Bitcoin's hedging attributes against equity market volatility: empirical evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the hedging capacity of Bitcoin in relation to the S&P 500 index during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design/methodology/approach In order to investigate the hedging features of Bitcoin in relation to the S&P 500 index during the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors use the Granger causality applied on a daily sample of observations ranging from January 1st, 2019 to December 31st, 2020. As robustness checks, the authors use autoregressive models to test the validity of the findings. Findings Using time series of daily data from 1st January 2019 to 31st December 2020, the results show that Bitcoin is not considered as a safe haven because it moves at the same pace as the S&P 500. As a robustness check, the authors use the exponential GARCH model and confirm our previous findings. Overall, the study contributes to the debate on both COVID-19's impact on financial systems and the hypothesis of Bitcoin being a safe haven during extreme global crises. Originality/value The study contributes to the debate on both COVID-19's impact on financial systems and the hypothesis of Bitcoin being a safe haven during extreme global crises.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".