IS BITCOIN BECOMING AN ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT OPTION FOR TURKEY? A COMPARATIVE INVESTIGATION THROUGH THE NON-LINEAR TIME SERIES ANALYSIS

Abstract

Purpose - The main purpose of this study in determine whether Bitcoin is becoming an alternative investment option compared to other

financial instruments in Turkey. To perform analysis for this purpose, we created sample includes Bitcoin, Bist 100 National Index, Bond,

Euro and Gold. We calculated daily returns in terms of % for each type of instrument for the period range from 02.02.2012 to 17.12.2018.

Methodology - In the study, we tested the stationarity of the series and the causality relationships between the series through the nonlinear

unit root and causality tests. Stationarity of the series and causality relations between them are determined with the help of charts.

Both in unit root test and in causality test, firstly we obtained test statistics and normalized them by using critical values then transferred

them to the charts. In order to decide about when test statistics is higher than critical values null hypothesis is rejected.

Findings- Bitcoin, Usd, Gold and Bond are found non-stationary for the whole period. We find out that returns of Euro is more stable than

Usd. Bitcoin has been fluctuating during all period except for first months of 2013 while Gold’s returns are intensively volatile when politic

and economic risks are increasing. This show investors in Turkey still consider Gold as safe port for their investments. Usd currency is

volatile for all period because of its increasing demand all over the world. In causality test we observed that there is a causality relation

from Bitcoin’s returns to Bist 100 returns. This result shows that Bitcoin is becoming an alternative (substitute) investment tool for

domestic and foreign investors compared to Borsa Istanbul. There is more causality relation between Bitcoin and Gold than Bitcoin and Bist

100.

Conclusion- Based on the findings of this analysis, , it may be accepted that Bitcoin has been becoming an alternative investment/savings

tool for the Turkey case. Regulatory institutions should create a required legal framework for the Bitcoin because Bitcoin has a great

potential to prevent of tax evasion, the terminate the informal economy and eliminate intermediation costs.

Keywords

• Bitcoin,Non- Linear Unit Root Test,Non- Linear Causality Test,Varying Time Series,Borsa Istanbul

References

1. Ağazadebin, S. (2014). Doğrusal Olmayan Birim Kök Testleriyle Rusya için Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi Hipotezinin İncelenmesi. The Journal of Anadolu University Social Sciences, 14(4), 15-24.
2. Ateş, A., B. (2016). Kripto Para Birimleri, Bitcoin ve Muhasebesi, The Journal of Çankırı University Social Sciences Institution, 7(1), p.349-366.
3. Atik M., Köse Y., Yılmaz B., Sağlam F., (2015). Kripto Para: Bitcoin ve Döviz Kurları Üzerine Etkileri, The Journal of Bartın University School of Economics and Administrative Science, 6 (11), 247-261.
4. Ay, A. ve Mangır, F. (2007). Uluslararası Finansal Entegrasyon Bağlamında Sermayenin Vergilendirilmesi: Tobin Vergisi. Maliye Dergisi, 153, 123-141.
5. Balcilar, M., Chang,T., Gupta,R. and Li, X. (2016). The Causal Relationship Between Economic Policy Uncertainty and Stock Returns In China and India: Evidence From A Bootstrap Rolling-Window Approach. Emerging Markets Finance & Trade, 52, 674–689.
6. Borsa İstanbul (2018). Kıymetli Madenler ve Kıymetli Taşlar Piyasası. http://www.borsaistanbul.com/urunler-ve-piyasalar/piyasalar/kiymetli-madenler-ve-kiymetli-taslar-piyasasi, (Accessed in 23.12.2018).
7. Çarkacıoğlu, A. (2016). Kripto –Para Bitcoin, Capital Markets Board Research Paper, p. 1-84
8. Destek, M. A. (2016). Satın Alma Gücü Paritesi Hipotezi Geçerliliğinin Fourier Birim Kök Testleri ile İncelenmesi: OECD Ülkeleri Örneği. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 15(1), 73-87.

9. Gültekin, Y., Bulut, Y. (2016). Bitcoin Ekonomisi: Bitcoin Eko-Sisteminden Doğan Yeni Sektörler ve Analizi, Adnan Menderes University, The Journal of Social Sciences Institution, 3(3), p.82-92
10. Hacker, R. S. and Hatemi-J, A. (2006).Tests for Causality between Integrated Variables Using Asymptotic and Bootstrap Distributions: Theory and Application. Applied Economics, 38, 1489-1500.
11. Hatemi-J, A. (2012). Asymmetric Causality Tests with an Application. Empirical Economics, 43(1), 447-456.
12. Hepkorucu A., Genç, S., (2017). Finansal Varlık Olarak Bitcoin’in İncelenmesi ve Birim Kök Yapısı Üzerine Bir Uygulama, Osmaniye Korkut Ata Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(2), 47-58.
13. Kapetanios, G., Shin, Y. and Snell, A. (2003). Testing for a Unit Root in the Nonlinear STAR Framewor. Journal of Economics, 112(2), 359-379.
14. Li, X., Balcılar, M., Gupta, M. and Chang, T. (2016). The Causal Relationship Between Economic Policy Uncertainty and Stock Returns in China and India: Evidence from A Bootstrap Rolling-Window Approach. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 52(3), 674–689.
15. Tang, C. and Jang, S. (2009). The Tourism-Economy Causality in the Uni ted States: A Sub-Industry Level Examination. Tourism Management, 30, 553–8.
16. Yılancı, V. (2009). Fisher Hipotezinin Türkiye İçin Sınanması: Doğrusal Olmayan Eşbütünleşme Analizi. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 23(4), 205-213.
17. Yılancı, V. Bozoklu, S. (2014). Price and Trade Volume Relationship in Turkish Stock Market: A Time-Varying Asymmetric Causality Analysis. Ege Academic Review, 14(2), 211-220.