Time-Varying Relation between Oil Shocks and European Stock Market Returns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers a time-varying parameter vector autoregression model to analyze the varying impact of three types of structural oil shocks (the supply-side shock, the aggregate demand shock, and the oil-specific demand shock) on the European stock market since the 1990s. Our findings show that the three types of oil shocks heterogeneously influence stock market returns in the euro area, and that this influence considerably changes over time during the period considered. First, an unexpected increase in oil supply appears to exert a positive but generally declining effect in the period before the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2007–2009, which descends into negative values after the GFC. Second, an unanticipated increase in aggregate demand triggers a generally positive effect on stock market returns in the euro area. However, in the period from 2003 to 2005, stock market returns responded negatively, which could be attributed to the so-called growth-retarding effect. Third, an unexpected increase in oil-specific demand instigates a negative response in the pre-GFC period (considering the response 4–5 months after the shock), although this changes to a positive effect thereafter. Interestingly, irrespective of the origin of oil price fluctuations, oil price increases are associated with positive European stock market returns after the GFC. This signals a greater degree of oil market financialization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".