 Research
 Open access
 Published:
Linearity extensions of the market model: a case of the top 10 cryptocurrency prices during the preCOVID19 and COVID19 periods
Financial Innovation volume 7, Article number: 38 (2021)
Abstract
This research investigates the appropriateness of the linear specification of the market model for modeling and forecasting the cryptocurrency prices during the preCOVID19 and COVID19 periods. Two extensions are offered to compare the performance of the linear specification of the market model (LMM), which allows for the measurement of the cryptocurrency price beta risk. The first is the generalized additive model, which permits flexibility in the rigid shape of the linearity of the LMM. The second is the timevarying linearity specification of the LMM (TvLMM), which is based on the state space model form via the Kalman filter, allowing for the measurement of the timevarying beta risk of the cryptocurrency price. The analysis is performed using daily data from both time periods on the top 10 cryptocurrencies by adjusted market capitalization, using the Crypto Currency Index 30 (CCI30) as a market proxy and 1day and 7day forward predictions. Such a comparison of cryptocurrency prices has yet to be undertaken in the literature. The empirical findings favor the TvLMM, which outperforms the others in terms of modeling and forecasting performance. This result suggests that the relationship between each cryptocurrency price and the CCI30 index should be locally instead of globally linear, especially during the COVID19 period.
Introduction
In recent decades, cryptocurrencies have witnessed spectacular development. They are growing rapidly and are used for many different applications in the economy due to their ability to facilitate electronic payments between individuals without the involvement of a (trusted) third party. Nakamoto (2008) was the first to document Bitcoin as the most wellknown and prominent decentralized digital cryptocurrency based on blockchain technology. Bitcoin currently has the largest market capitalization among cryptocurrencies and has been widely used as a means of electronic payment in recent years due to the anonymity, safety, transparency, and cost effectiveness that it offers (Yermack 2013; Kim 2017; Yuneline 2019). The increasing popularity of Bitcoin has led researchers to develop other digital cryptocurrencies, such as Ethereum, XRP, and CRO. Presently, the digital crypto markets have grown rapidly in a short period of time; as of December 15, 2020, the global crypto market cap was $563.68 bn with 4028 cryptocurrencies (www.coinmarketcap.com). With the growing appeal of digital cryptocurrencies, finance analysts, economists, traders, and investors are focusing on predicting their future potential investment value. Therefore, numerous studies have recently been conducted to verify the influence of financial variables (e.g., gold prices, oil prices, currency exchange rates, commodities, stock market prices) on the fundamental and speculative value of cryptocurrencies, specifically with relation to their volatility as well as in terms of bubbles (e.g., Kondor et al. 2014; Kristoufek 2013; Ciaian et al. 2016; Bariviera et al. 2017; Zhu et al. 2017; Panagiotidis et al. 2018; Lahmiri et al. 2018; Nasir et al. 2019; Dennery 2020; Faghih Mohammadi Jalali and Heidari 2020; Hakim das Neves 2020; Huynh et al. 2020b, 2020c, 2020d; Makarov and Schoar 2020). In early 2017, the following group set out to objectively measure the overall growth and movement in the blockchain sector: Igor Rivin and Carlo Scevola (the team leaders of a group of mathematicians, fund managers, and quants); CS&P presidents and economists; as well as engineer Robert Davis. They designed the Crypto Currency Index 30 (CCI30) to track the top 30 cryptocurrencies by market capitalization, excluding stablecoins (www.cci30.com), and suggested that the CCI30 could serve as an investment tool for passive investors and investment managers. Limited literature on crypto markets has explored the use of the CCI30 index (Senarathne and Jianguo 2020; Pontoh and Rizkianto 2020; Petukhina, et al. 2020). To fill this gap, this research explores the stochastic behavior of the CCI30 index, especially for the purpose of helping crypto market policymakers and investors interested in portfolio diversification.
Over the last 9 months, the most prominent global health threat has been COVID19, which was first detected in Wuhan, China on December 31, 2019, and was subsequently declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020 (WHO 2020). The pandemic spread rapidly throughout the world—despite quarantines, lockdowns, and social distancing—thereby upending the lives of millions of people. After COVID19 was declared a global pandemic, the world economy was drastically affected. Worldwide, sales and production fell, companies became burdened financially, unemployment rose, and consumer behaviors changed (Lahmiri and Bekiros 2020a). The pandemic severely impacted financial markets, which, in turn, compelled many researchers to explore its effect on financial contagion and market stability (e.g., Akhtaruzzaman et al. 2020; Ali et al. 2020; AlAwadhi et al. 2020; He et al. 2020; Okorie and Lin 2020; Sharif et al. 2020; Zaremba et al. 2020; Zhang et al. 2020; Shear et al. 2021). The rapid spread of COVID19 in 2020 posed a serious threat to the crypto market as well. After the declaration of the pandemic, the largest 1day fall in the price of Bitcoin (36%) occurred on March 13, 2020 (Yousaf and Ali 2021). Researchers started focusing on understanding the dynamics of the cryptocurrency market, especially the connections that have existed among the various cryptocurrencies during the COVID19 crisis (e.g., Conlon et al. 2020; Conlon and McGee 2020; Corbet et al. 2020; Lahmiri and Bekiros 2020b; Mnif et al. 2020; Umar and Gubareva 2020; Yousaf and Ali 2020; James et al. 2021; Iqbal et al. 2021).
Several studies (e.g., Liu and Tsyvinski 2018; Rognone et al. 2020) have found that cryptocurrencies behave in a different manner from traditional assets, such as currencies, commodities, and equities. Furthermore, it was found that the returns in crypto markets are influenced by the enthusiasm of investors, which is, in turn, affected by unique and unusual events in the news. Considering the fact that the COVID19 pandemic has been a very unique and unusual event given its unprecedentedness, researchers analyzed how the pandemic affected the cryptocurrency markets, especially in light of the disagreeing behavioral evidence. For example, Lahmiri and Bekiros (2020a) explored the evolution of informational efficiency in 45 cryptocurrency markets, including the CCI30 index and 16 international stock markets, from September 2019 to April 2020. They declared that cryptos showed more instability and more irregularity during the COVID19 pandemic when compared to international stock markets. Mariana et al. (2021), on the one hand, evaluated the impact of COVID19 on Bitcoin, Ethereum, gold, and the S&P500 from July 1, 2019, to April 6, 2020. All of the returns accrued during COVID19 were found to be more volatile than the preCOVID19 period. They also declared that cryptos’ volatility is higher than that of both gold and the S&P500. Since valid, welltested treatments and preventative strategies for COVID19 are still lacking, these effects are expected to continue; thus, this research explores the impact of COVID19 on the crypto market with the aim of providing investors and policymakers with a better understanding of the market dynamics of cryptocurrencies while allocating cryptos into their portfolios.
