A big financial loss may shorten your life, a new study suggests.

Middle-aged Americans who experienced a sudden, large economic blow were more likely to die during the following years than those who didn’t. The heightened danger of death after a devastating loss, which researchers called a “wealth shock,” crossed socio-economic lines, affecting people no matter how much money they had to start.

The analysis of nearly 9,000 people’s experiences underscores well-known connections between money and well-being, with prior studies linking lower incomes and rising income inequality with more chronic disease and shorter life expectancy.

“This is really a story about everybody,” said lead researcher Lindsay Pool of Northwestern University’s medical school. Stress, delays in health care, substance abuse and suicides may contribute, she said. “Policymakers should pay attention.”

Watch: World’s richest 1% took 82% of the wealth created in 2017

Overall, wealth shock was tied with a 50 per cent greater risk of dying, although the study couldn’t prove a cause-and-effect connection. The study was published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Researchers analyzed two decades of data from the Health and Retirement Study, which checks in every other year with a group of people in their 50s and 60s and keeps track of who dies.

About 1 in 4 people in the study had a wealth shock, which researchers defined as a loss of 75 per cent or more in net worth over two years. The average loss was about $100,000.

That could include a drop in the value of investments or realized losses like a home foreclosure. Some shocks happened during the Great Recession of 2007-2009. Others happened before or after. No matter what was going on in the greater U.S. economy, a wealth shock still increased the chance of dying.

Women were more likely than men to have a wealth shock. Once they did, their increased chance of dying was about the same as the increase for men. Researchers adjusted for marital changes, unemployment and health status. They still saw the connection between financial crisis and death.

The effect was more marked if the person lost a home as part of the wealth shock, and it was more pronounced for people with fewer assets.

The findings suggest a wealth shock is as dangerous as a new diagnosis of heart disease, wrote Dr. Alan Garber of Harvard University in an accompanying editorial, noting that doctors need to recognize how money hardships may affect their patients.

The findings come at a time when U.S. life expectancy has dropped for two straight years.

“We should be doing everything we can to prevent people from experiencing wealth shocks,” said Dr. Steven Woolf, director of the Virginia Commonwealth University Center on Society and Health, who was not involved in the study.

What exactly to do, however, may take more research, said Katherine Baicker, dean of the Harris School of Public Policy at University of Chicago, who also was not involved in the study.

“We don’t yet know whether policies that aim to protect people’s savings will have a direct effect on mortality or not,” Baicker said. “But that’s not the only reason to try to protect people’s savings.”

OTTAWA — A pair of unexpectedly soft economic reports are creating fresh doubts about the timing of the Bank of Canada’s next interest rate hike.

For months, experts have been predicting Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz to raise his benchmark rate at next month’s meeting. But broadening economic unknowns — mostly linked to trade concerns around U.S. President Donald Trump’s protectionist agenda — have begun to lead some analysts to wonder if Poloz will stand pat on July 11.

And on Friday two reports from Statistics Canada added more uncertainty to the interest rate outlook.

One release by the agency found Canada’s annual inflation rose at a pace of 2.2 per cent in May for the second straight month. The number, however, was cooler than market expectations of 2.6 per cent.

In the second report, Statistics Canada found that retail sales contracted in April by 1.2 per cent for the reading’s first month-to-month decline since December.

“These reports kind of highlight an economy that has slowed pretty significantly from the last year or two,” Robert Kavcic, senior economist for BMO Capital Markets, said in an interview.

“Given a lot of the uncertainty out there, and a little bit of a softer tone to this data, I think expectations for a July rate hike have probably come down a little bit.”

Not ‘all that encouraging’

Royce Mendes of CIBC Capital Markets wrote in a report that Friday’s “bad data” make it even more difficult for the Bank of Canada to hike rates in July. Mendes noted, however, that things could improve before Poloz’s July 11 meeting because more important numbers on gross domestic product and employment are still on the way.

Nathan Janzen, RBC senior economist, said the combination of Friday’s figures, somewhat slower economic growth and a deteriorating tone in trade discussions with the U.S. “aren’t all that encouraging” and will make the Bank of Canada’s rate decision closer than previously thought.

Ranko Berich, head analyst at Monex Canada and Monex Europe, said the central bank’s July rate decision is “now an unknown factor.”

The hunt for clues into Poloz’s thinking will continue next Wednesday when he gives a speech to the chamber of commerce in Victoria, B.C.

The May annual inflation number in Friday’s report followed the 2.2 per cent reading for April and 2.3 per cent for March.

The main contributors to inflation last month were led by gasoline prices. Compared to a year earlier, they climbed 22.9 per cent in May and helped drive overall energy prices for the month 11.6 per cent higher.

Inflation also received a lift because Canadians paid more last month for restaurants, airline tickets and mortgage interest costs.

Consumers, however, paid less in May for telephone services, natural gas and digital devices and computers.

