Margin Trading and Cryptocurrency Investment Among U.S. Investors: Evidence from the National Financial Capability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the relationship between margin trading and cryptocurrency investment using data from the 2018 and 2021 waves of the National Financial Capability Study (NFCS) Investor Survey. Guided by behavioral finance theory, which suggests that cognitive biases may influence risk-taking, the study explored whether margin loan use and margin calls are associated with higher cryptocurrency participation. Margin loans are inherently risky, as they must be repaid regardless of investment outcomes, and margin calls are triggered when an investor’s equity falls below a required threshold. The results showed a positive and statistically significant association between margin activity and cryptocurrency investment. Specifically, individuals with a margin loan were 17 percentage points more likely to invest in cryptocurrency, while those who have experienced a margin call were 23 percentage points more likely. Given the extreme volatility of cryptocurrencies, these results highlight the increased risks investors face when using leverage in speculative markets. The analysis is based on cross-sectional data from U.S. investors; therefore, the findings should be interpreted as correlational rather than causal.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".