standOff. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote shown on the same row, so the borrowing can be checked against the thing borrowed from without leaving this page. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| unrecordable relation | unhoused_relations | a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason |
The reference list is not part of the text we hold for this paper. Our copy was extracted from the publisher's page and the bibliography did not survive that extraction, so the article below ends before its references. Nothing has been removed by us.
Abstract. Abstract concepts↗The Covid-19 bear market presents the first acute market losses since active trading of Bitcoin began. This market downturn provides a timely test of the frequently expounded safe haven properties of Bitcoin. claim_typecontent_tagsIn this paper, we show that Bitcoin does not act as a safe haven, instead decreasing in price in lockstep with the S&P 500 as the crisis develops. When held alongside the S&P 500, even a small allocation to Bitcoin substantially increases portfolio downside risk. Our empirical findings cast doubt on the ability of Bitcoin to provide shelter from turbulence in traditional markets. Keywords: Bitcoin, Safe haven, Downside risk, Covid-19 1. Introduction Bitcoin has been proposed as a safe haven for traditional assets for many reasons, including independence from monetary policy, a role as a store of value and limited correlation with traditional assets. limitations1 While many of these arguments are compelling, empirical tests of the safe haven properties of Bitcoin have been devoid of a central component, a severe financial markets crisis. contributionphenomenonunhoused_relationsIn this paper, we provide a first assessment of the safe haven properties of Bitcoin during a period of significant turmoil in financial markets, the Covid-19 bear market. research_questionsenses2 Specifically, we examine whether an investor with a proportion of wealth allocated to Bitcoin can reduce their exposure to downside risk relative to a portfolio consisting only of equities. Investor loss aversion implies a greater sensitivity to acute losses than gains and has been demonstrated in experimental settings ( Tversky and Kahneman, 1991 ). mechanisms↗Such loss aversion leads to alterations in optimal portfolio choice ( Berkelaar et al., 2004 ) and may prompt investors to seek out safe haven investments such as gold ( Conlon, Lucey, Uddin, 2018 , Bredin, Conlon, Potì, 2015 , Baur, Lucey, 2010 ). 3 In recent years, the growing popularity of cryptocurrencies has inspired numerous studies of their diversification, hedging and safe haven properties ( Urquhart, Zhang, 2019 , Smales, 2019 , Shahzad, Bouri, Roubaud, Kristoufek, Lucey, 2019 , Kliber, Marszałek, Musiałkowska, Świerczyńska, 2019 , Guesmi, Saadi, Abid, Ftiti, 2019 , Aysan, Demir, Gozgor, Lau, 2019 , Corbet, Meegan, Larkin, Lucey, Yarovaya, 2018 , Bouri, Molnár, Azzi, Roubaud, Hagfors, 2017 ). The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic and associated financial turbulence has led to a profusion of working papers, some examining cryptocurrency implications ( Alfaro, Chari, Greenland, Schott, 2020 , Corbet, Hu, Lucey, Oxley, 2020 , Corbet, Larkin, Lucey, 2020 , Jabotinsky, Sarel , Jana, Das ). Goodell (2020) , in particular, sets out a research agenda highlighting possible impacts of COVID-19 on financial markets and institutions. We build upon the previous literature by providing an assessment of the safe haven properties of Bitcoin for a traditional asset during a period of acute price decreases in equity markets. Diversification benefits across assets have been shown to decrease in times of high market volatility ( Campbell et al., 2002 ). Although not examined through a period of acute losses, Bitcoin has also been shown to correlate positively with downward markets ( Klein et al., 2018 ), implying that it may act as a store of value during severe market declines. Moreover, Bitcoin is independent of monetary policies and, similar to commodities such as gold, limited in quantity by mining constraints. On this basis we hypothesize that Bitcoin acts as a safe-haven for the S&P 500 during the Covid-19 market downturn. The early empirical evidence regarding Bitcoin’s hedging and safe-haven properties are not, however, comprehensively supported. Bouri et al. (2017a) demonstrate that Bitcoin has limited hedging properties and only has safe-haven characteristics for Asian stocks. Baur et al. (2018) demonstrate that Bitcoin is mainly employed as a speculative investment. mechanisms↗This speculative nature may result in selling pressure during extreme downward markets, providing limited effectiveness as a store of value ( Yermack, 2015 ). Given this background, we propose an alternative testable hypothesis: Bitcoin is not a safe-haven for S&P 500 investors during the Covid-19 pandemic. We explicitly test whether any diversification benefits from holding Bitcoin are evident in the highly volatility market associated with the Covid-19 crisis. method↗concept_edgesconcept_edgesSpecifically, we quantify the relative change in portfolio value at risk (VaR) and conditional value