A widely used asset pricing model in portfolio applications that provides a guideline for crypto market investors is the capital asset pricing model (CAPM), which was independently developed by Sharpe (1964), Lintner (1965) and Mossin (1966) based on the Markowitz (1952) market portfolio model. The benchmark linear specification of the market model (LMM) is the data generating process (DGP) of the CAPM. In addition, the time invariant beta risk parameter, which is the slope coefficient of the CAPM, captures the global linearity between the financial asset returns and entire market returns and is commonly estimated via ordinary least squares (OLS). The linearity limitation of the CAPM beyond the benchmark LMM, however, has been explored by researchers due to rapidly changing global economic conditions (e.g., Kou et al 2014; Chao et al 2019) such as reallife credit and bankruptcy risks, tradebased money transaction methods, unemployment, inflation, and exchange rates. Jagannathan and Wang (1996) developed the timevarying linearity specification of the market model (TvLMM), which allows for a timevarying beta risk parameter known as the DGP of the conditional CAPM (CCAPM). Here, TvLMM is designed in a state space model form via the Kalman filter algorithm (Kalman 1960) due to its performance (e.g., Mergner and Bulla 2008 in the panEuropean industry; Zhang and Choudhry 2017 in European banks; Dębski et al. 2020 in the Polish, Czech, and Hungarian stock exchange; Neslihanoglu et al. 2020 in developed and emerging stock markets). While the TvLMM via the Kalman filter algorithm has been investigated extensively in several stock markets, firms, and industries, there is limited research on its use in crypto markets (e.g., Raimundo Júnior et al. 2020; Bianchi et al. 2020). Moreover, Neslihanoglu et al. (2017) proposed the generalized additive model (GAM) for flexibility in the rigid linearity shape of the LMM in developed and emerging stock markets, but no studies have used this approach to explore crypto markets. Given the lack of existing literature in this area, this research explores extensions of prior research on crypto markets.
The objective of the comparative analysis in this research is to shed light on the extensions of the LMM for modeling and forecasting cryptocurrency prices. Indeed, this is the first such comparison to be undertaken in the literature. To conduct the comparison, two extensions of the LMM model are investigated: the GAM, which allows for flexibility in the rigid linearity shape of the LMM, and TvLMM, in the mean reverting form of the state space model via the Kalman filter (KFMR) algorithm. This comparison is performed using daily data from two different time periods: preCOVID19 (from January 1, 2019, to March 10, 2020) and during COVID19 (from March 12, 2020, to November 1, 2020), specifically regarding the price index of 10 cryptocurrencies. The starting point of COVID19 was chosen as March 11, 2020, following Mariana et al. (2021). This is based on the WHO declaring COVID19 a global pandemic on that date (WHO 2020). The CCI30 served as a market proxy following Chowdhury et al. (2020), and the 1month USD London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) interest rate served as the riskfree rate proxy following Anyfantaki and Topaloglou (2018). For both time periods, 30 days forward are examined using 1week and 7day ahead predictions. The aforementioned models’ performance is compared using the mean absolute error (MAE), the mean square error (MSE), and a graphical summary.
This research contributes to the literature on cryptocurrencies in many ways with several first attempts. First, it investigates the impact of the COVID19 pandemic on the financial stability of daily cryptocurrency prices based on modeling and forecasting using different time horizon forward predictions. Second, it evaluates the effectiveness of the LMM, which allows the time invariant beta risk to capture the global linearity between cryptocurrency returns and the CCI30′s returns—something that is commonly estimated via OLS. Third, it evaluates the nonlinearity extension of the market model via GAM underpinning the polynomial model on the cryptocurrency price. Next, it evaluates the local linearity extension of the market model in the state space model form via the Kalman filter algorithm on the cryptocurrency price while also accounting for the timevarying behavior of the beta risk parameter of the cryptocurrency price. Finally, it evaluates the impact of COVID19 on the stochastic behavior of the timevarying beta risk of cryptos with the aim of providing investors with a quantifiable metric with which to build their crypto portfolios and to better understand the possible risks and rewards of each cryptocurrency.
The rest of this research is laid out in the following way. Second section outlines the overview of data, while third section provides the detailed methodologies of the proposed models. Fourth section presents the empirical outcomes from the comparison of the aforementioned models, while also showing the parameter estimation in the best model. Finally, fifth section summarizes the research.
Data description
The daily data of this research span two time periods: preCOVID19 (from January 1, 2019, to March 10, 2020) and COVID19 (from March 12, 2020, to November 1, 2020). The data pertain specifically to the price index of the 10 cryptocurrencies. The CCI30, which tracks the top 30 cryptocurrencies by adjusted market capitalization (www.cci30.com), serves as the market proxy in this research. The main criteria of selecting these cryptocurrencies were that they had the highest market capitalizations in all 30 cryptocurrencies on November 1, 2020, and that they were also continuous listings and on the CCI30 during the preCOVID19 and COVID19 periods as defined by March 11, 2020 [the day the WHO declared COVID19 as a global pandemic (WHO 2020)]. As suggested by Alexander and Dakos (2020) and Huynh et al. (2020a), the validity of the data set was checked using different data sources for crypto prices. Table 1 provides an overview of the variables, their abbreviations, and their data sources.
