<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:lang="en">
  <teiHeader>
    <fileDesc>
      <titleStmt>
        <title>Safe haven or risky hazard? Bitcoin during the Covid-19 bear market</title>
        <author>Thomas Conlon</author>
        <author>Richard McGee</author>
      </titleStmt>
      <publicationStmt>
        <p>Tag layer of the DHSS Meta-Tagging Project. The article text is reproduced from the
           staged copy named in sourceDesc and is not altered; the tags are held separately in
           standOff so that overlapping and nested spans are preserved.</p>
      </publicationStmt>
      <sourceDesc>
        <bibl>
          <title>Safe haven or risky hazard? Bitcoin during the Covid-19 bear market</title>
          <date>2020</date>
          <publisher>Finance Research Letters</publisher>
          <idno type="DOI">10.1016/j.frl.2020.101607</idno>
          
          <idno type="record">conlon2020-safe-haven-or-risky-hazard-bitcoin-during</idno>
          <note type="staged-file">conlon2020-safe-haven-or-risky-hazard-bitcoin-during.txt, the project's staged copy</note>
          <note type="text-sha1">38f41411110f20fb516f648b605e4241bbc3479a</note>
          <note type="rights">open-access</note>
        </bibl>
      </sourceDesc>
    </fileDesc>
    <profileDesc>
      <textClass><keywords><term>computer-science</term></keywords></textClass>
      <particDesc>
        <person xml:id="paper"><p>the paper's own words</p></person>
        <person xml:id="tagger"><p>the tag layer; a sentence written by the tagger about the
          paper, always anchored to a quotation but not itself a quotation</p></person>
      </particDesc>
    </profileDesc>
    <revisionDesc>
      <change when="2026-10-06"
              who="build_paper_edition.py">48 spans located by searching the stored text for the quote's exact words, allowing any whitespace between them</change>
    </revisionDesc>
  </teiHeader>
  <standOff>
    <spanGrp type="tags">
      <span xml:id="t0" from="#a9" to="#a10" type="research_question" ana="#research_question" resp="#paper">whether Bitcoin reduces S&amp;P 500 downside risk during the COVID-19 bear market</span>
      <span xml:id="t1" from="#a7" to="#a8" type="contribution" ana="#contribution" resp="#paper">first crisis-period test rejecting Bitcoin as an equity safe haven</span>
      <span xml:id="t2" from="#a3" to="#a4" type="claim_type" ana="#claim_type" resp="#paper">null-result</span>
      <span xml:id="t3" from="#a7" to="#a8" type="phenomenon" ana="#phenomenon" resp="#paper">the safe haven properties of Bitcoin during financial market turmoil in the Covid-19 bear market</span>
      <span xml:id="t4" from="#a15" to="#a16" type="method" ana="#method" resp="#paper">observational-study<term>observational-study</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t5" from="#a11" to="#a12" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">mechanisms<term>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 ).</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t6" from="#a13" to="#a14" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">mechanisms<term>This speculative nature may result in selling pressure during extreme downward markets, providing limited effectiveness as a store of value ( Yermack, 2015 ).</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t7" from="#a27" to="#a28" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">mechanisms<term>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.</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t8" from="#a65" to="#a66" type="mechanisms" ana="#mechanisms[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">mechanisms<term>Moreover, relative downside risk increases monotonically for larger allocations to Bitcoin.</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t9" from="#a5" to="#a6" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">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.</span>
      <span xml:id="t10" from="#a25" to="#a26" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">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.</span>
      <span xml:id="t11" from="#a57" to="#a58" type="limitations" ana="#limitations[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">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.</span>
      <span xml:id="t12" from="#a33" to="#a34" type="controls" ana="#controls[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">These rates are constructed using a methodology which adheres to the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) Principles for Financial Benchmarks.<note>eliminates: unstandardized Bitcoin reference prices</note></span>
      <span xml:id="t13" from="#a35" to="#a36" type="controls" ana="#controls[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">We then provide summary statistics and downside risk reduction characteristics over three periods.<note>eliminates: dependence on one sample window</note></span>
      <span xml:id="t14" from="#a59" to="#a60" type="controls" ana="#controls[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">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&amp;P 500.<note>eliminates: dependence on one Bitcoin portfolio weight</note></span>
      <span xml:id="t15" from="#a31" to="#a32" type="controls" ana="#controls[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">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&amp;P 500.<note>eliminates: absence of an equity-only baseline</note></span>
      <span xml:id="t16" from="#a17" to="#a18" type="controls" ana="#controls[4]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">Specifically, we follow the approach of Bredin et al. (2017) , by accounting for skewness and kurtosis in a four-moment downside risk framework.<note>eliminates: normal-return assumptions during extreme market moves</note></span>
