ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

This paper examines the connectedness between Bitcoin and commodity volatilities, including oil, wheat, and corn, during the period Oct. 2013–Jun. 2018, using time- and frequency-domain frameworks. The time-domain framework’s results show that the connectedness is 23.49%, indicating a low level of connection between Bitcoin and the commodity volatilities. Bitcoin contributes only 2.55% to the connectedness, while the wheat volatility index accounts for 12.51% of the total connectedness. The frequency connectedness shows that Bitcoin’s contribution to the total connectedness increases from high-frequency to low-frequency bands, and the total connectedness reaches up to 22.47%. It also indicates that Bitcoin is the spillover transmitter to the wheat volatility, while being the spillover receiver from the oil and corn volatilities. The findings suggest that Bitcoin could be a hedger for commodity volatilities.
Content may be subject to copyright.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020, 13, 119; doi:10.3390/jrfm13060119
Does Bitcoin Hedge Commodity Uncertainty?
Khanh Hoang
*, Cuong C. Nguyen
, Kongchheng Poch
and Thang X. Nguyen
School of Banking and Finance, National Economics University, Hai Ba Trung District,
Hanoi 11616, Vietnam;
Department of Financial and Business Systems, Lincoln University,
Lincoln 7647, Canterbury, New Zealand; (C.C.N.); (K.P.)
* Correspondence: or
Received: 11 May 2020; Accepted: 8 June 2020; Published: 9 June 2020
Abstract: This paper examines the connectedness between Bitcoin and commodity volatilities,
including oil, wheat, and corn, during the period Oct. 2013–Jun. 2018, using time- and frequency-
domain frameworks. The time-domain framework’s results show that the connectedness is 23.49%,
indicating a low level of connection between Bitcoin and the commodity volatilities. Bitcoin
contributes only 2.55% to the connectedness, while the wheat volatility index accounts for 12.51%
of the total connectedness. The frequency connectedness shows that Bitcoin’s contribution to the
total connectedness increases from high-frequency to low-frequency bands, and the total
connectedness reaches up to 22.47%. It also indicates that Bitcoin is the spillover transmitter to the
wheat volatility, while being the spillover receiver from the oil and corn volatilities. The findings
suggest that Bitcoin could be a hedger for commodity volatilities.
Keywords: Bitcoin; commodity; diversification; hedging; volatility spillover
1. Introduction
Bitcoin is known as a decentralised digital currency that is used in online payment systems and
traded in major developed and emerging economies (e.g., USA, China). Thanks to its innovative
open-source protocol, Bitcoin is a virtual currency that is not subject to any authority or control such
as a national or supranational central bank or financial authority (Böhme et al. 2015; Weber 2016).
Given its design protocol, the Bitcoin supply is limited to only 21 million. Bitcoin has risen to
prominence since 2008, when the global financial meltdown dented the public’s trust in the global
financial system. Its value rose spectacularly from USD 0.008 on 22 May 2010 to nearly USD 20,000
on 17 December 2017. As a result, Bitcoin is the first digital currency that has markedly gained traction
to become a major economic instrument (Carrick 2016; Bouri et al. 2017b).
Bitcoin has increasingly received academic attention. A myriad of studies examined Bitcoin from
various perspectives, for example, the determinants of Bitcoin prices or returns (Yelowitz and Wilson
2015; Ciaian et al. 2016) and their volatilities (Charles and Darné 2019; Troster et al. 2019). Whereas
scores of papers examine the efficiency of the Bitcoin market (Urquhart 2016; Bariviera 2017;
Nadarajah and Chu 2017), few studies explore transaction costs (Kim 2017) and informed trading
(Feng et al. 2018).
Although several studies argue that Bitcoin contains substantial speculative components (Corbet
et al. 2018; Fry 2018; Fry and Cheah 2016), other studies show that Bitcoin has the potential to become
an investment instrument. The recent literature further underlines the importance of Bitcoin as a risk
diversifier or a hedge against various financial assets, since Bitcoin returns are not associated with
those assets. According to Bouri et al. (2017c), Bitcoin is found to be an effective diversifier against
general commodities, equities, bonds, and the US dollar.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020, 13, 119 2 of 14
In this regard, Bitcoin has considerable financial properties as a risk diversifier or a hedge against
commodity uncertainty, especially agricultural commodities. To our knowledge, the relation
between Bitcoin and commodity uncertainty is unexplored. Commodity prices have experienced
dramatic booms and bust cycles (Mensi et al. 2017). The prices of commodities, such as agricultural
products and oil, tend to be highly volatile. Oil price volatility could be due to various reasons,
including geopolitical tensions and agricultural commodity prices, which also vary dramatically,
particularly along with energy price fluctuations. The more volatile the commodity prices, the more
difficult and costlier the risk management of commodity prices for both producers and consumers
(Wu et al. 2011). The damages spawned from commodity price volatility are socially and
economically tremendous. Due to price spikes and the scarcity of agricultural commodities, severe
economic hardship, and possibly socio-political tensions, are sometimes unavoidable (Mensi et al.
2017). From another approach, Bianchi (forthcoming) shows that there is a mild correlation between
the returns on commodities and cryptocurrencies, but this linkage does not exhibit in volatility
spillover effects.
For the previous reasons, discovering the sign and size of the association between Bitcoin and
commodity uncertainty is profoundly important, from the perspective of investments and portfolio
risk management. The findings are essential for market participants to make informed decisions for
their investments and provide implications for portfolio management. Therefore, this paper aims to
investigate the connectedness between Bitcoin and the volatilities of the most popularly traded
commodities, which are corn, oil, and wheat.
