Oil Market Factors as a Source of Commonality in Liquidity in International Equity Markets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When stock markets are less liquid or illiquid, investors are expected to require compensation for taking the risk of not being able to sell quickly. Many studies have documented the existence of the co-movements (commonality) of market liquidity in equity markets as a priced factor. The primary objective of this paper is to introduce the oil market as a potential source of commonality in liquidity. We hypothesize that conditions specific to the oil market can contribute to commonality in liquidity affecting both supply-side and demand-side factors because of its importance to the global economy in general. To this aim, a sample of firms is drawn from 50 countries spanning the period from January 1995 to December 2015. We examine two channels that transmit the effect of oil market movements to the liquidity commonality in international equity markets, namely, oil price returns and oil price volatility. Seemingly unrelated regressions (SUR) are utilized to estimate the effect of oil factors on commonality in liquidity. We find that the returns and volatility of oil prices explain the commonality in liquidity in countries with higher integration with oil markets. In addition, we show that the effect of oil volatility is more pronounced for net oil exporters as opposed to net oil importers after controlling for oil sensitivity. These results are robust to controlling for possible sources of commonality in liquidity as found in the literature and alternative estimation specifications.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".