      <span xml:id="t17" from="#a21" to="#a22" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[0]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">value at risk<term>value at risk</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t18" from="#a29" to="#a30" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[1]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">conditional value at risk<term>conditional value at risk</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t19" from="#a27" to="#a28" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[2]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">Cornish-Fisher expansion<term>Cornish-Fisher expansion</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t20" from="#a31" to="#a32" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[3]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">relative portfolio risk<term>relative portfolio risk</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t21" from="#a1" to="#a2" type="concepts" ana="#concepts[4]" resp="#paper" cert="0.95">COVID-19 bear market<term>COVID-19 bear market</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t22" from="#a7" to="#a8" type="unhoused_relations" ana="#unhoused_relations[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.99">safe-haven asset → COVID-19 bear market</span>
      <span xml:id="t23" from="#a9" to="#a10" type="senses" ana="#senses[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="1.0">a Bitcoin safe haven would reduce equity-portfolio downside exposure during crisis</span>
      <span xml:id="t24" from="#a15" to="#a16" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.99">relative portfolio risk —operationalised-as→ value at risk<note>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 &#x27;the relative change in portfolio value at risk&#x27;, not &#x27;relative portfolio risk&#x27;.</note><term>relative portfolio risk</term><term>value at risk</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t25" from="#a15" to="#a16" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.99">relative portfolio risk —operationalised-as→ conditional value at risk<note>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 &#x27;the relative change in portfolio ... conditional value at risk&#x27;, not &#x27;relative portfolio risk&#x27;.</note><term>relative portfolio risk</term><term>conditional value at risk</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t26" from="#a49" to="#a50" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.99">value at risk —operationalised-as→ Cornish-Fisher expansion<note>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.</note><term>value at risk</term><term>Cornish-Fisher expansion</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t27" from="#a49" to="#a50" type="concept_edges" ana="#concept_edges[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.99">conditional value at risk —operationalised-as→ Cornish-Fisher expansion<note>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.</note><term>conditional value at risk</term><term>Cornish-Fisher expansion</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t28" from="#a3" to="#a4" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">In this paper, we show that Bitcoin does not act as a safe haven, instead decreasing in price in lockstep with the S&amp;P 500 as the crisis develops.</span>
      <span xml:id="t29" from="#a19" to="#a20" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">Our analysis indicates that adding Bitcoin to a portfolio results in increased downside risk relative to holding the S&amp;P 500 alone.</span>
      <span xml:id="t30" from="#a41" to="#a42" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">During the decline in the S&amp;P 500, Bitcoin is observed to generally move in lockstep with the market, decreasing by more than the S&amp;P 500 over the bear market period under consideration.</span>
      <span xml:id="t31" from="#a63" to="#a64" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">For all allocation weights, we find increased portfolio VaR and CVaR for a portfolio containing Bitcoin relative to the S&amp;P 500 alone.</span>
      <span xml:id="t32" from="#a69" to="#a70" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[4]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">Together with the earlier analysis, these findings provide strong empirical evidence that Bitcoin does not consistently act as a safe haven for the S&amp;P 500 during times of crisis.</span>
      <span xml:id="t33" from="#a71" to="#a72" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[5]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">Indeed, during the periods we consider, any inclusion of Bitcoin in a portfolio with the S&amp;P 500 increases the level of downside risk an investor is exposed to.</span>
      <span xml:id="t34" from="#a73" to="#a74" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.findings[6]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">During the period under consideration, we find that the S&amp;P 500 and Bitcoin move in lockstep, resulting in increased downside risk for an investor with an allocation to Bitcoin.</span>