Our current research contributes to the literature in three ways. First, it is the first research that
attempts to investigate the connection between the financial innovation Bitcoin and commodity
uncertainty, using the newly-developed time-domain connectedness suggested by Diebold and
Yilmaz (2012), based on the vector autoregression (VAR) model and the frequency-domain
connectedness presented by Baruník and Křehlík (2018). These methods allow us to figure out the
contribution of Bitcoin to different commodity volatilities and, at the same time, to find out whether
Bitcoin is a volatility transmitter or a receiver at different frequencies. Second, our study also analyses
the time-varying connectedness between commodity volatilities and Bitcoin at different frequencies,
to show a panorama of their linkages from 1 day, 4 days, 10 days, and to infinity.
Third, this study uses the forward-looking commodity uncertainty indices, including corn, oil,
and wheat volatility indices, rather than the volatility calculated from historical prices or the model-
based volatility (e.g., GARCH-based volatility model). Market participants are more concerned with
the future volatilities of commodities where there is a need for risk management strategies. The oil,
wheat, and corn volatility indices measure the market expectation of volatility generated from the
option prices of these commodities (CBOE 2018).
The rest of this paper is organised as follows. Section 2 summarizes the literature on Bitcoin-
related research. Section 3 introduces the methodology. Section 4 discusses data and the empirical
evidence, as well as our robustness test. Section 5 concludes the paper.
2. Literature Review
Academic interests in Bitcoin have increasingly grown in recent years. A number of studies focus
on testing the “efficient market hypothesis” of the Bitcoin markets. Urquhart (2016) and Nadarajah
and Chu (2017) reveal that the Bitcoin market is inefficient. Bariviera (2017) also finds that the Bitcoin
market is not efficient, despite it becoming more informationally efficient since 2014. This conjecture
is supported by recent studies in the literature (Vidal-Tomás and Ibañez 2018; Tiwari et al. 2018;
Kyriazis 2019). In summary, the efficient market hypothesis seems invalid for the Bitcoin market.
Another line of literature studies the volatility of Bitcoin prices or returns. Recent research works
in this literature strand investigate various aspects of the volatility and provide enriched findings
(Chaim and Laurini 2018; Klein et al. 2018; Koutmos 2018; Ardia et al. 2019; Charles and Darné 2019;
Kyriazis et al. 2019). By applying the VAR model, Koutmos (2018) indicates that Bitcoin plays a role
as the major contributor to returns and volatility spillovers among 18 cryptocurrencies, indicating a
high degree of contagion risk. Kyriazis et al. (2019) indicate that the volatility of most
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020, 13, 119 3 of 14
cryptocurrencies during the bearish period is complementary with the volatility of Bitcoin.
Katsiampa (2017) suggests using autoregressive-component GARCH (AR-CGARCH) to model the
optimal conditional heteroskedasticity of Bitcoin prices. With the purpose of performing a replication
and checking the robustness of Katsiampa (2017)’s study, Charles and Darné (2019) show partially
different results, due to the differences in calculating Bitcoin returns. However, the authors argue
that the application of six GARCH-typed models seems to not be suitable for modeling the Bitcoin
A major strand of the literature investigates the determinants of Bitcoin prices or returns by
employing primarily daily prices. Ciaian et al. (2016) show that the price of Bitcoin is mainly
conditioned on the demand side (e.g., daily frequency of Bitcoin transactions), given that the supply
side is pre-determined. Bitcoin price seems not to be affected by the same factors as those of
conventional assets, such as commodities, equities, and bonds. To be specific, the price of Bitcoin is
interestingly stimulated by the number of internet searches (Kristoufek 2013; Yelowitz and Wilson
2015). Moreover, Ciaian et al. (2016) find that Bitcoin prices are not determined by macro-economic
developments such as oil prices and exchange rates. Polasik et al. (2015) provide evidence that the
returns of Bitcoin investment are driven largely by Bitcoin popularity, sentiments in media reports,
and transaction numbers. It is noteworthy that Bitcoin prices differ significantly across exchanges
due to different exchange settings, especially the failure of the exchange to require customers to
expose their identities (Pieters and Vivanco 2017).
Bitcoin prices appear to be driven by speculation (Baek and Elbeck 2015; Ciaian et al. 2016;
Kyriazis et al. 2019), echoing the previous finding by Cheah and Fry (2015), that Bitcoin constitutes a
substantial speculative component. Fry (2018) reiterates that Bitcoin is speculative in nature and
provides evidence of Bitcoin price bubbles. The finding is further supported by Corbet et al. (2018),
who reveal that Bitcoin prices exhibit the stages of bubbles, and Bitcoin has been in the bubble phase
since the moment its price exceeded USD 1000. The literature seems to underline that Bitcoin is not
driven by the same economic or financial fundamentals of conventional financial assets.
Although Bitcoin seems to be used as a speculative investment, it has considerable potential as
a risk diversifier or a hedger. Baur et al. (2018) find that no association is found between Bitcoin and
conventional assets such as commodities and securities, in either normal or financial turmoil periods.
By examining general cryptocurrencies, Baumöhl (2019) provides evidence of a negative correlation
in short and long terms between forex and cryptocurrencies; thus, it is worth diversifying between
the two assets. Dyhrberg (2016a) states that Bitcoin should be, characteristically, defined as a hybrid
investment instrument that is classified between commodities and currencies, because of its
decentralised nature and restricted market dimension. Thereby, it can be a good instrument for
market sentiment analysis, portfolio management, and risk analysis (Catania et al. 2019). Specifically,
Dyhrberg (2016b) underscores the hedging capability of Bitcoin against the fluctuations in the UK
stock market and the US dollar. Beneki et al. (2019) find that Bitcoin can be a hedger for Ethereum.
