Energy and Bank Equity Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oil price shocks harm real output and bank and industrial profit in most oil-importing countries, which has motivated us to investigate the impact of these shocks on the equity performance of banking industries. To fulfill the research objectives, we involve a sample of developed and emerging economies for comparison purposes. The objective of employing the Toda and Yamamoto (Journal of econometrics, 1995, 66 (1), 225–250) causality test is to explore the time-variant relationship between oil prices and banking indices to investigate how oil price shocks affect the performance of country-specific banking industries. In addition, an impulse response function and variance decomposition analysis are utilized to, respectively, examine the time-variant relationship between oil price shocks and macroeconomic factors and the performance of the banking sector. Results vary across different economies in our sample, but the magnitude of oil price impact is relatively significant in the US, the UK, Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Brazil. The findings indicate that oil price rises adversely affect equity bank indices in developed and emerging economics except for Mexico. Notably, our findings show that oil prices and interest rates jointly have significant power in explaining the banking equity variation and suggest that international bank portfolio investors should consider hedging oil price risk.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".