The daily data returns of the 10 cryptocurrencies and the CCI30 as the log difference of the daily closing price index in USD are determined as follows.
where i = 0,1,…,10 and t = 2,…,T. Here, i = 0 refers to the CCI30 (\({R}_{mt}\)) and \({R}_{it}\) with \(1\le i\le 10\) referring to each cryptocurrency. P_{it} is the daily closing price index of those in day t. The 1month USD LIBOR interest rate in percentage per annum serves as the riskfree rate (\({R}_{ft}\)) proxy over time t.
Table 2 displays descriptive statistics for the returns of CCI30, the 10 cryptocurrencies, and the 1month USD LIBOR interest rate during the preCOVID19 and COVID19 periods. Table 2 provides the key empirical features of the data. The mean returns of cryptocurrencies (0.00154 (average)) and the CCI30 (0.00076) during the COVID19 period were lower than that of the cryptocurrencies (0.00412 (average)) and the CCI30 (0.00373) during the preCOVID19 period. This means that investors realized greater financial gains during the COVID19 period than during the preCOVID19 period. Moreover, the standard deviations (unconditional volatility) of returns in the cryptocurrencies (0.05233 (average)) and in the CCI30 (0.03658) in the preCOVID19 period are greater than those of returns in the cryptocurrencies (0.04314 (average)) and in the CCI30 (0.03373) during the COVID19 period. This suggests that cryptocurrencies and the CCI30 were deemed less risky investments during the COVID19 period when compared to the preCOVID19 period, when the risk is measured by unconditional volatility. These results suggest that the cryptocurrencies have been quite affected by the COVID19 global pandemic.
The distributions of cryptocurrencies exhibit positive average skewness (1.1490; 0.3648) in the preCOVID19 and COVID19 periods, while the returns of CCI30 (− 0.2901; 0.0872) and R_{f} (riskfree rate) (− 0.7352; 1.7173) exhibit negative skewness in the preCOVID19 period but positive skewness in the COVID19 period. This signifies that there were frequent small dips and a number of massive increases in returns in all variables during the COVID19 period. In addition, the return distributions for all cryptocurrencies, CCI30, and R_{f} are leptokurtic, which suggests the larger tails when compared to a normal distribution and a higher probability for immense results for all variables. This implies that there was a higher possibility for extreme financial gains or losses in investment cryptocurrency returns during the preCOVID19 and COVID19 periods. The normality of all variables is also rejected at a significance level of 5% via the Jarque–Bera test. The null hypothesis of no autocorrelation is rejected at the 5% significance level only for CRO during the preCOVID19 period and for CCI30, BPI, ETH, and BNB during the COVID19 period. According to the ADF test, the time series of the 10 cryptocurrencies and the CCI30 market excess returns was stationary during the preCOVID19 and COVID19 periods.
To sum up, the key characteristics of this research data are positive means, volatility, asymmetrical (left and rightskew), and leptokurtosis (fat tails) for both time periods. These features match those regularly reported by cryptocurrency studies, especially Catania et al. (2019) and Yousaf and Ali (2020). These results justify the consideration of extending the linearity between each cryptocurrency with CCI30 for both time periods.
For the sake of brevity, the time series plot of the top four cryptocurrencies (BPI, ETH, XRP, and BCH) and the CCI30 returns during the preCOVID19 and COVID19 periods are represented in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively. These figures provide some key insights. The large fluctuations in the returns of the CCI30 and cryptos are a common characteristic during both periods. After the declaration of COVID19 as a global pandemic (on March 11, 2020), the largest 1day fall in the price of Bitcoin was 36% on March 13, 2020 (Yousaf and Ali 2021); the following week showed an increase in fluctuations of returns in the cryptos, as can be observed in Fig. 2.
Methodology
Linear market model (LMM)
The benchmark LMM was independently developed by Sharpe (1964), Lintner (1965), and Mossin (1966) and is known as the DGP of the CAPM. This model is defined as follows.
Let \({R}_{it}\) be the returns in cryptocurrency i \(\left(i=1,\cdots ,10\right)\), \({R}_{mt}\) be the returns in the CCI30 index, and \({R}_{ft}\) be the riskfree rate at time t \(\left(t=1,\cdots ,T\right)\). Additionally, residuals are \({\varepsilon }_{it}\) with \({\varepsilon }_{it} \sim N\left(0, {\sigma }_{i}^{2}\right)\) and \(E\left({\varepsilon }_{it}{\varepsilon }_{kt}\right)=0\), for \(i\ne k\) and \(E\left({\varepsilon }_{it}{\varepsilon }_{i i+j}\right)=0\), for \(j>0\). Here, \({\alpha }_{i}\) is the regression intercept, and \({\beta }_{im}\) is the regression slope and accounts for the time invariant beta risk. OLS, which is briefly outlined by Wood (2006), is used to estimate the coefficients of Eq. (2). Note that the analyses of OLS were computed using the lm function in the R software (R Core Team 2018).
Generalized additive model (GAM)
Developed by Hastie and Tibshirani (1990), the GAM is used to evaluate whether the rigid parametric shapes of the LMM (Eq. 2) are too restrictive in this research. The GAM extension of the LMM is given as follows.
Here, \({\varepsilon }_{it} \sim N\left(0, {\sigma }_{i}^{2}\right)\) with \(E\left({\varepsilon }_{it}{\varepsilon }_{kt}\right)=0\), for \(i\ne k\) and \(E\left({\varepsilon }_{it}{\varepsilon }_{i i+j}\right)=0\), for \(j>0\). Let \({f}_{i}\left({R}_{mt}{R}_{ft}\right)\) be a smooth function of \({R}_{mt}{R}_{ft}\), whose shape is estimated from the data. It has a potentially nonlinear relationship with \({R}_{it}{R}_{ft}\). Here, the GAM provides a nonlinearity extension of the market model with \({\left({R}_{mt}{R}_{ft}\right)}^{\tau }\), where \(\tau\) takes any positive values instead of an integer that represents the polynomial extension of LMM (Eq. 2). The shape of the fitted model via GAM will be estimated from the data itself (Simpson 2018). The GAM parameter estimation procedure is briefly outlined by Wood (2006). Note that the analyses of GAM were computed using the mgcv package in the R software (R Core Team 2018).
Timevarying linear market model (TvLMM)
The timevarying extension of LMM, which allows for the timevarying beta risk parameter and is also known as the DGP of CCAPM developed by Jagannathan and Wang (1996), is referred to here as the TvLMM. This extension is defined as the mean reverting form of the state space model and is divided into two equations: the observation equation (Eq. 4) and the state equation (Eq. 5) (Rosenberg 1973). The unknown parameters of these equations are estimated via the Kalman filter algorithm (Kalman 1960), which is a widely used method for the linear state space model and is referred to here as the KFMR. It is expressed as follows.