Kyriazis (2020) shows that Bitcoin is an effective hedge against oil and stock market indices. Similarly,
Bouri et al. (2017a) find that Bitcoin is a good choice for diversification against securities, gold,
commodities, oil, and the US dollar. The authors also indicate that, before the December 2013 crash,
Bitcoin is a diversifier against the US equity portfolios and even presents a safe-haven property,
although investors ought to be wary of its lack of liquidity. Bouri et al. (2018) lend further support to
the previous finding that Bitcoin can play the role of a shelter against global financial meltdown from
the medium-term viewpoint. Bouri et al. (2017c) provide empirical evidence that Bitcoin can serve as
a hedge against risks in the short-term investment horizon, given a bull market condition. Demir et
al. (2018) further signify the hedging role of Bitcoin in extreme times of uncertainty.
3. Methodology
In this study, we apply the dynamic variance decompositions vector autoregression (VAR)
model from Diebold and Yilmaz (2012), and the frequency-domain connectedness presented by
Baruník and Křehlík (2018), to examine interdependence or connectedness between variables. The
benefit of using these models is that the forecast error variance decompositions are invariant to the
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020, 13, 119 4 of 14
ordering of the variables in the VAR, and it also allows for correlated shocks rather than
orthogonalizing shocks. In addition, it enables us to figure out the connectedness over time, since any
time-varying dependence is of great interest.
Let the following model be the structural VAR (p) at t = 1, ..., T: ф()
= 
where ε
white-noise and Φ(L) is the pth order lag-polynomial matrix computed as ф()
Diebold and Yilmaz (2012) define the connectedness measure as:
= 100× (~),
(~), = 100(1 {~}
(~), = (),/(),
(), =
 ((
 ),)
 ),
is the generalized forecast error variance decomposition (FEVD);
= (∑)
; and
stands for an
nxn matrix of coefficients with lag h, Tr {·} is the trace operator. S
is the connectedness of the whole
data sample, while the directional spillover from one variable to another can be measured in the same
Baruník and Křehlík (2018) define the frequency connectedness on band d, where:
=  = {,}
, [−,],< 
= 100((~),
The band d’s within frequency connectedness is as follows:
= 100(1 − {~}
where the generalized FEVD on different frequency bands d is specified as:
() = (()(
 (⋋)(
is the weighting function, while the frequency response function is defined as:
() = 
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020, 13, 119 5 of 14
In addition, our aim is to examine if Bitcoin and the commodity volatilities are strongly
correlated. If they are, there will be no case that Bitcoin can be a hedger for the commodities. As a
robustness test for our results, we choose the time-varying mixed copula of Joe–Clayton, because it
can simultaneously reveal the existence of the left and right tail dependence over the examined
period. The left and right tail dependences represent the likelihood of crashing and booming together
of variables, respectively. If the variables have no left tail dependence, it will be beneficial to include
them into a portfolio, since if one crashes, the other will not.
Following Patton (2004), we use the symmetrized Joe–Clayton copula (SJC copula), for checking
the robustness of our findings. The function of the SJC copula is presented as follows:
)= 1
)++ 1)
in which CJC represents the SJC copula function; u and v are the innovation obtained from AR
process of two variables (X, Y). τ
ϵ (0,1] is the upper tail and τ
ϵ (0,1] is the lower tail. The time-
varying tail dependencies are modelled as follows:
= ᴧ(
= ᴧ(
()= (1 −
The results will be presented in Sections 4.2 and 4.3.
4. Data Analysis
4.1. Data
We proxy commodity uncertainty using three implied volatility indices from October 2013 to
June 2018, including the corn index (CVI), the crude oil index (OVX), and the wheat index (WVI),
which first started in Oct 2013. The daily data for these indices are extracted from the Bloomberg
database. We collect the Bitcoin Price Index (BPI) from Coindesk (
Specifically, the BPI is computed as the average of Bitcoin prices across different Bitcoin exchanges.
Therefore, it can neutralise the differences in Bitcoin prices from different cryptocurrency exchanges
and is a good proxy for Bitcoin worldwide.
We use log data for our analyses with the total observations for each series of 1285. Time-series
plots for the three commodity indices and Bitcoin are illustrated in Figure 1. In Figure 1, part (a)
shows that OVX is quite volatile during 2014–2016, due to the booming U.S. shale oil production and
the shifting of OPEC policies. The other two indices are fairly stable, fluctuating within a certain
range. Part (b) presents an interesting story when it comes to Bitcoin prices. The Bitcoin price
remained low until the end of 2016, when there was a growing interest in cryptocurrencies. This led
to an increase of more than 400% for Bitcoin prices in 2017.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020, 13, 119 6 of 14
Figure 1. The developments in the crude oil index (OVX), the wheat index (WIV), the corn index
(CIV), and the Bitcoin Price Index (BPI), from October 2013 to June 2018. Part (a) shows the movement
of OVX, WIV, and CIV indices during the period from October 2013 to June 2018. Part (b) illustrates
the developments of Bitcoin price during the period from October 2013 to June 2018.
