Is Bitcoin a Safe Haven for Indian Investors? A GARCH Volatility Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper attempts to understand the dynamic interrelationships and financial asset capabilities of Bitcoin by analysing several aspects of its volatility vis-a-vis other asset classes. This study aims to analyse the volatility dynamics of the returns of Bitcoin. An asymmetric GARCH model (EGARCH) is used to investigate whether Bitcoin may be useful in risk management and ideal for risk-averse investors in anticipation of negative shocks to the market (leverage effect). This paper also examines Bitcoin as an investment and hedge alternative to gold as well as NSE NIFTY using a multivariate DCC GARCH model. DCC GARCH models are also used to check whether correlation (co-movement) between the markets is time-varying, examine returns and volatility spillovers between markets and the effect of the outbreak of COVID-19 in India on the investigated markets. The results show that given the supply of Bitcoin is fixed, low returns realisation is equivalent to excess supply over demand wherein investors are selling off Bitcoin during bad times. The positive co-movement between Bitcoin and gold during the COVID-19 outbreak shows that investors perceived Bitcoin as a relatively safe investment. However, overall analysis shows that Bitcoin was not considered a safe hedge and an investment option by Indian investors during the study period.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".