THE IMPACT OF THE PERSIAN GULF CRISIS ON NATIONAL EQUITY MARKETS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractThis paper uses the mean-adjusted returns and the market and risk-adjusted returns event-study methodologies to analyze the response of national equity markets to the Persian Gulf Crisis. Daily cumulative abnormal returns are computed for 16 national stock markets and three portfolios of national markets. The main empirical findings are: (1) the Persian Gulf Crisis had a negative effect on equity prices; (2) the Oil Crisis had a greater negative effect on the European, Asian, and Australian markets than on the American and Canadian markets; (3) the initiation of the Gulf War had a much lesser impact in the equity market prices than the invasion of Kuwait; (4) the national markets reacted to both events, the invasion of Kuwait and the start of the Gulf War with lags of two to three days. The negative abnormal returns following the invasion of Kuwait seem to reflect investors' fear of a long armed conflict in the Middle East. On the other hand, the positive abnormal returns following the initiation of the War suggest that investors expected a quick end to the Gulf War. Our results confirm the important role played by oil prices in the world economies and the limitations of international diversification. The efficiency of equity markets is also reflected in the fact that several national markets responded to the Persian Gulf Crisis according to the country's dependence on oil imports.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".