Do Bubbles in the Bitcoin Market Impact Stock Markets? Evidence From 10 Major Stock Markets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we examine the effect of explosive behaviors in the Bitcoin market on the top 10 largest stock markets of developed and emerging countries. The daily dataset, including the Dow Jones Industrial Index (DJIA), Nasdaq (NSQ), Shanghai Composite Index (SSE), Nikkei 225 (N225), Hang Seng Index (HSI), Shenzhen Composite Index (SZSE), Euronext Amsterdam Index (AEX), London Stock Exchange (LSE), Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX), and Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), spans July 21, 2010, to December 9, 2022. We first investigate the existence of explosive price behaviors using the bubble detection test of Phillips and Shi and the results provide evidence of multiple bubble episodes, coinciding with the monetary policy actions of the FED and ECB. Then, we address the question of whether the explosive behaviors detected affect the variance of equity returns by employing a GARCH model. The impact is negative, albeit its magnitude and significance vary among stock indices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".