Table 1 summarises the descriptive statistics. All data series are stationary since they all pass
Jarque–Bera and augmented Dickey–Fuller (ADF) tests. As usual, the returns from all indices are
quite small, while that of Bitcoin looks promising since its return averaging 0.3%. The correlations
between Bitcoin and the three commodity indices are low, implying that Bitcoin may be a hedging
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Return Mean
Index Mean 33.65 25.45 22.52 2,050.2
Median 30.79 25.23 22.34 591.9
Maximum 78.97 41.39 43.09 19,395.8
Minimum 14.50 9.19 10.40 100.8
1st Quarter
3rd Quarter 42.21 28.46 26.49 1,226.8
Jarque–Bera test 93.948
ADF test –2.083
Correlation with Bitcoin –0.0314 0.0628 0.0116 1
Note: p-value in parentheses.
01-10-2013 01-10-2014 01-10-2015 01 -10-2016 01-10-2017
OVX Index
WIV Index
CIV Index
01-10-2013 01-10-2014 01-10-2015 01-10-2016 01-10-2017
Bitcoin Price
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020, 13, 119 7 of 14
4.2. Empirical Results
Following Diebold and Yilmaz (2012), we compute the connectedness using a 100-period ahead
forecasting horizon. The results obtained from Diebold and Yilmaz (2012) and Baruník and Křehlík
(2018) are shown in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. The total connectedness for the three commodity
indices and Bitcoin is 23.49, as shown in Table 2, which is relatively low and thus indicates low
associations between the indices.
Table 2. Diebold and Yilmaz (2012) spillover—Time domain.
OVX 84.67 7.18 6.06 2.09 3.83
CIV 2.08 33.23 58.11 6.58 10.47
Bitcoin 0.14 9.64 4.51 85.71 3.57
To 0.60 12.51 7.83 2.55 23.49
Note: The spillover table has no frequency bands, standard Diebold and Yilmaz.
The last row in Table 2 shows the percentage that each variable in the sample contributes to the
total connectedness. Bitcoin contributes only 2.55% to the total connectedness among the four
variables, while the highest contribution of 12.51% is from WVI and the lowest one of 0.6% is from
OVX. This indicates that there is a low level of association between Bitcoin and the other three
volatility indices, implying a benefit of diversification or hedging opportunity between them. This
result also reveals the leading impact of WVI among the three commodity volatilities.
Table 3 reports the results from the frequency domain. The contribution of Bitcoin to the
connectedness increases from 0.02 (1 to 4 days) to 3.51 (10 days to infinity), showing the low
association between the three indices and Bitcoin.
Table 3. Baruník and Křehlík (2018) spillover—Frequency domain.
Frequency 1. The spillover table for band: 3.14 to 0.79. Roughly corresponds to 1 day to 4 days.
Frequency 2. The spillover table for band: 0.79 to 0.31. Roughly corresponds to 4 days to 10 days.
Frequency 3. The spillover table for band: 0.31 to 0.00. Roughly corresponds to more than 10 days.
Note: The spillover table has 3 frequency bands. ABS is the absolute spillover; WTH is the with-in group
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020, 13, 119 8 of 14
The connectedness remains low at high frequencies (0.41% at 1to 4 days and 0.61% at 4 to 10
days), but reaches 22.47% at the low frequency of 10 days to infinity. However, the connectedness is
still at a low level, indicating the possibility of diversification benefits between Bitcoin and the three
Table 4 shows the results of the net pairwise spillover. The results obtained from the time-
domain method indicate that Bitcoin is the spillover receiver from OVX and CVI, while it is the
spillover transmitter to WVI (negative connectedness of negative 2.0309). Regarding the frequency-
domain method, Bitcoin is still the spillover receiver from OVX and the spillover transmitter to WVI,
at three different frequencies.
Table 4. Net-pairwise spillover at different frequencies.
Total DY (2012)
Time Domain OVX-Bitcoin WIV-Bitcoin CIV-Bitcoin
0.489 −2.031 0.516
BK(2018)-Frequency domain
Frequency 1
0.002 −0.002 0.001
Frequency 2 OVX-Bitcoin WIV-Bitcoin CIV-Bitcoin
0.006 −0.006 −0.002
Frequency 3
0.480 −2.022 0.517
However, at the frequency 2 (4 to 10 days), Bitcoin changes its sign and becomes the spillover
receiver from CVI. These results imply that investors aiming to diversify risk want to allocate funding
more to OVX-Bitcoin and CVI-Bitcoin if using the time-domain results. However, if using the
frequency-domain results, funding should be allocated to CVI-Bitcoin in frequencies 1 and 3, since
the net connectedness of CVI-Bitcoin is negative. This finding underlines the importance of the
frequency-domain method in investment analysis.
Figure 2 exhibits the net pairwise connectedness between Bitcoin and the other three indices.
Panel A. Time domain method.
(a) OVX- Bitcoin
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020, 13, 119 9 of 14
(b) WVI-Bitcoin
(c) CVI-Bitcoin
Panel B. Frequency domain method.
(a) Frequency of 1 to 4 days
(b) Frequency of 4 to 10 days
(c) Frequency of 10 days to infinity
Figure 2. Pairwise net connectedness. Panel A illustrates the pairwise net connectedness between
Bitcoin and OVX, WVI, and CVI in parts (a), (b), and (c) using the time domain method, respectively.
