Do Oil-Rich GCC Countries Finance US Current Account Deficit?

Given the secrecy that wraps the flows of the GCC countries petrodollar surpluses to the United States and the pressures on these countries to spend and recycle more, this study attempts to uncover the direct and reverse causal relationships between the GCC financial accounts and the US current account deficit. It examines whether the GCC petrodollar surpluses are a global savings glut (an external factor) that causes the US current account deficit or in contrary this deficit is home-grown and the petrodollar savings glut hypothesis does not hold. It particularly focuses on worlds largest oil exporter to find out if the homegrown deficit hypothesis for the worlds largest oil consumer holds. It also investigates which types of investments or components of GCC financial accounts help cause the US deficit the most. The implications and policy recommendations for this growing source of global external imbalances are also provided. --Capital account,Financial account,Direct and reverse causality

Monetary Policy And Stock Returns: The Case Of Turkey

This paper investigates how much of the variance in stock returns can be explained by monetary policy for the case of Turkey. We extend the work of Ewing (2001a) for the case of Turkey by using the newly developed generalized forecast error variance decomposition technique [Koop et al. (1996), Pesaran and Shin (1998)]. Results suggest that the growth rate of money supply contain significant information for predicting variance of future forecast errors of stock returns. The results provide information which is important for building accurate asset pricing models, forecasting future stock market volatility and furthers our understanding of stock market behavior in Turkey

Causality Between Market Liquidity and Depth for Energy and Grains

This paper examines the roles of futures prices of crude oil, gasoline, ethanol, corn, soybeans and sugar in the energy-grain nexus. It also investigates the own- and cross-market impacts for lagged grain trading volume and open interest in the energy and grain markets. According to the results, the conventional view, for which the impacts are from oil to gasoline to ethanol to grains in the energy-grain nexus, does not hold well in the long run because the oil price is influenced by gasoline, soybeans and oil. Moreover, gasoline is preceded by only the oil price and ethanol is not foreshadowed by any of the prices. However, in the short run, two-way feedback in both directions exists in all markets. The grain trading volume effect across oil and gasoline is more pronounced in the short run than the long run, satisfying both the overconfidence/disposition and new information hypotheses across markets. The results for the ethanol open interest shows that money flows out of this market in both the short and long run, but no results suggest across market inflows or outflows to the other grain markets.Causality, market liquidity, depth, energy, grains.

Do Oil-Rich GCC Countries Finance US Current Account Deficit?

Given the secrecy that wraps the flows of the GCC countries' petrodollar surpluses to the United States and the pressures on these countries to spend and recycle more, this study attempts to uncover the direct and reverse causal relationships between the GCC financial accounts and the US current account deficit. It examines whether the GCC petrodollar surpluses are a global savings glut (an external factor) that causes the US current account deficit or in contrary this deficit is home-grown and the petrodollar savings glut hypothesis does not hold. It particularly focuses on world's largest oil exporter to find out if the homegrown deficit hypothesis for the world's largest oil consumer holds. It also investigates which types of investments or components of GCC financial accounts help cause the US deficit the most. The implications and policy recommendations for this growing source of global external imbalances are also provided

Causality Between Market Liquidity and Depth for Energy and Grains

This paper examines the roles of futures prices of crude oil, gasoline, ethanol, corn, soybeans and sugar in the energy-grain nexus. It also investigates the own- and cross-market impacts for lagged grain trading volume and open interest in the energy and grain markets. According to the results, the conventional view, for which the impacts are from oil to gasoline to ethanol to grains in the energy-grain nexus, does not hold well in the long run because the oil price is influenced by gasoline, soybeans and oil. Moreover, gasoline is preceded by only the oil price and ethanol is not foreshadowed by any of the prices. However, in the short run, two-way feedback in both directions exists in all markets. The grain trading volume effect across oil and gasoline is more pronounced in the short run than the long run, satisfying both the overconfidence/disposition and new information hypotheses across markets. The results for the ethanol open interest shows that money flows out of this market in both the short and long run, but no results suggest across market inflows or outflows to the other grain markets.Causality, market liquidity, depth, energy, grains.

The study of once- and twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) with sitagliptin, and twice-daily BIAsp 30 without sitagliptin, in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on sitagliptin and metformin—The Sit2Mix trial

AbstractAimsInvestigate efficacy and tolerability of intensifying diabetes treatment with once- or twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) added to sitagliptin, and twice-daily BIAsp 30 without sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled on sitagliptin.MethodsOpen-label, three-arm, 24-week trial; 582 insulin-naïve patients were randomized to twice-daily BIAsp 30+sitagliptin (BIAsp BID+Sit), once-daily BIAsp 30+sitagliptin (BIAsp QD+Sit) or twice-daily BIAsp 30 without sitagliptin (BIAsp BID), all with metformin.ResultsAfter 24 weeks, HbA1c reduction (%) was superior with BIAsp BID+Sit vs. BIAsp QD+Sit (BIAsp BID+Sit minus BIAsp QD+Sit difference: −0.36 [95% CI –0.54; –0.17], P<0.001) and BIAsp BID (BIAsp BID minus BIAsp BID+Sit difference: 0.24 [0.06; 0.43], P=0.01). Observed final HbA1c values were 6.9%, 7.2% and 7.1% (baseline 8.4%), and 59.8%, 46.5% and 49.7% of patients achieved HbA1c <7.0%, respectively. Confirmed hypoglycaemia was lower with BIAsp QD+Sit vs. BIAsp BID (P=0.015); rate: 1.17 (BIAsp QD+Sit), 1.50 (BIAsp BID+Sit) and 2.24 (BIAsp BID) episodes/patient-year. Difference in bodyweight change favoured BIAsp QD+Sit vs. both BID groups (P<0.001).ConclusionsAdding BIAsp 30 to patients with T2D poorly controlled with sitagliptin and metformin is efficacious and well tolerated; however, while BIAsp BID+Sit showed superior glycaemic control, BIAsp QD+Sit had a lower rate of hypoglycaemia and showed no weight gain