where \({\overline{\beta }}_{im}=\frac{1}{T}{\sum }_{t=1}^{T}{\beta }_{imt}\). Here, \({\varepsilon }_{it}\) and \({w}_{it}\) are assumed to be mutually independent residuals and normally distributed with mean 0 and variances \({H}_{i}\) and \({Q}_{i}\), respectively. \({\phi }_{i}\) evaluates the temporal autocorrelation in \({\beta }_{imt}\) in cryptocurrency i \(\left(i=1,\dots ,10\right)\). Note that if \({\phi }_{i}=1\), this model becomes a random walk form of the state space model (Samuelson 1965), while if \({\phi }_{i}=0\), the model becomes a random coefficient form of the state space model (Schaefer et al. 1975). The prior parameter of KFMR is defined as follows.
Here, \({\mu }_{{\beta }_{im}}\) and \({\Sigma }_{{\beta }_{im}}\) are the initial estimates for \({\beta }_{im0}\) and are derived from the data in the estimation process. Optimal, updated, onestepahead, linear, and unbiased estimators of the unobservable state \({\beta }_{imt}\) are here provided by the Kalman filter algorithm. Briefly, the Kalman filter is a recursive algorithm that produces, at each time t, an estimator of the state vector \({\beta }_{imt}\), which is given by the orthogonal projection of the state vector onto the observed variables up to that time (Costa and Monteiro 2016).
The linear state space model via the Kalman filter and smoother algorithm (Shumway and Stoffer (2006) and Neslihanoglu et al. (2021)) is used to estimate the TvLMM in this study. This model is defined as follows:
Let \({Y}_{t}\) be a \(q \times 1\) vector of observations and \({\text{A}}_{t}\) be a \(q \times p\) observation matrix and \({\kappa }_{t}\) is a \(p \times 1\) unobserved state vector at each time \(t \;(t=1,\dots ,n).\) Here, the transition parameter, \(\Phi\), is a \(p \times p\) matrix. Let \({\varepsilon }_{t}\) be a \(q \times 1\) vector of observation residuals, which are independent and identically distributed with \({\varepsilon }_{t} \sim N\left(0, H\right)\), and \({w}_{t}\) is a \(p \times 1\) vector of state residuals independent and identically distributed with \({w}_{t} \sim N\left(0, Q\right).\) Here, the model is wholly identified with the use of two other assumptions. First, it is assumed that \({\varepsilon }_{t}\) and \({w}_{t}\) are mutually independent for all t. Second, it is assumed that the initial state vector is \({\kappa }_{0}\sim N({\mu }_{0},{\Sigma }_{0})\).
The main purpose of this procedure is to estimate for the unobserved state vector, \({\kappa }_{t}\), at time \(t\) given \({Y}_{t}=\left\{{Y}_{1},{Y}_{2},\cdots ,{Y}_{n}\right\}\) at time n. Throughout this procedure, a prediction problem occurs when \(t > n\); a filtering problem occurs when \(t = n\); and a smoothing problem occurs when \(t < n\). To solve these problems, the Kalman filter and smoother algorithms are used. These are defined below.
The forward recursion steps of the Kalman filter and smoother algorithm with initial conditions \({\kappa }_{0}^{0}={\mu }_{0}\) and \({P}_{0}^{0}={\Sigma }_{0}\), for \(t=1,\dots ,n\) can be implemented to mitigate the prediction (\(t > n\)) and filtering (\(t= n\)) problems. These steps are outlined as follows.
Prediction steps:
Filtering steps:
Equations (9) to (15) should be cycled through for each time t. The forward recursions in Eqs. (11) through (15) identify the Kalman filter.
The backward recursion steps of the Kalman filter and smoother algorithm with initial conditions \({\kappa }_{n}^{n}\) (Eq. 14) and \({P}_{n}^{n}\) (Eq. 15), which are obtained from the Kalman filter with \(t=n\), for \(t=n,n1,\dots ,1\), can be used in order to mitigate the smoothing \(\left(t<n\right)\) problem. This is shown as follows.
Smoothing steps:
Equations (16) to (17) should be cycled through for each time t. The backward recursion that occurs in Eqs. (16) through (17) is called the Kalman smoother. To estimate a state \({\kappa }_{t}\) given \({Y}_{n}\) with \(t<n\), the Kalman filter is applied recursively until reaching state\({\kappa }_{n}\). While continuing through the cycle, the values \({\kappa }_{t}^{t1}\), \({\kappa }_{t}^{t}\), \({P}_{t}^{t1}\), and \({P}_{t}^{t}\) (\(t=1,\dots ,n\),) are stored. Next, one works backwards by applying the Kalman smoother until one reaches the state,\(t\), which one is trying to estimate for.
Throughout this process, one makes the assumption that the system matrices (\(H, \Phi\) and \(Q\)) and the initial mean \({\mu }_{0}\) and variance \({\Sigma }_{0}\), are both known. As occurs more often, however, some of the system matrices elements depend on an unknown parameters vector, Θ. One estimates the unknown parameters vector, Θ, by calculating for maximum likelihood. The loglikelihood function of the linear state space model (Eqs. (7) and (8)), which was coined by Harvey (1989) as “prediction error decomposition,” is stipulated as follows.
Here, \({v}_{t}\left(\Theta \right)\) and \({\Sigma }_{t}\left(\Theta \right)\) are calculated routinely by the Kalman filter (Eqs. 9–15) by assuming that \({\Sigma }_{t}\left(\Theta \right)\) is nonsingular for t = 1,…,n. The Newton–Raphson algorithm can be utilized successively for the purpose of updating the parameter values until the loglikelihood function (Eq. 18) is enlarged to its maximum level. The standard deviation of the unknown parameters vector, \(\Theta\), is here calculated by \(\sqrt{diag\left(\Theta \left({H\left(\Theta \right)}^{1}\right)\Theta \right)}\) where \(H(\Theta )=\frac{{\partial }^{2}log{L}_{Y}\left(\Theta \right)}{\partial\Theta \partial {\Theta }^{^{\prime}}}\) (known as Hessian matrix\()\), obtained in the Newton–Raphson algorithm. The optim package in the R software (R Core Team 2018) is used for the Newton–Raphson algorithm. Refer to Durbin and Koopman (2012) for an exhaustive review of the loglikelihood function.
The mechanism by which the TvLMM is applied, which is based on the Kalman filter and smoother algorithm, is related above. Throughout this procedure, the system matrices (\(H, \Phi\) and \(Q\)) and the initial mean \({\mu }_{0}\) and variance \({\Sigma }_{0}\) of TvLMM model (Eqs. (3) and (4)) are adapted as follows.
In addition, the unknown parameters vector, \(\Theta =\left\{{Q}_{i}{,{H}_{i}, \phi }_{i},{{\upalpha }}_{{\rm i}, },\stackrel{}{{\beta }_{i}}\right\}\), is estimated by means of a consistent application of the Kalman Filter. The parameter estimation procedure and the R software coding (R Core Team 2018) of Kalman filter and smoother are briefly outlined in Shumway and Stoffer (2006).