Panel B illustrates the pairwise net connectedness between Bitcoin and the three indices at three
different frequencies in parts (a), (b), and (c) using the frequency domain method, respectively.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020, 13, 119 10 of 14
The time-domain results in Panel A show that the connectedness of all the three pairs is
fluctuating but remain within the interval of 20%. In part (a), in the period from 2014 to 2016, the
connectedness between OVX and Bitcoin was quite volatile due to the fluctuation of oil prices at the
time. The lowest connectedness was more than negative 20%. However, in 2017, since the price of
Bitcoin increased sharply, the connectedness climbed to a peak of 20% in the middle of the year and
another peak at the end of 2017. Part (b) shows that the connectedness between WVI and Bitcoin was
quite stable during 2014-2016. In 2017, due to the climb of Bitcoin prices, the connectedness reached
its first peak in the mid-year and the second one at the year-end of around 20%. However, during
2017, since wheat prices were at lower levels than they were in the previous five years in the US, the
connectedness plunged to a trough of nearly negative 20% around November. Part (c) shows the
time-domain connectedness between CVI and Bitcoin. The price of corn was mainly affected by the
ethanol market, crude oil prices, and climate. Therefore, the connectedness looks more volatile than
that of WVI-Bitcoin in Part (b). It reached its lowest point in mid-2016 of around negative 18%, due
to the downtrend in corn prices, because the corn stockpile rose more than anticipated, as a result of
low feed requirements. Similar to the other two pairs, the connectedness of CVI-Bitcoin also increased
during 2017, with two peaks of 20% and 18% at the middle and end of the year, respectively.
The frequency-domain results in Panel B indicate that the connectedness of the three pairs is
volatile at the high frequencies of 1 to 4 days and 4 to 10 days, but fluctuates within the interval of
20% for the low frequency of 10 days to infinity. Similar to what is observed in Panel A, the
connectedness of the three pairs also reached peaks at high frequencies from 1-10 days during 2017,
when Bitcoin was booming. However, at the lower frequency of more than ten days, the results
converge to the findings in Panel A. It shows similar patterns of the connectedness of the three pairs
in Panel A, especially during 2017. These results show that there is a potential benefit of risk
diversification between Bitcoin and the three commodity volatilities in the long term rather than the
short term from 1 to 10 days, thanks to the connectedness range of around only 20%.
4.3. Robustness Test
Since we are interested in the hedging possibility of Bitcoin against commodity uncertainty, we
will use copula functions to investigate if there is tail dependence between Bitcoin and the three
commodity volatilities. The left tail dependence shows the likelihood of crashing together, whereas
the right tail dependence shows the likelihood of booming together. If Bitcoin can be used as a hedger
for the commodity volatilities, there should be no left tail dependence between them.
Our results, presented in Figure 3, clearly show no tail dependency between Bitcoin and the
three volatility indices. This once again confirms that commodity uncertainties including corn, oil,
and wheat volatilities can be effectively hedged using Bitcoin.
(a) Bitcoin—OVX
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020, 13, 119 11 of 14
(b) Bitcoin—WIV
(c) Bitcoin—CIV
Figure 3. Tail dependence obtained from the mixed Joe–Clayton copula. Time-varying is the time-
varying tail dependence. Constant is the correlation.
5. Conclusions
This paper examines the connectedness between Bitcoin and commodity volatilities, including
corn, oil, and wheat, during the period from October 2013 to June 2018, using time- and frequency-
domain frameworks. The results obtained from the time-domain method show that the
connectedness is 23.49%, indicating a low level of connection between Bitcoin and the three
commodity volatilities. Bitcoin contributes only 2.55% to the connectedness, while the wheat
volatility index accounts for 12.51% of the total connectedness. The results of the frequency-domain
framework show that Bitcoin’s contribution to the total connectedness increases from high-frequency
to low-frequency bands, and the total connectedness reaches up to 22.47%.
The results also indicate that Bitcoin is the spillover transmitter to the wheat volatility, while
being the spillover receiver from the oil and corn volatilities. Our findings imply that the
cryptocurrency of Bitcoin might be an effective hedger for commodity uncertainty, especially in the
long term. The findings add further evidence into the existing Bitcoin literature that Bitcoin can also
be considered as an alternative class in agriculture-product investment portfolios, rather than only in
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020, 13, 119 12 of 14
portfolios containing traditional asset classes. The results provide new insights for investors and
policymakers in considering risk diversification between Bitcoin and commodities.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Khanh Hoang and Cuong C. Nguyen; methodology, Cuong C.
Nguyen; data curation, Cuong C. Nguyen, Khanh Hoang, Kongchheng Poch; writing—original draft
preparation, Khanh Hoang, Cuong C. Nguyen, Kongchheng Poch; writing—review and editing, Thang X.
Nguyen; visualization, Cuong C. Nguyen. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Ardia, David, Keven Bluteau, and Maxime Rüede. 2019. Regime changes in Bitcoin GARCH volatility dynamics.
Finance Research Letters 29: 266-71.
Baek, Chung, and Matthew A. Elbeck. 2015. Bitcoins as an investment or speculative vehicle? A first look. Applied
Economics Letters 22: 30–34.
Bariviera, Aurelio F. 2017. The inefficiency of Bitcoin revisited: A dynamic approach. Economics Letters 161: 1–4.
Baruník, Jozef, and Tomáš Křehlík. 2018. Measuring the frequency dynamics of financial connectedness and
systemic risk. Journal of Financial Econometrics 16: 271–96.
Baumöhl, Eduard. 2019. Are cryptocurrencies connected to forex? A quantile cross-spectral approach. Finance
Research Letters 29: 363–72.
Baur, Dirk G., KiHoon Hong, and Adrian D. Lee. 2018. Bitcoin: Medium of exchange or speculative assets?
Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money 54: 177–89.
Bianchi, Daniele. Forthcoming. Cryptocurrencies as an asset class? An empirical assessment. Journal of Alternative
Beneki, Christina, Alexandros Koulis, Nikolaos A. Kyriazis, and Stephanos Papadamou. 2019. Investigating
volatility transmission and hedging properties between Bitcoin and Ethereum. Research in International
Business and Finance 48: 219–27.
