates an equity price boom. This response of equity price occurs as long as a negative liquidity shock tightens firms' financing constraints on investment. Thus, liquidity shocks to the equity market cannot be the primary driving force of the business cycle. For equity price to fall as it typically does in a recession, a negative liquidity shock must be accompanied or caused by other shocks that reduce the need for investment sufficiently and relax firms' financing constraints on investment. I illustrate that a strong negative productivity shock is a good candidate of such concurrent shocks.

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)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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