The Stock Market and the Consumer Confidence Channel: Evidence from Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two channels through which stock prices can affect consumption are wealth effects \nand shifts in consumer confidence. We examine the evidence for the latter channel \nfor Canada, using consumer confidence survey data. The composition of households' \nfinancial wealth between stock and pension funds holdings as well as the unique 6- \nmonth forecast horizon in the consumer confidence survey make Canada a particularly \ninteresting case relative to the U.S. and European countries. We find that both stock \nprice changes and their volatility are significant predictors of consumer responses to \nquestions that are unrelated to expectations of future personal finances, even after \ncontrolling for inflation, unemployment and interest rates. Moreover, there is a significant short-term increase in consumer pessimism after an unexpected rise in stock \nmarket volatility. Overall, the evidence for the confidence channel suggests that this \nchannel can amplify the effects of the well-understood wealth channel. Consequently, it \nshould be taken into account in determining quantitative impacts of the stock market \non consumer behaviour.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".