Böhme, Rainer, Nicolas Christin, and Benjamin Edelman. 2015. Bitcoin: Economcis, technology, and governance.
Journal of Economics Perspectives 29: 213–38.
Bouri, Elie, Georges Azzi, and Anne H. Dyhrberg. 2017a. On the return-volatility relationship in the Bitcoin
market around the price crash of 2013. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal 11: 1–16.
Bouri, Elie, Rangan Gupta, Aviral K. Tiwari, and David Roubaud. 2017b. Does Bitcoin hedge global uncertainty?
Evidence from wavelet-based quantile-in-quantile regressions. Finance Research Letters 23: 87–95.
Bouri, Elie, Peter Molnár, Georges Azzi, David Roubaud, and Lars I. Hagfors. 2017c. On the hedge and safe
haven properties of Bitcoin: Is it really more than a diversifier? Finance Research Letters 20: 192–98.
Bouri, Elie, Rangan Gupta, Chi K.M. Lau, David Roubaud, and Shixuan Wang. 2018. Bitcoin and global financial
stress: A copula-based approach to dependence and causality in the quantiles. The Quarterly Review of
Economics and Finance 69: 297–307.
Carrick, Jon. 2016. Bitcoin as a complement to emerging market currencies. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade
52: 2321–34.
Catania, Leopoldo, Stefano Grassi, and Francesco Ravazzolo. 2019. Forecasting cryptocurrencies under model
and parameter instability. International Journal of Forecasting 35: 485–501.
Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE). 2018. Volatility Indexes. Available online: (accessed on 20 January 2019).
Chaim, Pedro, and Márcio P. Laurini. 2018. Volatility and return jumps in bitcoin. Economics Letters 173: 158–63.
Charles, Amélie, and Olivier Darné. 2019. Volatility estimation for Bitcoin: Replication and robustness.
International Economics 157: 23–32.
Cheah, Eng-Tuck, and John Fry. 2015. Speculative bubbles in Bitcoin markets? An empirical investigation into
the fundamental value of Bitcoin. Economics Letters 130: 32–36.
Ciaian, Pavel, Miroslava Rajcaniova, and d’Artis Kancs. 2016. The economics of BitCoin price formation. Applied
Economics 48: 1799–815.
Corbet, Shaen, Brian Lucey, Maurice Peat, and Samuel Vigne. 2018. Bitcoin Futures—What use are they?
Economics Letters 172: 23–27.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020, 13, 119 13 of 14
Demir, Ender, Giray Gozgor, Chi K.M. Lau, and Samuel A. Vigne. 2018. Does economic policy uncertainty
predict the Bitcoin returns? An empirical investigation. Finance Research Letters 26: 145–49.
Diebold, Francis X., and Kamil Yilmaz. 2012. Better to give than to receive: Predictive directional measurement
of volatility spillovers. International Journal of Forecasting 28: 57–66.
Dyhrberg, Anne H. 2016a. Bitcoin, gold and the dollar–A GARCH volatility analysis. Finance Research Letters 16:
Dyhrberg, Anne H. 2016b. Hedging capabilities of bitcoin. Is it the virtual gold? Finance Research Letters 16: 139–
Feng, Wenjun, Yiming Wang, and Zhengjun Zhang. 2018. Informed trading in the Bitcoin market. Finance
Research Letters 26: 63–70.
Fry, John. 2018. Booms, busts and heavy-tails: The story of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency markets? Economics Letters
171: 225–29.
Fry, John, and Eng-Tuck Cheah. 2016. Negative bubbles and shocks in cryptocurrency markets. International
Review of Financial Analysis 47: 343–52.
Katsiampa, Paraskevi. 2017. Volatility estimation for Bitcoin: A comparison of GARCH models. Economics Letters
158: 3–6.
Kim, Thomas. 2017. On the transaction cost of Bitcoin. Finance Research Letters 23: 300–5.
Klein, Tony, Hien T. Pham, and Thomas Walther. 2018. Bitcoin is not the New Gold—A comparison of volatility,
correlation, and portfolio performance. International Review of Financial Analysis 59: 105-16.
Koutmos, Dimitrious. 2018. Return and volatility spillovers among cryptocurrencies. Economics Letters 173: 122–
Kristoufek, Ladislav. 2013. BitCoin meets Google Trends and Wikipedia: Quantifying the relationship between
phenomena of the Internet era. Scientific Reports 3: 3415.
Kyriazis, Nikolaos A. 2019. A survey on efficiency and profitable trading opportunities in cryptocurrencies
markets. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 12: 67.
Kyriazis, Nikolaos A. 2020. Is Bitcoin similar to gold? An integrated overview of empirical findings. Journal of
Risk and Financial Management 13: 88.
Kyriazis, Nikolaos A., Kalliopi Daskalou, Marios Arampatzis, Paraskevi Prassa, Evangelia Papaioannou. 2019.
Estimating the volatility of cryptocurrencies during bearish markets by employing GARCH models.
Heliyon 5: e02239.
Mensi, Walid, Aviral Tiwari, Elie Bouri, David Roubaud, and Khamis H. Al-Yahyaee. 2017. The dependence
structure across oil, wheat, and corn: A wavelet-based copula approach using implied volatility indexes.
Energy Economics 66: 122–39.
Nadarajah, Sarelees, and Jeffrey Chu. 2017. On the inefficiency of Bitcoin. Economics Letters 150: 6–9.
Patton, Andrew J. 2004. On the out-of-sample importance of skewness and asymmetric dependence for asset
allocation. Journal of Financial Econometrics 2: 130–68.