at risk (CVaR), two common measures of downside risk. In calculating VaR and CVaR, we employ the Cornish-Fisher expansion, a method appropriate to incorporate higher-order distributional characteristics associated with extreme price movements. controlsSpecifically, we follow the approach of Bredin et al. (2017) , by accounting for skewness and kurtosis in a four-moment downside risk framework. Our empirical findings contribute to the literature assessing the effectiveness of safe haven assets. We are among the first papers to isolate the safe haven properties of Bitcoin during a severe market downturn. content_tagsOur analysis indicates that adding Bitcoin to a portfolio results in increased downside risk relative to holding the S&P 500 alone. This important result is shown to hold across a range of different allocation weightings and periods. These findings indicate that, rather than acting as a safe haven, Bitcoin may instead increase portfolio risk during periods when investors most crave respite from market turmoil. The implication is that investors should not rely on Bitcoin as an alternative asset which provides shelter from turbulence in traditional markets. 2. concepts↗Methodology - Downside risk measurement For a portfolio with normally distributed returns, two-moment value at risk (VaR) may be employed to measure the level of tail or downside risk. content_tags↗4 For a given confidence level, two-moment VaR is defined as the maximum expected loss on a portfolio over a given time interval and is calculated using: (1) V a R p ( 1 − α ) = μ p − σ p z ( α ) , where z ( α ) is the α quantile of the standardized distribution, and μ p and σ p are the mean and standard deviation of portfolio returns respectively. When the empirical distribution of returns is normal, the VaR of an asset is just a constant multiple of the standard deviation of asset returns. limitationsIt has been heavily documented that financial asset returns do not follow a normal distribution, making it likely that two moment VaR will not accurately capture the risk associated with potentially large non-normal returns. This is particularly true of Bitcoin, which has been shown to be subject to bubble-like dynamics, extreme price movements and price clustering ( Corbet, Lucey, Urquhart, Yarovaya, 2019 , Corbet, Lucey, Yarovaya, 2018 , Urquhart, 2017 ). We use the four-moment modified VaR, first defined by Favre and Galeano (2002) , to understand the downside risk of a portfolio combining equities and Bitcoin. mechanisms↗concepts↗The Cornish-Fisher expansion, which adjusts the quantiles of a distribution to account for the higher-order moments of skewness and kurtosis, is used to calculate four-moment modified VaR. This expansion approximates the quantile of the distribution as: (2) Z ^ ( α , S p , K p ) = z ( α ) + 1 6 ( z ( α ) 2 − 1 ) S p + … 1 24 ( z ( α ) 3 − 3 z ( α ) ) K p − 1 36 ( 2 z ( α ) 3 − 5 z ( α ) ) S p 2 , where μ p , σ p , S p and K p are the mean, standard deviation, skewness and excess kurtosis of portfolio P. z ( α ) is the α quantile of the standard normal distribution. Using the Cornish-Fisher expansion, modified four-moment VaR is then given by (3) M V a R p ( 1 − α ) = μ p − σ p Z ^ ( α , S p , K p ) . This adjusts the two-moment VaR ( Eq. (1) ) to account for distributional characteristics commonly found in financial time series. concepts↗content_tags↗Conditional value at risk (or expected shortfall) is the loss expectation, conditional on the loss being larger than MVaR p , and we define modified CVaR as: (4) M C V a R p = E ( R p | R p > M V a R p ) , where R p is the negative log return. MCVaR p is calculated numerically, taking an average of MVaR p across the range of quantiles greater than 1 − α . controlsconcepts↗content_tags↗Relative portfolio risk is measured as a function of the portfolio downside risk with an allocation to Bitcoin relative to a portfolio holding only the S&P 500. For MVaR (MCVaR), this is given by M V a R m i x M V a R S & P ( M C V a R m i x M C V a R S & P ), where MVaR mix and MCVaR mix are downside risk measures representing the mix portfolio containing S & P 500 and Bitcoin, respectively. 3. Data Daily price data for the S&P 500 are obtained from Thompson Reuters Eikon. Price data for Bitcoin are obtained from Coinmetrics, using their CM reference rates. controlsThese rates are constructed using a methodology which adheres to the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) Principles for Financial Benchmarks. 5 We first provide some illustrative price movements beginning at the market inflection point (or market top) in the S&P 500 which occurred on February 13 th 2020. controlsWe then provide summary statistics and downside risk reduction characteristics over three periods. content_tagsThe first encompasses the entire available price history for Bitcoin, from July 2010 - March 2020. The second, following Conlon and McGee (2019) and Urquhart (2016) , considers the period from April 2016 from which the Bitcoin market is more efficient. content_tagsFinally, we examine a one-year period stretching from March 21 st 2019 through March 20 th 2020, focusing upon a time-frame encompassing the recent Covid-19 market crisis. 