The report also found the average of the Bank of Canada’s three measures of core inflation, which leave out more-volatile numbers like pump prices, slowed to 1.9 per cent last month.

The core readings, which are closely monitored by the central bank, averaged 2.03 per cent in April, which was the strongest pace in six years.

On retail trade, the April contraction of 1.2 per cent pulled total sales down to $49.5 billion.

The May annual inflation number in Friday’s report followed the 2.2 per cent reading for April and 2.3 per cent for March.

The main contributors to inflation last month were led by gasoline prices. Compared to a year earlier, they climbed 22.9 per cent in May and helped drive overall energy prices for the month 11.6 per cent higher.

Inflation also received a lift because Canadians paid more last month for restaurants, airline tickets and mortgage interest costs.

Consumers, however, paid less in May for telephone services, natural gas and digital devices and computers.

The report also found the average of the Bank of Canada’s three measures of core inflation, which leave out more-volatile numbers like pump prices, slowed to 1.9 per cent last month.

The core readings, which are closely monitored by the central bank, averaged 2.03 per cent in April, which was the strongest pace in six years.

On retail trade, the April contraction of 1.2 per cent pulled total sales down to $49.5 billion.

Also On HuffPost:

The decision by Europe’s largest bank, HSBC, to halt funding for new projects in the oilsands has some wondering if other financial institutions, including U.S. banks and pension funds, will eventually follow suit — and what the impact that might have on Canada’s energy sector.

HSBC last Friday became the latest European bank to announce that it would no longer finance new greenfield oilsands, coal power plant and arctic drilling projects. It follows BNP Paribas and ING, both of which made similar announcements in the past year.

The company says it will still finance existing operations — it has a $6.1 billion wholesale loan portfolio in the energy sector and it says it will remain an engaged partner in the industry — but it will stop funding “new mines or in situ productions that are geographically separate from existing ones,” and new oilsands-dedicated pipelines, says Sharon Wilks, a spokesperson for HSBC Bank Canada.

The reason for the change in policy, says Wilks — and it’s why others have done the same — is that it wants to help meet Paris Agreement targets, specifically the goal of keeping global warming under 2 degrees Celsius.

“We are committed to doing our part in supporting the transition to a low carbon economy,” said Sandra Stuart, HSBC Bank Canada president and CEO, in a statement. “Our role is to help the country, its families and its businesses to adapt and responsibly balance a healthy economy with a healthy environment.”

While HSBC, ING and BNP don’t have as much of a presence in Canada’s energy sector as the major Canadian banks do, this move does raise the question of whether others will follow.

Changing investor mindset

Lisa Kramer, a professor of finance at Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, does think that this is the start of something bigger.

“It’s the beginning of a trend,” she says. “Many others are trying to align their investment with the support of a low carbon economy and the idea of addressing climate change.”

Watch: Alberta’s laid-off oil workers may now be replaced by machines

It’s no coincidence that it’s the European banks leading the way, she adds. While having less invested in the sector than their Canadian counterparts makes it easier for them to take a stand, its shareholders, which are global, are collectively more progressive than Canadian banks’ shareholders, who may have closer ties to the oilsands.

However, she does think Canada’s banks will eventually follow suit, especially as more millennials rise through the ranks.

“Investor mindset is changing, with more millennials increasing the trend of sustainable investing,” she says.

Continued demand for oil

Still, it’s unlikely the Canadian banks will join in any time soon, says Martin Pelletier, managing director and portfolio manager with Calgary’s TriVest Wealth Counsel.

According to the Rainforest Action Network’s Banking on Climate Change report, Canada’s big five banks are heavily invested in the sector, accounting for about $30 billion in financing in 2017. RBC led the way with more than $11 billion, while HSBC was seventh with $1.4 billion in funding.

“The Canadian banks provide funding across all sectors in Canada, so to pull funding for oilsands? I just don’t see it,” he says. “They have a different shareholder base and a lot of huge institutions in Canada own the banks. But I don’t see it impacting HSBC either.”

There’s another reason why Canada’s banks won’t be quick to follow: the oilsands are going to need financing for years to come, in part because of increasing demand for oil from China.

According to Canada’s National Energy Board, raw bitumen production should climb from just under 2.6 million barrels per day in 2016 to 4.5 million barrels per day by 2040. Most of that growth, though, will come from existing operations, which HSBC will continue to finance. Greenfield projects will account for a sliver of that growth.

“People in China want to move their families forward, but when they do, when they go from walking to biking to driving, the cheapest, most available and easily transportable source of energy is fossil fuels by a large margin,” says Jim Davidson, deputy chairman with Calgary’s GMP First Energy.

While Davidson isn’t a fan of HSBC’s move, he says it’s possible that decisions like theirs will influence other institutions.

“There is a possibility,” he says, that U.S. banks, many of which do fund oilsands projects, could decide to change their policies, too, he says. “The world is worried about the environment.”