The performance of the proposed models is compared by utilizing the MAE and the MSE criteria, represented as follows.
According to these criteria, the models with the lowest MSE and MAE values proffer a better modeling (forecasting) performance.
The Diebold–Mariano (DM) test (Diebold and Mariano 1995) is here used for the robustness checking of the model fit (forecasting) accuracy in the two aforementioned models in terms of the MAE and MSE as the measures of the insample model fitting (outofsample forecasting) procedure, represented as follows.
Here, \({\left(\left(\widehat{{R}_{it}{R}_{ft}}\right)\left({R}_{it}{R}_{ft}\right)\right)}_{a}\) and \({\left(\left(\widehat{{R}_{it}{R}_{ft}}\right)\left({R}_{it}{R}_{ft}\right)\right)}_{b}\) are the residuals for the two aforementioned models, that is, a and b for the t^{th} (t = 1,…,T). According to Choudhry and Wu (2009), w is defined as 1 for MAE and 2 for MSE. In the DM test, given the null hypothesis of no difference in levels of model fit (forecasting) accuracy between the two models, the DM test statistic follows a \({t}_{n1}\) (Neslihanoglu et al. 2020). Note that these analyses were computed using the R software (R Core Team 2018).
Results
Model comparison
Insample model fit
The comparison of the proposed models’ performance for modeling each cryptocurrency return in the preCOVID19 and COVID19 periods uses the insample model fitting procedure. The MSE and MAE results between the actual and the theoretical values of the model for each cryptocurrency return during both time periods are summarized, respectively, in Table 3.
As shown in Table 3, on average, the TVLMM (with the lowest MAE and MSE) improves on the LMM (with the highest MAE and MSE) in terms of MAE (MSE) by 15.6% (22.2%) for cryptocurrency in the preCOVID19 period, while it improves on LMM by 21.9% (33.5%) for cryptocurrency during the COVID19 period. In addition, on average, the GAM improves on the LMM in terms of MAE (MSE) by 1.9% (6.4%) for cryptocurrency in the preCOVID19 period and by 1.9% (2.7%) for cryptocurrency during the COVID19 period. Clearly, the performance of all models with relation to cryptocurrencies in the preCOVID19 period is worse than their performance for cryptocurrencies during the COVID19 period. This may be because cryptocurrencies during the COVID19 period are more stable than in the preCOVID19 period, as evidenced by Table 2. To sum up, the TvLMM model appears to be more desirable for modeling the daily cryptocurrency price indices in the preCOVID19 and COVID19 periods, seeing as it achieves the lowest average MAE and MSE.
Outofsample forecasting
An assessment of the aforementioned models’ forecasting performance is conducted here utilizing 1day and 7day ahead predictions with the rolling window technique for both the preCOVID 19 and COVID19 periods. To do this, the length of the rolling window in both periods is 180 days (6 months), and the length of the prediction period is 30 days (1 month) to predict \({\beta }_{it}\) by generating a 1day ahead and 7day ahead forecast, respectively, for each cryptocurrency during these periods. The MSE and MAE results between the actual and the predicted values of returns of each cryptocurrency over these 30 values during both time periods are summarized in Tables 4 and 5, respectively.
As shown in Tables 4 and 5, on average, the TVLMM (with the lowest MAE and MSE) improves on the LMM (with the highest MAE and MSE) in terms of MAE (MSE) by 30.9% (42.3%) for the 1day ahead forecast and by 28.1% (36.9%) for the 7day ahead forecast for cryptocurrencies in the preCOVID19 period. It improves on the LMM by 15.5% (23.2%) for the 1day ahead forecast and by 16.4% (25.4%) for the 7day ahead forecast for cryptocurrencies during the COVID19 period. Moreover, on average, the GAM improves on the LMM in terms of MAE (MSE) by 3.4% (10.1%) for the 1day ahead forecast and by 2.7% (7.8%) for the 7day ahead forecast for cryptocurrency in the preCOVID19 period. On average, it improves on the LMM by 0.4% (0.9%) for the 1day ahead forecast and by 0.2% (0.8%) for the 7day ahead forecast for cryptocurrencies during the COVID19 period. It is also apparent that all three models’ cryptocurrency results in the 1day ahead and 7day ahead forecast procedures during the COVID19 period are better than those in the 1day ahead and 7day ahead forecast procedures in the preCOVID19 period. This may be due to the fact that the cryptocurrencies were more subject to outliers in the preCOVID19 period than in the COVID19 period. To summarize, TvLMM seems preferable when predicting the daily cryptocurrency price indices in the preCOVID19 and the COVID19 periods given that it generated the lowest average MSE and MAE.
Robustness check
The robustness check of the model fitting and forecasting accuracy of the two aforementioned models using the DM test described in Sect. 3 in terms of MAE and MSE for both procedures and the 10 cryptocurrencies in the preCOVID19 and COVID19 periods are discussed in this section, respectively. According to the DM test, the null hypothesis states that no differences exist in levels of model fitting (forecasting) accuracy between the two models in the insample (outofsample) procedure for each cryptocurrency in each time period. Tables 6 and 7 show the numbers of cryptocurrencies that reject the null hypothesis by using the DM test at the 5% significance level during the preCOVID 19 and COVID19 periods, respectively.
As shown in Tables 6 and 7, the TvLMM (which exhibits the best model fitting and forecasting performance) is statistically significant at the different levels of modelling for the 1day and 7day ahead forecast accuracy for the LMM and GAM in terms of MAE and MSE for both procedures during the preCOVID19 and COVID19 periods. Moreover, GAM is not generally statistically significant at the different levels of forecasting accuracy for LMM in each time period. In sum, the TvLMM seems to be the preferable model for cryptocurrencies in the preCOVID19 and COVID19 periods.
Graphical summary
The aforementioned models’ modeling performance is also presented using scatter plots to show the relationship between the returns of each cryptocurrency and the CCI30 during the preCOVID19 and COVID19 periods. For the sake of brevity, the top four cryptocurrencies by adjusted market capitalization are BPI, ETH, XRP, and BCH; their fitted model plots for the preCOVID19 and COVID19 periods are represented in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively.
As shown in Figs. 3 and 4, the TvLMM provides a much closer fit with the cryptocurrency data (especially for the COVID19 period) owing to the timevarying relationship estimated between the excess returns of the cryptocurrency and the CCI30, suggesting that the shortterm volatility in this relationship is captured by the TvLMM. The estimated relationships between the excess returns of the cryptocurrencies and the CCI30 from the LMM and the GAM are generally close to each other, with the exception of extreme values, which are more commonly observed in the preCOVID19 period than in the COVID19 period. To sum up, the TvLMM seems to be the most appropriate model for cryptocurrencies, especially for the COVID19 period.