4. Empirical findings We first illustrate the safe haven properties of Bitcoin in a qualitative manner, examining price movements post the inflection point where the bear market in equities begins, Fig. 1 . 6 This provides some initial guidance regarding the safe haven properties of Bitcoin. content_tagsDuring the decline in the S&P 500, Bitcoin is observed to generally move in lockstep with the market, decreasing by more than the S&P 500 over the bear market period under consideration. These qualitative results provide an initial indication that Bitcoin investments may increase portfolio risk rather than acting as a safe haven. Fig. 1 Price Changes in S&P 500 and Bitcoin (February-March 2020) Both the S&P 500 and Bitcoin price series are standardised to a starting price of 100 on 19 th February 2020. Fig. 1 Table 1 highlights summary statistics for returns corresponding to the S&P 500, Bitcoin and a mix portfolio consisting of 10% Bitcoin and 90% S&P 500. content_tags↗For each of the periods under consideration we see that Bitcoin has higher returns, a larger standard deviation and greater excess kurtosis. content_tagsOver the entire period considered an investor in Bitcoin would have increased their wealth over 11 times relative to their initial investment. content_tagsThe maximum one day loss for Bitcoin is 66.49% compared with 12.77% for the S&P 500. Table 1 Summary Statistics. This table details summary statistics for the S&P 500, Bitcoin and a portfolio consisting of an allocation of 90% to S&P 500 and 10% to Bitcoin. concept_edgesconcept_edgesValue at risk and Conditional Value at Risk are calculated using the Cornish-Fisher expansion. Summary statistics are given in percentage terms and mean and standard deviation are annualized. Table 1 2010–2020 2016–2020 2019–2020 S&P 500 Bitcoin Portfolio S&P 500 Bitcoin Portfolio S&P 500 Bitcoin Portfolio Mean 7.93 116.36 18.77 2.83 67.98 9.35 −19.39 46.0 −12.84 Standard Deviation 16.45 100.27 18.61 17.68 78.41 18.93 27.52 87.94 28.85 Skewness −1.44 −0.54 −1.57 −2.39 −0.84 −2.89 −2.17 −2.16 −2.84 Kurtosis 20.12 13.38 19.82 32.93 10.97 37.86 19.56 21.29 25.09 Cumulative Return 76.62 1,124.39 181.40 11.25 269.75 37.10 −20.32 42.64 −14.02 Max One Day Loss −12.77 −66.49 −13.70 −12.77 −47.06 −13.70 −12.77 −47.06 −13.70 VaR (1%) 6.81 31.33 7.51 9.90 22.10 11.19 10.34 34.87 11.75 VaR (5%) 1.70 9.54 1.92 1.79 8.17 1.88 3.31 9.96 3.48 CVaR (1%) 11.28 50.17 12.37 17.17 33.56 19.53 16.18 55.97 18.65 CVaR (5%) 4.91 23.22 5.43 6.89 16.88 7.74 7.71 25.56 8.65 VaR and CVaR at a 1% and 5% confidence level are also shown in Table 1 . content_tags↗Regardless of the metric or confidence level examined, Bitcoin is found to have vastly greater downside risk than the S&P 500. Our primary interest is the change in downside risk for the mix portfolio, relative to that associated with the S&P 500. content_tagsAt a 1% confidence level, we observe a 13.6% increase in VaR over the 2019 − 2020 period for a portfolio holding 10% Bitcoin relative to the S&P 500. content_tagsSimilarly, for CVaR at a 1% confidence level, we find a 15.3% increase from 16.18% for the S&P 500 to 18.65% for the mix portfolio. Similar findings are observed during the other periods examined. limitationsThese findings, while limited to a potentially suboptimal Bitcoin allocation, highlight that Bitcoin may result in increased portfolio risk, discrediting the safe haven hypothesis for Bitcoin. controls7 For robustness, we examine a comprehensive range of Bitcoin allocation weightings, with a focus on assessing the change in downside risk relative to holding only the S&P 500. content_tags↗The results, detailed in Fig. 2 , focus on downside risk at a 1% confidence interval. content_tagsFor all allocation weights, we find increased portfolio VaR and CVaR for a portfolio containing Bitcoin relative to the S&P 500 alone. mechanisms↗Moreover, relative downside risk increases monotonically for larger allocations to Bitcoin. content_tagsAny allocation greater than 28% results in at least a 50% increase in the baseline level of downside risk an S&P 500 investor is exposed to over this period. Similar results are found for the other cohorts examined. content_tagsTogether with the earlier analysis, these findings provide strong empirical evidence that Bitcoin does not consistently act as a safe haven for the S&P 500 during times of crisis. content_tagsIndeed, during the periods we consider, any inclusion of Bitcoin in a portfolio with the S&P 500 increases the level of downside risk an investor is exposed to. Fig. 2 Relative portfolio risk for different Bitcoin allocation weights. Relative VaR (CVaR) shows the increase in VaR (CVaR) for a portfolio with proportional allocation to Bitcoin relative to a portfolio holding only the S&P 500. Fig. 2 5. Conclusions The bear market ensuing from the Covid-19 pandemic provides an initial testing ground for the safe haven properties of Bitcoin. Examining the impact upon an S&P 500 portfolio diversified with an allocation to Bitcoin, our results indicate that Bitcoin does not act as a safe haven. content_tagsDuring the period under consideration, we find that the S&P 500 and Bitcoin move in lockstep, resulting in increased downside risk for an investor with an allocation to Bitcoin. CRediT authorship contribution statement Thomas Conlon: Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Methodology, Conceptualization. Richard McGee: Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Methodology, Conceptualization. Acknowledgement This publication has emanated from research conducted with the financial support of Science Foundation Ireland under Grant Number 16/SPP/3347 and 13/RC/2106 and 17/SP/5447. Footnotes Appendix A. Supplementary materials Supplementary Data S1 Supplementary Raw Research Data. This is open data under the CC BY license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Supplementary Data S1
