The Foreign Property Rule: A Cost-Benefit Analysis
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 2001-2002 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 2 days trade in the forex market over the period 2000/01; Canada's equity markets did significantly better internationally while 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.
|Date of creation:||2004|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: 519-661-2111 Ext.85244
Web page: http://economics.uwo.ca/research/research_papers/epri_workingpapers.html
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- David Burgess & Joel Fried, 1999. "Canadian Retirement Savings Plans and the Foreign Property Rule," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 25(3), pages 395-416, September.
- Bartolini, Leonardo & Drazen, Allan, 1997.
"Capital-Account Liberalization as a Signal,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 87(1), pages 138-54, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwo:epuwoc:20049. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.