Cryptocurrencies and G7 capital markets integrate in periods of extreme volatility?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine the synchronism between the US capital markets (DJ, S&P 500), the United Kingdom (FTSE 100), Canada (S&P/TSX), Germany (DAX 30), France (CAC 40), Japan (Nikkei 225), Italy (Italy Ds Market and major cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin (BTC), Litecoin (LTC), Ethereum (ETH), and the Crypto 10 index, from February 2018 to November 2021. Based on the findings, we found that BTC and ETH cryptocurrencies drastically reduced their level of integration with their peers over the 2020 worldwide pandemic era, whereas LTC maintained. We also discovered that the Dow Jones, S&P 500, and DAX 30 stock indexes lowered their level of integration when compared to the pre-covid subperiod. For the UK capital market (FTSE 100), Canada (S&P/TSX), Japan (Nikkei 225), France (CAC 40), and Italy (Italy Ds Market) the level of integration increased significantly. These findings support, in part, our research question, that during periods of stress and uncertainty in the global economy capital markets tend towards integration, thus calling into question the hypothesis of efficient portfolio diversification.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".