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 4 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
This record holds no relations between claims. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| research_question | whether Bitcoin reduces S&P 500 downside risk during the COVID-19 bear market | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | first crisis-period test rejecting Bitcoin as an equity safe haven | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | null-result | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | the safe haven properties of Bitcoin during financial market turmoil in the Covid-19 bear market | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | observational-study also in: observational-study | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | 1 While many of these arguments are compelling, empirical tests of the safe haven properties of Bitcoin have been devoid of a central component, a severe financial markets crisis. | limitations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | It has been heavily documented that financial asset returns do not follow a normal distribution, making it likely that two moment VaR will not accurately capture the risk associated with potentially large non-normal returns. | limitations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | These findings, while limited to a potentially suboptimal Bitcoin allocation, highlight that Bitcoin may result in increased portfolio risk, discrediting the safe haven hypothesis for Bitcoin. | limitations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | These rates are constructed using a methodology which adheres to the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) Principles for Financial Benchmarks. eliminates: unstandardized Bitcoin reference prices | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | We then provide summary statistics and downside risk reduction characteristics over three periods. eliminates: dependence on one sample window | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | 7 For robustness, we examine a comprehensive range of Bitcoin allocation weightings, with a focus on assessing the change in downside risk relative to holding only the S&P 500. eliminates: dependence on one Bitcoin portfolio weight | controls[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | Relative portfolio risk is measured as a function of the portfolio downside risk with an allocation to Bitcoin relative to a portfolio holding only the S&P 500. eliminates: absence of an equity-only baseline | controls[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | Specifically, we follow the approach of Bredin et al. (2017) , by accounting for skewness and kurtosis in a four-moment downside risk framework. eliminates: normal-return assumptions during extreme market moves | controls[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | value at risk also in: value at risk | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | conditional value at risk also in: conditional value at risk | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Cornish-Fisher expansion also in: Cornish-Fisher expansion | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | relative portfolio risk also in: relative portfolio risk | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | COVID-19 bear market also in: COVID-19 bear market | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| unhoused_relations | safe-haven asset → COVID-19 bear market | unhoused_relations[0] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| senses | a Bitcoin safe haven would reduce equity-portfolio downside exposure during crisis | senses[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | relative portfolio risk —operationalised-as→ value at risk strength of the relation: 0.92 · note: The paper flatly quantifies relative portfolio downside risk with VaR; it does not claim VaR is uniquely necessary or sufficient, setting 0.92.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'the relative change in portfolio value at risk', not 'relative portfolio risk'. also in: relative portfolio risk · value at risk | concept_edges[0] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | relative portfolio risk —operationalised-as→ conditional value at risk strength of the relation: 0.92 · note: The paper flatly quantifies relative portfolio downside risk with CVaR; it does not claim CVaR is uniquely necessary or sufficient, setting 0.92.