However, it will still be a long time before Canada’s energy sector finds itself at risk of losing financial backing.

“Regardless of whether the world moves forward to a renewable energy system, which I ultimately believe will transpire, it won’t be in our lifetimes,” Davidson says. “Demand for hydrocarbons is growing every year. It’s a viable business.”

Pressure on pension funds

If the sector should be concerned about anything it’s the pressure some of the country’s pension plans are under to divest from the oilsands.

For instance, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan has been admonished by many of its members for holding billions in oilsands assets. It holds shares in Exxon and Kinder Morgan and owns Cenovus, an oilsands extractor that it bought for $3.3 billion in 2015.

If pension plans to were abandon the oilsands, “that would be a big deal,” says Pelletier. “That’s a story that would get attention.”

In the shorter term, though, the energy industry has other things to worry about than financing, says Pelletier. The Trans Mountain saga may be scaring off foreign investors, while looser regulations in the U.S. are making Canada less attractive to potential financiers. That in itself may reduce the need for financing.

“Are companies going to expand their capital programs in this current environment?” asks Pelletier. “Probably not. So, there may not be a need for additional financing.”

In time, HSBC will likely be seen as being ahead of the curve, says Kramer. Canadians are more aligned with Europeans on climate change than they may be with Americans, at least with the current administration, and will push energy sector companies and financial institutions to become more environmentally friendly.

“I’m optimistic that Canadian companies will do their part to support the sorts of initiatives that we’ve entered into as a country,” she says.

BEIJING — The United States and China hiked tariffs Friday on billions of dollars of each other’s goods, launching what Beijing called the “biggest trade war in economic history” in a spiraling dispute over technology.

The Trump administration is confronting Beijing over development tactics it says include stealing or pressuring foreign companies to hand over technology. American officials worry Chinese plans to create tech champions in fields including robotics, biotech and artificial intelligence will erode U.S. industrial leadership.

Washington imposed 25 per cent duties on $34 billion of imports from China in the first in a possible series of increases that President Donald Trump says could affect up to $550 billion of Chinese goods.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry said “retaliatory tariffs” took effect. The Communist Party newspaper People’s Daily said they were imposed on a $34 billion list of goods issued last month that included soybeans, pork and electric vehicles.

Washington has “ignited the biggest trade war in economic history,” said a Commerce Ministry statement.

Companies worry the spiraling dispute could chill global economic growth. Chinese exporters have reported U.S. orders fell off ahead of the tariff hike. But Asian financial markets took Friday’s developments in stride.

Chronic tension in relationship

Japan’s main stock index, the Nikkei 225, gained 1.1 per cent while the Shanghai Composite Index added 0.5 per cent. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng also rose 0.5 per cent.

The conflict between the world’s two biggest economies reflects chronic tension in their relationship as customers, business partners and increasingly as competitors. It also is rooted in the clash between American notions of free trade and Beijing’s state-led development model.

China’s ruling Communist Party has insisted on making changes at its own pace while sticking to state-directed technology development seen as the path to prosperity and global influence. Beijing has announced reforms this year including ending limits on foreign ownership in its auto industry, but none directly addresses complaints that are fueling its conflict with Washington.

On Thursday, Trump said higher tariffs on an additional $16 billion in Chinese goods were set to take effect in two weeks.

After that, the hostilities could intensify: Trump said Washington is ready to target an additional $200 billion in Chinese imports — and then $300 billion more — if Beijing does not yield.

That would bring the total of targeted Chinese goods to $550 billion — more than the $506 billion in goods that China shipped to the United States last year.

Washington alienated potential allies with other tariffs

Chinese officials reject accusations they steal or force foreign companies to hand over technology. But rules on auto manufacturing and other industries do require companies to work through state-owned partners, obliging them to share know-how with potential competitors.

Other governments express similar complaints toward Beijing, but Washington has alienated potential allies by raising import duties on steel, aluminum and autos from Europe, Canada, Mexico and Japan. Some have responded by hiking their own tariffs on U.S. goods.

Trump’s confrontational outlook applies to other trading partners as well as China, said Tai Hui, chief strategist for JP Morgan Asset Management, in a report.

“This is a potential concern for the outlook of corporate investment and consumption around world,” Hui said.

The official China Daily newspaper accused the Trump administration of “behaving like a gang of hoodlums.” It said they would damage the global economy unless other countries stop them.

“There should be no doubting Beijing’s resolve,” the newspaper said.

Forecasters say global economic growth could be reduced by up to 0.5 percentage points in 2019-20 if both sides wind up raising tariffs on $250 billion of imports.

The American Chamber of Commerce in China appealed to both sides to negotiate.

“There are no winners in a trade war,” the chamber’s chairman, William Zarit, said in a statement. Companies want fairer treatment but will be hurt by U.S.-Chinese tensions, Zarit said. “We urge the two governments to come back to the negotiation table.”

Also On HuffPost: