An Event Study on the Reaction of Equity and Commodity Markets to the Onset of the Russia–Ukraine Conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a standard event study methodology and the EGARCH model, this study examined the depth of market anomaly at the onset of the Russia–Ukraine conflict in 2022. Equity markets in Africa and G7 nations were analyzed for their varied political and economic connections to the conflict. While the G7 nations were strongly opposed to Russia, African countries remained neutral. This study shows that abnormal losses in the initial period of the conflict were larger and more persistent in the G7 markets, contradicting the widely held notion that more developed equity markets are more efficient than the less developed markets. EGARCH results revealed that volatility persistence was widely present, although the leverage effect was only confirmed for U.S. and Canada. Throughout the period, commodity prices rose sharply, producing significant abnormal gains in the futures market. Unfortunately, this had a deleterious effect on African economies due to their heavy reliance on grain and fuel imports, all of which are priced in U.S. dollars, and which also rose sharply during the period. This study concludes with suggestions on how to mitigate currency and commodity price shocks to dollar-reliant and import-dependent economies.
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 | 0.005 | 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".