      <span xml:id="t35" from="#a23" to="#a24" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">value at risk<term>value at risk</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t36" from="#a29" to="#a30" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">conditional value at risk<term>conditional value at risk</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t37" from="#a31" to="#a32" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.definitions[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">relative portfolio risk<term>relative portfolio risk</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t38" from="#a37" to="#a38" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">The first encompasses the entire available price history for Bitcoin, from July 2010 - March 2020.</span>
      <span xml:id="t39" from="#a39" to="#a40" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">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.</span>
      <span xml:id="t40" from="#a45" to="#a46" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">Over the entire period considered an investor in Bitcoin would have increased their wealth over 11 times relative to their initial investment.</span>
      <span xml:id="t41" from="#a47" to="#a48" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[3]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">The maximum one day loss for Bitcoin is 66.49% compared with 12.77% for the S&amp;P 500.</span>
      <span xml:id="t42" from="#a53" to="#a54" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[4]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">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&amp;P 500.</span>
      <span xml:id="t43" from="#a55" to="#a56" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[5]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">Similarly, for CVaR at a 1% confidence level, we find a 15.3% increase from 16.18% for the S&amp;P 500 to 18.65% for the mix portfolio.</span>
      <span xml:id="t44" from="#a67" to="#a68" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.quantities[6]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">Any allocation greater than 28% results in at least a 50% increase in the baseline level of downside risk an S&amp;P 500 investor is exposed to over this period.</span>
      <span xml:id="t45" from="#a43" to="#a44" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.statistics[0]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">return distribution comparison<term>return distribution comparison</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t46" from="#a61" to="#a62" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.statistics[1]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">robustness confidence level<term>robustness confidence level</term></span>
      <span xml:id="t47" from="#a51" to="#a52" type="content_tags" ana="#content_tags.statistics[2]" resp="#tagger" cert="0.95">risk-measure robustness<term>risk-measure robustness</term></span>
    </spanGrp>
  </standOff>
  <text>
    <body>
        <p><anchor xml:id="a0"/> Abstract. Abstract <anchor xml:id="a1"/>The Covid-19 bear market presents the first acute market losses since active trading of Bitcoin began.<anchor xml:id="a2"/> This market downturn provides a timely test of the frequently expounded safe haven properties of Bitcoin. <anchor xml:id="a3"/>In this paper, we show that Bitcoin does not act as a safe haven, instead decreasing in price in lockstep with the S&amp;P 500 as the crisis develops.<anchor xml:id="a4"/> When held alongside the S&amp;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. <anchor xml:id="a5"/>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.<anchor xml:id="a6"/> <anchor xml:id="a7"/>In 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.<anchor xml:id="a8"/> <anchor xml:id="a9"/>2 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.<anchor xml:id="a10"/> Investor loss aversion implies a greater sensitivity to acute losses than gains and has been demonstrated in experimental settings ( Tversky and Kahneman, 1991 ). <anchor xml:id="a11"/>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 ).<anchor xml:id="a12"/> 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&amp;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. <anchor xml:id="a13"/>This speculative nature may result in selling pressure during extreme downward markets, providing limited effectiveness as a store of value ( Yermack, 2015 ).<anchor xml:id="a14"/> Given this background, we propose an alternative testable hypothesis: Bitcoin is not a safe-haven for S&amp;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. <anchor xml:id="a15"/>Specifically, we quantify the relative change in portfolio value at risk (VaR) and conditional value at risk (CVaR), two common measures of downside risk.<anchor xml:id="a16"/> 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. <anchor xml:id="a17"/>Specifically, we follow the approach of Bredin et al. (2017) , by accounting for skewness and kurtosis in a four-moment downside risk framework.<anchor xml:id="a18"/> 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. <anchor xml:id="a19"/>Our analysis indicates that adding Bitcoin to a portfolio results in increased downside risk relative to holding the S&amp;P 500 alone.<anchor xml:id="a20"/> 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. <anchor xml:id="a21"/>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.<anchor xml:id="a22"/> <anchor xml:id="a23"/>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.<anchor xml:id="a24"/> 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. <anchor xml:id="a25"/>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.<anchor xml:id="a26"/> 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. <anchor xml:id="a27"/>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.<anchor xml:id="a28"/> 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. <anchor xml:id="a29"/>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 &gt; M V a R p ) , where R p is the negative log return.