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'the relative change in portfolio ... conditional value at risk', not 'relative portfolio risk'. also in: relative portfolio risk · conditional value at risk | concept_edges[1] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | value at risk —operationalised-as→ Cornish-Fisher expansion strength of the relation: 0.92 · note: The calculation method is asserted flatly, but no necessity or sufficiency claim is made; 0.92 reflects the stated procedure.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but VaR is CALCULATED with the Cornish-Fisher expansion; operationalised-as is the wrong type. also in: value at risk · Cornish-Fisher expansion | concept_edges[2] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | conditional value at risk —operationalised-as→ Cornish-Fisher expansion strength of the relation: 0.92 · note: The calculation method is asserted flatly, but no necessity or sufficiency claim is made; 0.92 reflects the stated procedure.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but CVaR is CALCULATED with the Cornish-Fisher expansion; operationalised-as is the wrong type. | concept_edges[3] | 0.99 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | In this paper, we show that Bitcoin does not act as a safe haven, instead decreasing in price in lockstep with the S&P 500 as the crisis develops. | content_tags.findings[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Our analysis indicates that adding Bitcoin to a portfolio results in increased downside risk relative to holding the S&P 500 alone. | content_tags.findings[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | During the decline in the S&P 500, Bitcoin is observed to generally move in lockstep with the market, decreasing by more than the S&P 500 over the bear market period under consideration. | content_tags.findings[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | For all allocation weights, we find increased portfolio VaR and CVaR for a portfolio containing Bitcoin relative to the S&P 500 alone. | content_tags.findings[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Together with the earlier analysis, these findings provide strong empirical evidence that Bitcoin does not consistently act as a safe haven for the S&P 500 during times of crisis. | content_tags.findings[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Indeed, during the periods we consider, any inclusion of Bitcoin in a portfolio with the S&P 500 increases the level of downside risk an investor is exposed to. | content_tags.findings[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | During the period under consideration, we find that the S&P 500 and Bitcoin move in lockstep, resulting in increased downside risk for an investor with an allocation to Bitcoin. | content_tags.findings[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | value at risk also in: value at risk | content_tags.definitions[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | conditional value at risk also in: conditional value at risk | content_tags.definitions[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | relative portfolio risk also in: relative portfolio risk | content_tags.definitions[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The first encompasses the entire available price history for Bitcoin, from July 2010 - March 2020. | content_tags.quantities[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Finally, we examine a one-year period stretching from March 21 st 2019 through March 20 th 2020, focusing upon a time-frame encompassing the recent Covid-19 market crisis. | content_tags.quantities[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Over the entire period considered an investor in Bitcoin would have increased their wealth over 11 times relative to their initial investment. | content_tags.quantities[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The maximum one day loss for Bitcoin is 66.49% compared with 12.77% for the S&P 500. | content_tags.quantities[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | At a 1% confidence level, we observe a 13.6% increase in VaR over the 2019 − 2020 period for a portfolio holding 10% Bitcoin relative to the S&P 500. | content_tags.quantities[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Similarly, for CVaR at a 1% confidence level, we find a 15.3% increase from 16.18% for the S&P 500 to 18.65% for the mix portfolio. | content_tags.quantities[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Any allocation greater than 28% results in at least a 50% increase in the baseline level of downside risk an S&P 500 investor is exposed to over this period. | content_tags.quantities[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | return distribution comparison also in: return distribution comparison | content_tags.statistics[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | robustness confidence level also in: robustness confidence level | content_tags.statistics[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | risk-measure robustness also in: risk-measure robustness | content_tags.statistics[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.