This paper uses a dynamic conditional correlation model to examine whether Bitcoin can act as a hedge and safe haven for major world stock indices, bonds, oil, gold, the general commodity index and the US dollar index. Daily and weekly data span from July 2011 to December 2015. Overall, the empirical results indicate that Bitcoin is a poor hedge and is suitable for diversification purposes only. However, Bitcoin can only serve as a strong safe haven against weekly extreme down movements in Asian stocks. We also show that Bitcoin hedging and safe haven properties vary between horizons.

The authors examine the relation between price returns and volatility changes in the Bitcoin market using a daily database denominated in US dollar. The results for the entire period provide no evidence of an asymmetric return-volatility relation in the Bitcoin market. The authors test if there is a difference in the return-volatility relation before and after the price crash of 2013 and show a significant inverse relation between past shocks and volatility before the crash and no significant relation after. This finding shows that, prior to the price crash of December 2013, positive shocks increased the conditional volatility more than negative shocks. This inverted asymmetric reaction of Bitcoin to positive and negative shocks is contrary to what one observes in equities. As leverage effect and volatility feedback do not adequately explain this reaction, the authors propose the safe-haven effect (Baur, Asymmetric volatility in the gold market, 2012). They highlight the benefits of adding Bitcoin to a US equity portfolio, especially in the pre-crash period. Robustness analyses show, among others, a negative relation between the US implied volatility index (VIX) and Bitcoin volatility. Those additional analyses further support the findings and provide useful information for economic actors who are interested in adding Bitcoin to their equity portfolios or are curious about the capabilities of Bitcoin as a financial asset. JEL G11 G15

International audienceThe purpose of this paper is to detect the impact of audit committee characteristics on Lebanese financially distressed and non-distressed banks. Four characteristics of the audit committee are being examined; size, composition, frequency of meeting and financial expertise. The sample includes 54 ebanese banks with fiscal years-end between 2009 and 2011. The financially distressed and non-distressed banks have been identified from bank profitability. Our Results show that the financial distress of banks has a significant negative relation with the meeting frequency of the audit committee. Hence, the evidence suggests that the meeting frequency of audit committee members is an important factor as it helps the audit committee to hinder the financial distress of the bank. Meeting frequency plays an important role to ensure audit committee effectiveness. In other words, the audit committee with frequent meetings is able to help audit committee members to ensure the integrity of financial reporting, to provide better monitoring and to review effectively the operations. The establishment decision of audit committee was adopted in 2008 and was modified in 2010 in Lebanese banks. Then, this study examines an actuality subject. Consequently, this paper represented an added value to the corporate governance in Lebanese banks and shows the importance of the audit committee impact on financial performance. Future studies concentrate on the impact of managerial dominance over the board (board composition, CEO duality and management ownership) on the independence of audit committee which may have an influence on bank performance

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractThe authors examine the relation between price returns and volatility changes in the Bitcoin market using a daily database denominated in various currencies. The results for the entire period provide no evidence of an asymmetric return-volatility relation in the Bitcoin market. They test if there is a difference in the return-volatility relation before and after the price crash of 2013 and show a significant inverse relation between past shocks and volatility before the crash and no significant relation after. This finding shows that, prior to the price crash of December 2013, positive shocks increased the conditional volatility more than negative shocks. This inverted asymmetric reaction of Bitcoin to positive and negative shocks is contrary to what the authors observe in equities. As leverage effect and volatility feedback don't adequately explain this reaction, they propose the safe-haven effect (Baur, Asymmetric volatility in the gold market, 2012). The authors highlight the benefits of adding Bitcoin to a US equity portfolio, especially in the pre-crash period. Robustness analyses show, among others, a negative relation between the US implied volatility index (VIX) and Bitcoin volatility. Those additional analyses further support their findings and provide useful information for economic actors who are interested in adding Bitcoin to their equity portfolios or are curious about the capabilities of Bitcoin as a financial asset. JEL G11 G15