IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

The inefficiency of Bitcoin

Listed author(s):
  • Urquhart, Andrew
Registered author(s):

    Bitcoin has received much attention in the media and by investors in recent years, although there remains scepticism and a lack of understanding of this cryptocurrency. We add to the literature on Bitcoin by studying the market efficiency of Bitcoin. Through a battery of robust tests, evidence reveals that returns are significantly inefficient over our full sample, but when we split our sample into two subsample periods, we find that some tests indicate that Bitcoin is efficient in the latter period. Therefore we conclude that Bitcoin in an inefficient market but may be in the process of moving towards an efficient market.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176516303640
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Economics Letters.

    Volume (Year): 148 (2016)
    Issue (Month): C ()
    Pages: 80-82

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:148:y:2016:i:c:p:80-82
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2016.09.019
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as
    in new window


    1. Andrew W. Lo, A. Craig MacKinlay, 1988. "Stock Market Prices do not Follow Random Walks: Evidence from a Simple Specification Test," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 1(1), pages 41-66.
    2. Rainer Böhme & Nicolas Christin & Benjamin Edelman & Tyler Moore, 2015. "Bitcoin: Economics, Technology, and Governance," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 29(2), pages 213-238, Spring.
    3. Marie Briere & Kim Oosterlinck & Ariane Szafarz, 2013. "Virtual Currency, Tangible Return: Portfolio Diversification with Bitcoin," Working Papers CEB 13-031, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    4. Kristoufek, Ladislav & Vosvrda, Miloslav, 2014. "Commodity futures and market efficiency," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 50-57.
    5. Choi, In, 1999. "Testing the Random Walk Hypothesis for Real Exchange Rates," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 293-308, May-June.
    6. Adrian (Wai-Kong) Cheung & Eduardo Roca & Jen-Je Su, 2015. "Crypto-currency bubbles: an application of the Phillips-Shi-Yu (2013) methodology on Mt. Gox bitcoin prices," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(23), pages 2348-2358, May.
    7. C. Baek & M. Elbeck, 2015. "Bitcoins as an investment or speculative vehicle? A first look," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 30-34, January.
    8. Fry, John & Cheah, Eng-Tuck, 2016. "Negative bubbles and shocks in cryptocurrency markets," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 343-352.
    9. Fama, Eugene F, 1970. "Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 25(2), pages 383-417, May.
    10. David, Géraldine & Oosterlinck, Kim & Szafarz, Ariane, 2013. "Art market inefficiency," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 23-25.
    11. Dyhrberg, Anne Haubo, 2016. "Hedging capabilities of bitcoin. Is it the virtual gold?," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 139-144.
    12. Kim, Jae H., 2009. "Automatic variance ratio test under conditional heteroskedasticity," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 179-185, September.
    13. Bekaert, Geert & Harvey, Campbell R., 2002. "Research in emerging markets finance: looking to the future," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 429-448, December.
    14. Cheah, Eng-Tuck & Fry, John, 2015. "Speculative bubbles in Bitcoin markets? An empirical investigation into the fundamental value of Bitcoin," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 32-36.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:148:y:2016:i:c:p:80-82. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.