Pieters, Gina, and Sofia Vivanco. 2017. Financial regulations and price inconsistencies across Bitcoin markets.
Information Economics and Policy 39: 1–14.
Polasik, Michal, Anna I. Piotrowska, Tomasz P. Wisniewski, Radoslaw Kotkowski, and Geoffrey Lightfoot. 2015.
Price fluctuations and the use of Bitcoin: An empirical inquiry. International Journal of Electronic Commerce
20: 9–49.
Troster, Victor, Aviral K. Tiwari, Muhammad Shahbaz, and Demian N. Macedo. 2019. Bitcoin returns and risk:
A general GARCH and GAS analysis. Finance Research Letters 30: 187–93.
Tiwari, Aviral K., Rabin Jana, Debojyoti Das, and David Roubaud. 2018. Informational efficiency of Bitcoin-An
extension. Economics Letters 163: 106–9.
Urquhart, Andrew. 2016. The inefficiency of Bitcoin. Economics Letters 148: 80–82.
Vidal-Tomás, David, and Ana Ibañez. 2018. Semi-strong efficiency of Bitcoin. Finance Research Letters 27: 259–65.
Weber, Beat. 2016. Bitcoin and the legitimacy crisis of money. Cambridge Journal of Economics 40: 17–41.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020, 13, 119 14 of 14
Wu, Feng, Zhengfei Guan, and Robert J. Myers. 2011. Volatility spillover effects and cross hedging in corn and
crude oil futures. Journal of Futures Markets 31: 1052–75.
Yelowitz, Aaron, and Matthew Wilson. 2015. Characteristics of Bitcoin users: an analysis of Google search data.
Applied Economics Letters 22: 1030–36.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (
... Baur et al. (2017) use the GARCH and EGARCH models to compare Bitcoin and Gold's hedging ability, stock, US dollar, and points out that there is a vast difference between Bitcoin and the other assets. Hoang et al.(2020) examine the connectedness between Bitcoin and commodity volatilities (e.g., oil, wheat, and corn) under the time-frequency frameworks. Page 3 of 16 122 ...
... As for the methods in the research of Bitcoin issues, the GARCH model is the most widely used (see Dyhrberg 2016a, b;Bouri et al. 2017a, b;Katsiampa 2017;Catania and Grassi 2017;Chu et al. 2017;Corbet et al. 2018;Aftab et al. 2019;Wu et al. 2019;Das et al. 2020;etc.). Then the VAR model and variance decomposition based on VAR model are also widely used (Hoang et al. 2020;Moratis 2021;Rehman 2020;Urom et al. 2020). Other methods such as Copula-type models (Garcia-Jorcano and Muela 2020), wavelet analysis (Qureshi et al. 2018) etc., are gradually applied. ...
Full-text available
To analyze the asset attribute and hedge effect of Bitcoin, we investigate the relationship between Bitcoin and several kinds of traditional financial assets by the univariate GARCH and multivariate GARCH models. We find that Bitcoin has a unique risk-return characteristic and volatility clustering performance, its high volatility persistence similar to Gold, but different from currency. In addition, Bitcoin exhibits a significant one-way spillover effect with other variables, without a two-way spillover effect. Bitcoin is much more affected by other market shocks than other markets are affected by the impact of Bitcoin shocks, which could not be a haven but a weak hedge. From the dynamic linkage perspective, Bitcoin and Gold have different connectedness to other markets, Gold exhibits a stronger movement to other markets, especially during extreme situations. To summarize, we classify Bitcoin as a high speculative financial asset between Gold and currency, but not Gold or currency. Our study has important implications for investors, policymakers, and risk managers who are interested in Bitcoin.
... The results indicate that the volatility connectedness is higher than the return connectedness among these assets, suggesting that although diversification among these three assets is more difficult in the short-and medium-term, investors may benefit from diversification in the long run. In a similar vein, the paper by Hoang et al. (2020) "Does Bitcoin Hedge Commodity Uncertainty?" examines the connectedness between Bitcoin and commodity volatilities, including those of oil, wheat, and corn, during the period Oct. 2013-Jun. 2018, using time-and frequencydomain frameworks, also finding that Bitcoin could be a hedger for commodity volatilities. ...
Full-text available
The emergence of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies has led to an explosion of trading and speculation in once nontraditional markets [...]
Full-text available
In times of exogenous systemic shocks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to identify hedge or safe haven assets. Therefore, this paper analyzes changes in the idiosyncratic risk of Bitcoin in a portfolio of commodities and global stocks. For this purpose, the M-GARCH model employed considers the interdependence among all the portfolio assets by using a time-varying asset pricing framework. This framework measures the impact of commodities and global stock prices as sources of systemic risk for Bitcoin returns before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The evidence suggests that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the effects of changes in commodities and global prices on the idiosyncratic risk of Bitcoin were statistically significant. The idiosyncratic risk of Bitcoin measured as a percentage of total variance not accounted for by the proposed model rose from 86.06% to 95.05% during the pandemic. These results are in line with previous studies regarding the properties of Bitcoin as a hedge or safe haven asset for a portfolio composed of commodities and global stocks.
Full-text available
This paper sets out to explore whether Bitcoin can be considered as a globally accepted asset that has a resemblance to gold, which is widely considered to be the safest choice. An integrated overview of the empirical findings generated by the nascent but increasingly proliferating literature concerning the nexus between Bitcoin and gold is provided. The majority of evidence reveals that Bitcoin has a long way to go before it acquires the same characteristics as the safe-haven asset of gold. Overall, Bitcoin is found to be an efficient hedge against oil and stock market indices, but to a lesser extent than gold. Bitcoin presents low or negative correlations or an asymmetric non-linear linkage with gold. Despite sharing some common features with traditional assets, Bitcoin is found to be a good hedging asset in portfolios with gold. Moreover, evidence reveals that gold is a better and more stable safe-haven investment than Bitcoin.