Best model fit and forecasting performance
The model with the best modeling and forecasting performance for the preCOVID 19 and COVID19 periods is the TVLMM via KFMR parameter estimates, which are described in Sect. 2 for each cryptocurrency and each time period. These are summarized in Tables 8 and 9, respectively.
Tables 8 and 9 detail some key points. The average estimated variances of observation (\(\widehat{{H}_{i}}\)) and state (\(\widehat{{Q}_{i}}\)) values for the cryptocurrencies in the preCOVID19 period are higher than those during the COVID19 period. This may be because of higher cryptocurrency volatilities in the preCOVID19 period compared to those in the COVID19 period, as illustrated by Table 2. According to the average Adjusted R^{2}, TvLMM provides a better performance during the COVID19 period than in the preCOVID19 period. Moreover, the average temporal autocorrelation (captured by \(\widehat{{\phi }_{i}}\)) for the timevarying beta risk of cryptocurrencies is slightly higher in the preCOVID19 period than in the COVID19 period. This proffers that the timevarying beta risk parameter changed rapidly in the preCOVID19 period, as illustrated by Figs. 5 and 6.
To provide additional information on the behavior of the beta risk estimates of the top four cryptocurrencies by adjusted market capitalization (BPI, ETH, XRP, and BCH), Figs. 5 and 6 present the cryptocurrencies’ beta risk estimates from the TvLMM (exhibiting the best performance) and LMM (exhibiting the worst performance) in both time periods, respectively. The timevarying beta risk \(\left({\widehat{\beta }}_{imt}\right)\) estimates of the cryptocurrencies from the TvLMM fluctuate around those from the LMM, as expected, during both the preCOVID19 and COVID19 periods.
Tables 8, 9 and 10 provide a guideline for active (alpha) and passive (beta) investors upon which their portfolios can be based and with which they can learn what risks and rewards each cryptocurrency may entail. The average alpha (\(\widehat{{\alpha }_{i}}\)) is close to 0 and positive in cryptocurrencies in the preCOVID19 period, while it is close to 0 and negative in cryptocurrencies during the COVID19 period. This implies that the cryptocurrency i actual returns is higher than that of the expected returns derived by TvLMM in the preCOVID19 period, while it is lower than that of the expected returns derived by TvLMM during the COVID19 period. It is worth mentioning that active (alpha) investors prefer to invest in cryptocurrencies with a positive alpha (being considered as valuable investments). Thus, it was observed that they preferred to make investments during the preCOVID19 period.
The average of the timevarying beta (\({\widehat{\beta }}_{imt}\)) (being a statistical measure of a cryptocurrency’s relative volatility to that of the CCI30, where it can be interpreted as both a measure of systematic risk and a performance measure) for cryptocurrencies is positive (1.0719); it was theoretically 7.19% more volatile than the CCI30 during the preCOVID19 period, and (0.9878), which is theoretically 1.22% less volatile than the CCI30 during the COVID19 period. In addition, the fluctuation in timevarying betas is an indicator of the level of exposure to systematic risk. Thus, higher betas imply higher risk, while lower betas imply lower risk. Thus, cryptos with higher betas may gain more in upmarkets but may also lose more in downmarkets. BSV is the riskiest cryptocurrency with the highest range of timevarying beta risk \({\widehat{\beta }}_{imt}\) estimate series during both time periods. In the wake of the discussion about the stochastic behavior of cryptos’ betas, it can be concluded that passive investors’ (beta investor) investing preferences while allocating cryptos in their portfolios in the future may become more flexible and related to their risktolerance level.
Conclusion
This research investigated the performance comparison of LMM and its extensions (namely, the GAM and the TvLMM), the model fitting, and the 1day and 7day ahead predictions for the 10 cryptocurrencies’ daily prices in the preCOVID19 and COVID19 periods. The empirical findings in this research favor the TvLMM model, which outperforms others in both modeling and predicting the daily prices of these 10 cryptocurrencies, especially during the COVID19 period. This provides evidence of a local linear relationship between each cryptocurrency with the CCI30 index as opposed to the traditional LMM, which provides evidence of global linearity.
The comparative analysis in this research clarifies the linearity extensions of the traditional market model in explaining cryptocurrency price. It is apparent that the timevarying linearity extension of the traditional market model, allowing for the timevarying beta risk parameters, absorbed the structural changes of the cryptocurrency price series. In conclusion, this research emphasizes the importance of the timevarying market model when dealing with crypto market inefficiencies.
These research findings should motivate a more systematic investigation of potential risk premia in the cryptocurrencies market as far as there exist specific types of cryptos with a higher exposure to systematic risk (beta risk). Thus, it would be interesting to investigate whether this is accounted for in the profitability of investors. The approach taken in this research suggests that a connection between the exposure to systematic risk and the gains accumulated by trading cryptos is likely to exist. This is strong evidence for the existence of crypto risk premiums. More analysis, however, is expected in this area. Nevertheless, the time dynamics of risk pricing casts doubt on the persistence of risk premiums during specific subperiods, which indicates that there is more work to be done by regulators to improve the efficiency of this newly established market. More efforts should be put into further research to potentially improve the efficiency of this market, thereby allowing for the attraction of more investors and the risk aversion of their diverse portfolios by considering cryptos as well.
Availability of data and materials
The selected database to be considered by the model was found in the following data sources: Cryptocurrencies Index 30 (https://cci30.com), Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, Bitcoin Cash, Binance Coin, Chainlink, Crypto.com Coin, Litecoin, Bitcoin SV, Cardano Price Index (https://coinmarketcap.com), 1 month LIBOR rate (https://www.macrotrends.net).
Abbreviations
 LMM:

Linear Market Model
 OLS:

Ordinary Least Squares
 GAM:

Generalized Additive Model
 TvLMM:

Timevarying Linear Market Model
 KFMR:

Meanreverting form of State Space Model via Kalman Filter
 MAE:

Mean Absolute Error
 MSE:

Mean Squared Error
 CCI30:

Crypto Currency Index 30
 BPI:

Bitcoin Price Index
 ETH:

Ethereum Price Index
 XRP:

XRP Price Index
 BCH:

Bitcoin Cash Price Index
 BNB:

Binance Coin Price Index
 LINK:

Chainlink Price Index
 CRO:

Crypto.com Coin Price Index
 LTC:

Litecoin Price Index
 BSV:

Bitcoin SV Price Index
 ADA:

Cardano Price Index
 R_{f} :

Riskfree rate
References
Akhtaruzzaman M, Boubaker S, Sensoy A (2020) Financial contagion during COVID19 crisis. Finance Res Lett 101604
Alexander C, Dakos M (2020) A critical investigation of cryptocurrency data and analysis. Quant Finance 20(2):173–188
AlAwadhi AM, Alsaifi K, AlAwadhi A, Alhammadi S (2020) Death and contagious infectious diseases: impact of the COVID19 virus on stock market returns. J Behav Exp Finance 27:100326
Ali M, Alm N, Rizvi S (2020) Coronavirus (Covid19) – an epidemic or pandemic for financial markets. J Behav Exp Finance 27
Anyfantaki S, Topaloglou N (2018) Diversification, integration and cryptocurrency market. Integration and Cryptocurrency Market (March 29, 2018)
Bariviera AF, Basgall MJ, Hasperué W, Naiouf M (2017) Some stylized facts of the Bitcoin market. Phys A Stat Mech Appl 484:82–90
Bianchi D, Guidolin M, Pedio M (2020) Dissecting timevarying risk exposures in cryptocurrency markets. BAFFI CAREFIN Centre Research Paper (2020143)
Catania L, Grassi S, Ravazzolo F (2019) Forecasting cryptocurrencies under model and parameter instability. Int J Forecast 35(2):485–501
Chao X, Kou G, Peng Y, Alsaadi FE (2019) Behavior monitoring methods for tradebased money laundering integrating macro and micro prudential regulation: a case from China. Technol Econ Dev Econ 25(6):1081–1096
Chowdhury R, Rahman A, Rahman MS, Mahdy MRC (2020) An approach to predict and forecast the price of constituents and index of cryptocurrency using machine learning. Phys A 551:124569
Choudhry T, Wu H (2009) Forecasting ability of GARCH vs Kalman Filter method: evidence from daily UK timevarying beta. Eur J Finance 15(4):437–444
Ciaian P, Miroslava R, d’Artis K (2016) The economics of Bitcoin price formation. Appl Econ 48(19):1799–1815
Conlon T, McGee R (2020) Safe haven or risky hazard? Bitcoin during the COVID19 bear market. Financ Res Lett 35:101607
Conlon T, Corbet S, McGee RJ (2020) Are cryptocurrencies a safe haven for equity markets? An international perspective from the COVID19 pandemic. Res Int Bus Financ 54:101248
Corbet S, Larkin C, Lucey B (2020) The contagion effects of the COVID19 pandemic: evidence from gold and cryptocurrencies. Financ Res Lett 35:101554
Costa M, Monteiro M (2016) Biascorrection of Kalman filter estimators associated to a linear state space model with estimated parameters. J Stat Plan Inference 176:22–32
Dębski W, FederSempach E, Szczepocki P (2020) Timevarying beta—the case study of the largest companies from the Polish, Czech, and Hungarian stock exchange. Emergi Mark Finance Trade 1–23
Dennery C (2020) Monopsony with nominal rigidities: an inverted phillips curve. Econ Lett 191:109124
Diebold F, Mariano R (1995) Comparing predictive accuracy. J Bus Econ Stat 13(3):253–263
Durbin J, Koopman S (2012) Time series analysis by state space methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Faghih Mohammadi Jalali M, Heidari H (2020) Predicting changes in Bitcoin price using grey system theory. Financ Innov 6:13
Hakim das Neves R (2020) Bitcoin pricing: impact of attractiveness variables. Financ Innov 6:21
Harvey AC (1989) Forecasting, structural time series models and the Kalman filter. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Hastie T, Tibshirani R (1990) Generalized additive models. Monographs on statistics and applied probability. Chapman and Hall
He Q, Liu J, Wang S, Yu J (2020) The impact of COVID19 on stock markets, Econ Polit Stud 1–14
Huynh TLD, Burggraf T, Wang M (2020a) Gold, platinum, and expected Bitcoin returns. J Multinatl Financ Manag 56:100628
Huynh TLD, Hille E, Nasir MA (2020b) Diversification in the age of the 4th industrial revolution: the role of artificial intelligence, green bonds and cryptocurrencies. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 159:120188
Huynh TLD, Nasir MA, Vo XV, Nguyen TT (2020c) “Small things matter most”: the spillover effects in the cryptocurrency market and gold as a silver bullet. N Am J Econ Finance 54:101277
Huynh TLD, Shahbaz M, Nasir MA, Ullah S (2020d) Financial modelling, risk management of energy instruments and the role of cryptocurrencies. Ann Oper Res 1–29
Iqbal N, Fareed Z, Wan G, Shahzad F (2021) Asymmetric nexus between COVID19 outbreak in the world and cryptocurrency market. Int Rev Financ Anal 73:101613
Jagannathan R, Wang Z (1996) The conditional CAPM and the crosssection of expected returns. J Finance 51(1):3–53
James N, Menzies M, Chan J (2021) Changes to the extreme and erratic behaviour of cryptocurrencies during COVID19. Phys A 565:125581
Kalman RE (1960) A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. Trans ASME J Basic Eng 82(Series D):35–45
Kim T (2017) On the transaction cost of Bitcoin. Financ Res Lett 23:300–305
Kristoufek L (2013) Bitcoin meets Google trends and Wikipedia: quantifying the relationship between phenomena of the internet era. Sci Rep 3(1):3415
Kondor D, Pósfai M, Csabai I, Vattay G (2014) Do the rich get richer? An empirical analysis of the Bitcoin transaction network. PLoS ONE 9:e86197
Kou G, Peng Y, Wang G (2014) Evaluation of clustering algorithms for financial risk analysis using MCDM methods. Inf Sci 275:1–12
Lahmiri S, Bekiros S (2020a) The impact of COVID19 pandemic upon stability and sequential irregularity of equity and cryptocurrency markets. Chaos Solitons Fractals 109936
Lahmiri S, Bekiros S (2020) Randomness, informational entropy, and volatility interdependencies among the major world markets: the role of the COVID19 pandemic. Entropy 22(8):833
Lahmiri S, Bekiros S, Salvi A (2018) Longrange memory, distributional variation and randomness of bitcoin volatility. Chaos Solitons Fractals 107:43–48
Lintner J (1965) The valuation of risk assets and the selection of risky investments in stock portfolios and capital budgets. Rev Econ Stat 47(1):13–37