<anchor xml:id="a30"/> MCVaR p is calculated numerically, taking an average of MVaR p across the range of quantiles greater than 1 − α . <anchor xml:id="a31"/>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&amp;P 500.<anchor xml:id="a32"/> For MVaR (MCVaR), this is given by M V a R m i x M V a R S &amp; P ( M C V a R m i x M C V a R S &amp; P ), where MVaR mix and MCVaR mix are downside risk measures representing the mix portfolio containing S &amp; P 500 and Bitcoin, respectively. 3. Data Daily price data for the S&amp;P 500 are obtained from Thompson Reuters Eikon. Price data for Bitcoin are obtained from Coinmetrics, using their CM reference rates. <anchor xml:id="a33"/>These rates are constructed using a methodology which adheres to the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) Principles for Financial Benchmarks.<anchor xml:id="a34"/> 5 We first provide some illustrative price movements beginning at the market inflection point (or market top) in the S&amp;P 500 which occurred on February 13 th 2020. <anchor xml:id="a35"/>We then provide summary statistics and downside risk reduction characteristics over three periods.<anchor xml:id="a36"/> <anchor xml:id="a37"/>The first encompasses the entire available price history for Bitcoin, from July 2010 - March 2020.<anchor xml:id="a38"/> The second, following Conlon and McGee (2019) and Urquhart (2016) , considers the period from April 2016 from which the Bitcoin market is more efficient. <anchor xml:id="a39"/>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.<anchor xml:id="a40"/> 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. <anchor xml:id="a41"/>During the decline in the S&amp;P 500, Bitcoin is observed to generally move in lockstep with the market, decreasing by more than the S&amp;P 500 over the bear market period under consideration.<anchor xml:id="a42"/> 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&amp;P 500 and Bitcoin (February-March 2020) Both the S&amp;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&amp;P 500, Bitcoin and a mix portfolio consisting of 10% Bitcoin and 90% S&amp;P 500. <anchor xml:id="a43"/>For each of the periods under consideration we see that Bitcoin has higher returns, a larger standard deviation and greater excess kurtosis.<anchor xml:id="a44"/> <anchor xml:id="a45"/>Over the entire period considered an investor in Bitcoin would have increased their wealth over 11 times relative to their initial investment.<anchor xml:id="a46"/> <anchor xml:id="a47"/>The maximum one day loss for Bitcoin is 66.49% compared with 12.77% for the S&amp;P 500.<anchor xml:id="a48"/> Table 1 Summary Statistics. This table details summary statistics for the S&amp;P 500, Bitcoin and a portfolio consisting of an allocation of 90% to S&amp;P 500 and 10% to Bitcoin. <anchor xml:id="a49"/>Value at risk and Conditional Value at Risk are calculated using the Cornish-Fisher expansion.<anchor xml:id="a50"/> Summary statistics are given in percentage terms and mean and standard deviation are annualized. Table 1 2010–2020 2016–2020 2019–2020 S&amp;P 500 Bitcoin Portfolio S&amp;P 500 Bitcoin Portfolio S&amp;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 . <anchor xml:id="a51"/>Regardless of the metric or confidence level examined, Bitcoin is found to have vastly greater downside risk than the S&amp;P 500.<anchor xml:id="a52"/> Our primary interest is the change in downside risk for the mix portfolio, relative to that associated with the S&amp;P 500. <anchor xml:id="a53"/>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&amp;P 500.<anchor xml:id="a54"/> <anchor xml:id="a55"/>Similarly, for CVaR at a 1% confidence level, we find a 15.3% increase from 16.18% for the S&amp;P 500 to 18.65% for the mix portfolio.<anchor xml:id="a56"/> Similar findings are observed during the other periods examined. <anchor xml:id="a57"/>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.<anchor xml:id="a58"/> <anchor xml:id="a59"/>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&amp;P 500.<anchor xml:id="a60"/> <anchor xml:id="a61"/>The results, detailed in Fig. 2 , focus on downside risk at a 1% confidence interval.<anchor xml:id="a62"/> <anchor xml:id="a63"/>For all allocation weights, we find increased portfolio VaR and CVaR for a portfolio containing Bitcoin relative to the S&amp;P 500 alone.<anchor xml:id="a64"/> <anchor xml:id="a65"/>Moreover, relative downside risk increases monotonically for larger allocations to Bitcoin.<anchor xml:id="a66"/> <anchor xml:id="a67"/>Any allocation greater than 28% results in at least a 50% increase in the baseline level of downside risk an S&amp;P 500 investor is exposed to over this period.<anchor xml:id="a68"/> Similar results are found for the other cohorts examined. <anchor xml:id="a69"/>Together with the earlier analysis, these findings provide strong empirical evidence that Bitcoin does not consistently act as a safe haven for the S&amp;P 500 during times of crisis.<anchor xml:id="a70"/> <anchor xml:id="a71"/>Indeed, during the periods we consider, any inclusion of Bitcoin in a portfolio with the S&amp;P 500 increases the level of downside risk an investor is exposed to.<anchor xml:id="a72"/> 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&amp;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&amp;P 500 portfolio diversified with an allocation to Bitcoin, our results indicate that Bitcoin does not act as a safe haven. <anchor xml:id="a73"/>During the period under consideration, we find that the S&amp;P 500 and Bitcoin move in lockstep, resulting in increased downside risk for an investor with an allocation to Bitcoin.<anchor xml:id="a74"/> 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<anchor xml:id="a75"/></p>
    </body>
  </text>
</TEI>