Full-text available
This study examines the volatility of certain cryptocurrencies and how they are influenced by the three highest capitalization digital currencies, namely the Bitcoin, the Ethereum and the Ripple. We use daily data for the period 1 January 2018-16 September 2018, which represents the bearish market of cryptocurrencies. The impact of the decline of these three cryptocurrencies on the returns of the other virtual currencies is examined with models of the ARCH and GARCH family, as well as the DCC-GARCH. The main conclusion of the study is that the majority of cryptocurrencies are complementary with Bitcoin, Ethereum and Ripple and that no hedging abilities exist among principal digital currencies in distressed times.
Full-text available
This study conducts a systematic survey on whether the pricing behavior of cryptocurrencies is predictable. Thus, the Efficient Market Hypothesis is rejected and speculation is feasible via trading. We center interest on the Rescaled Range (R/S) and Detrended Fluctuation Analysis (DFA) as well as other relevant methodologies of testing long memory in returns and volatility. It is found that the majority of academic papers provides evidence for inefficiency of Bitcoin and other digital currencies of primary importance. Nevertheless, large steps towards efficiency in cryptocurrencies have been traced during the last years. This can lead to less profitable trading strategies for speculators.
This paper sets out to test the hypothesis whether volatility spillovers and hedging abilities exist between Bitcoin and Ethereum by a multivariate BEKK-GARCH methodology and impulse response analysis applied within a VAR model since the launch of Ethereum up to June 2018. The findings reveal significant swaps in the time-varying correlation and a delayed positive response of Bitcoin volatility on a positive volatility shock on Ethereum returns. The overarching implications of the results are that Bitcoin and Ethereum although presented some diversifying capabilities over the first years of the study these capabilities are recently significantly reduced. Moreover, the unidirectional volatility transmission from Ethereum to Bitcoin implies that profitable trading strategies may be established on a newly developed derivative market with consequences against market efficiency.
This paper studies the predictability of cryptocurrency time series. We compare several alternative univariate and multivariate models for point and density forecasting of four of the most capitalized series: Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ripple and Ethereum. We apply a set of crypto-predictors and rely on dynamic model averaging to combine a large set of univariate dynamic linear models and several multivariate vector autoregressive models with different forms of time variation. We find statistically significant improvements in point forecasting when using combinations of univariate models, and in density forecasting when relying on the selection of multivariate models. Both schemes deliver sizable directional predictability.
In this article we are interested in understanding the dynamics of Bitcoin daily returns and volatility. Cryptocurrencies have very high unconditional volatility, and are subject to sudden, massive, price swings. We start with a standard log-normal stochastic volatility model, then explore two formulations which incorporate discontinuous jumps to volatility and returns. Jumps to volatility are permanent, while jumps to mean returns have contemporaneous effects only. Results point to two high volatility periods: the first from late 2013 to early 2014, likely associated to the Mt. Gox incident; the second covers the year of 2017, peaking on December — likely driven by increased popular attention. Jumps to mean returns are specially relevant to capture large price variations, mostly negative, associated with formative events in cryptocurrency markets, such as hacks and unsuccessful fork attempts.
This paper measures interdependencies among 18 major cryptocurrencies and shows that (i) Bitcoin is the dominant contributor of return and volatility spillovers among all the sampled cryptocurrencies; (ii) return and volatility spillovers have risen steadily over time; (iii) there are 'spikes’ in spillovers during major news events regarding cryptocurrencies. These findings suggest growing interdependence among cryptocurrencies and, by extension, a higher degree of contagion risk. It may be the case that cryptocurrencies are becoming more integrated, albeit this makes for interesting future empirical testing. In addition, the time-varying nature of spillovers reveals a certain dimension of uncertainty regarding the future of these digital currencies.
This paper performs a general GARCH and GAS analysis for modelling and forecasting bitcoin returns and risk. Since Bitcoin trading exhibits excess volatility compared with other securities, it is important to model its risk and returns. We consider heavy-tailed GARCH models as well as GAS models based on the score function of the predictive conditional density of the bitcoin returns. We compare out-of-sample 1%-Value-at-Risk (VaR) forecasts under 45 different specifications using three backtesting procedures. We find that GAS models with heavy-tailed distributions provide the best out-of-sample forecast and goodness-of-fit properties to bitcoin returns and risk modelling. Normally-distributed GARCH models are always outperformed by heavy-tailed GARCH or GAS models. Besides, heavy-tailed GAS models provide the best conditional and unconditional coverage for 1%-VaR forecasts, illustrating the importance of modelling excess kurtosis for bitcoin returns. Hence, our findings have important implications for risk managers and investors for using bitcoin in optimal hedging or investment strategies.
This paper analyzes the connectedness between forex and cryptocurrencies using the quantile cross-spectral approach. The sample covers six forex and six cryptocurrencies over the period of September 2015–December 2017. Compared with the results obtained from standard correlations and DMCA, the quantile cross-spectral approach provides richer information on the dependence structure across different quantiles and frequencies. The results show that there are some significant negative dependencies between forex and cryptocurrencies from both the short- and long-term perspectives; thus, it is worth diversifying between these two asset groups. Moreover, the connection between cryptocurrencies is not as strong as is widely believed.