MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206252910 · doi:10.3389/fenrg.2021.595060

Energy and Bank Equity Interactions

2021· article· en· W3206252910 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohammed Sharaf Shaiban, Di Li, Akram Shavkatovich Hasanov

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Energy Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariance decomposition of forecast errorsEconomicsEquity (law)Monetary economicsOil priceEmerging marketsPortfolioEconometricsFinancial economicsMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Energy ResearchSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207