Liu Y, Tsyvinski A (2018) Risks and returns of cryptocurrency. National Bureau of Economic Research w24877.
Makarov I, Schoar A (2020) Trading and arbitrage in cryptocurrency markets. J Financ Econ 135(2):293–319
Mariana CD, Ekaputra IA, Husodo ZA (2021) Are Bitcoin and Ethereum safehavens for stocks during the COVID19 pandemic? Financ Res Lett 38:101798
Markowitz H (1952) Portfolio selection. J Finance 7(1):77–91
Mergner S, Bulla J (2008) Timevarying beta risk of panEuropean industry portfolios: a comparison of alternative modeling techniques. Eur J Financ 14(8):771–802
Mnif E, Jarboui A, Mouakhar K (2020) How the cryptocurrency market has performed during COVID 19? A multifractal analysis. Finance Res Lett 36:101647
Mossin J (1966) Equilibrium in a capital asset market. Econometrica 34(4):768–783
Nakamoto S (2008) Bitcoin: a peertopeer electronic cash system [online]. Retrieved from http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Nasir MA, Huynh TLD, Nguyen SP, Duong D (2019) Forecasting cryptocurrency returns and volume using search engines. Financ Innov 5(1):2
Neslihanoglu S, Bekiros S, McColl JH, Lee D (2020) Multivariate timevarying parameter modelling for stock markets. Empir Econ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181020018962
Neslihanoglu S, Sogiakas V, McColl JH, Lee D (2017) Nonlinearities in the CAPM: evidence from developed and emerging markets. J Forecast 36(8):867–897
Neslihanoglu S, Ünal E, Yozgatlıgil C (2021) Performance comparison of filtering methods on modelling and forecasting the total precipitation amount: a case study for Muğla in Turkey. J Water Clim Change. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2021.332
Panagiotidis T, Stengos T, Vravosinos O (2018) On the determinants of Bitcoin returns: a lasso approach. Financ Res Lett 27:235–240
Petukhina A, Trimborn S, Härdle, WK, Elendner H (2020) Investing with cryptocurrencies—evaluating their potential for portfolio allocation strategies. arXiv:2009.04461
Pontoh S C, Rizkianto R (2020) Asset pricing analysis of 18 cryptocurrencies. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Asian Forum of Business Education (AFBE 2019). Atlantis Press, pp 279–282
Raimundo Júnior GDS, Palazzi RB, Tavares RDS, Klotzle MC (2020) Market stress and herding: a new approach to the cryptocurrency market. J Behav Finance 1–15
R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna
Rognone L, Hyde S, Zhang SS (2020) News sentiment in the cryptocurrency market: an empirical comparison with Forex. Int Rev Financ Anal 69:101462
Rosenberg B (1973) Random coefficients models: the analysis of a crosssection of time series by stochastically convergent parameter regression. Annu Econ Soc Meas 2(4):397–428
Okorie DI, Lin B (2020) Stock markets and the COVID19 fractal contagion effects. Finance Res Lett 101640
Samuelson PA (1965) Proof that properly anticipated prices fluctuate randomly. Ind Manag Rev 6(2):41–49
Schaefer S, Brealey R, Hodges S, Thomas H (1975) Alternative models of systematic risk. In: Elton E, Gruber M (eds) International Capital Markets: an inter and intra country analysis. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 150–161
Senarathne CW, Jianguo W (2020) Herd behaviour in the cryptocurrency market: fundamental vs spurious herding. Eur J Appl Econ 17(1):20–36
Sharif A, Aloui C, Yarovaya L (2020) COVID19 pandemic, oil prices, stock market, geopolitical risk and policy uncertainty nexus in the US economy: fresh evidence from the waveletbased approach. Int Rev Financ Anal 70:101496
Sharpe WF (1964) Capital asset prices: a theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. J Finance 19(3):425–442
Shear F, Ashraf BN, Sadaqat M (2021) Are investors’ attention and uncertainty aversion the risk factors for stock markets? International evidence from the COVID19 crisis. Risks 9(1):2
Shumway R, Stoffer D (2006) Time series analysis and its applications: with R Examples. Springer texts in statistics, Springer
Simpson GL (2018) Modelling palaeoecological time series using generalised additive models. Front Ecol Evol 6:149
Umar Z, Gubareva M (2020) A time–frequency analysis of the impact of the Covid19 induced panic on the volatility of currency and cryptocurrency markets. J Behav Exp Financ 28:100404
Wood S (2006) Generalized additive models: an introduction with R. Chapman and Hall/CRC Texts in Statistical Science Series. Chapman & Hall/CRC
World Health Organization (WHO) (2020) Coronavirus diseases COVID 19 situation report51. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/docs/defaultsource/coronaviruse/situationreports/20200311sitrep51covid19.pdf?sfvrsn=1ba62e57_10
Yermack D (2013) Is Bitcoin a real currency? An economic appraisal. National Bureau of Economic Research:19747
Yousaf I, Ali S (2020) Discovering interlinkages between major cryptocurrencies using highfrequency data: new evidence from COVID19 pandemic. Financ Innov 6(1):1–18
Yousaf I, Ali S (2021) Linkages between stock and cryptocurrency markets during the COVID19 outbreak: an intraday analysis. Singapore Econ Rev. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217590821470019
Yuneline MH (2019) Analysis of cryptocurrency’s characteristics in four perspectives. J Asian Bus Econ Stud 26(2):206–219
Zaremba A, Kizys R, Aharon DY, Demir E (2020) Infected markets: Novel coronavirus, government interventions, and stock return volatility around the globe. Financ Res Lett 35:101597
Zhang Y, Choudhry T (2017) Forecasting the daily timevarying beta of European banks during the crisis period: comparison between GARCH models and the Kalman filter. J Forecast 36(8):956–973
Zhang D, Hu Mu, Ji Q (2020) Financial markets under the global pandemic of COVID19. Finance Res Lett 101528
Zhu Y, Dickinson D, Li J (2017) Analysis on the influence factors of Bitcoin’s price based on VEC model. Financ Innov 3(1):1–13
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The author read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares that he has no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Neslihanoglu, S. Linearity extensions of the market model: a case of the top 10 cryptocurrency prices during the preCOVID19 and COVID19 periods. Financ Innov 7, 38 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s4085402100247z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s4085402100247z