Oil Price, Oil Price Implied Volatility (OVX) and Illiquidity Premiums in the US: (A)symmetry and the Impact of Macroeconomic Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examine the impact of oil price and oil price volatility on US illiquidity premiums (return on illiquid-minus-liquid stocks), using the US Oil Fund options implied volatility OVX index. We use daily data from 2007 to 2018, taking into account the structural break in June 2009 and controlling for macroeconomic factors. Both OLS and VAR models indicate that oil price has a significantly positive impact and OVX has a significantly negative impact on premiums, for the full sample and post-crisis period. These relationships are potentially driven by investor sentiments and market liquidity. Oil price has a negative impact on premiums during the crisis period. Using an autoregressive distribution lag model and an error correction model, we analyse long- and short-run elasticities. We find that oil price has a significantly positive impact on premiums both in the long- and short-run, for the full sample and post-crisis period. OVX only has a significantly negative impact in the short-run for the full sample. The reverting mechanism to establish long-run equilibrium is effective for the full sample and post-crisis period. Illiquidity premiums do not show any asymmetric responses to oil price changes but we do find evidence of asymmetric response to OVX changes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".