Volatility Spillover Dynamics Among Crypto Assets (Bitcoin, Solana, Ethereum); Relationship To The Indonesian Capital Market Index
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55826/jtmit.v5i2.1800Keywords:
Volatility Spillover, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, IHSG, Financial IntegrationAbstract
This study aims to analyze the volatility dynamics and spillover phenomena among major crypto assets (Bitcoin, Solana, and Ethereum) and their relationship with the Jakarta Composite Index (JCI), a proxy for the Indonesian capital market. In the era of digital financial integration, the link between speculative crypto asset markets and conventional stock markets is a crucial issue for financial system stability. This study uses daily price time series data for the period 2020-2025. The analysis was conducted using the Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity (GARCH) model and the Diebold-Yilmaz spillover index approach to measure the magnitude of shock transmission between markets. The results indicate significant volatility transmission among the three crypto assets, with Bitcoin remaining the primary source of volatility. Furthermore, this study finds an increasing dynamic correlation between the global crypto market and the Indonesian capital market during periods of economic uncertainty. These findings have important implications for investors in portfolio diversification strategies and for Indonesian regulators in monitoring systemic risks originating from digital assets.
References
[1] Baur, D. G., & Hoang, L. T. (2021). A crypto-currency barometer: A world market index for digital assets. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 70, 101261.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2020.101261
[2] Borri, N. (2019). Conditional tail-risk in cryptocurrency markets. Journal of Empirical Finance, 50, 1–19.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jempfin.2018.11.002
[3] Corbet, S., Meegan, A., Larkin, C., Lucey, B., & Yarovaya, L. (2018). Exploring the dynamic relationships between cryptocurrencies and other financial assets. Economic Letters, 165, 28–34.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2018.01.004
[4] Diebold, F.X., & Yilmaz, K. (2012). Better to give than to receive: Predictive directional measurement of volatility spillovers. International Journal of Forecasting, 28(1), 57–66.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2011.02.006
[5] Engle, R. F. (1982). Autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity with estimates of the variance of United Kingdom inflation. Econometrica, 50(4), 987–1007.https://doi.org/10.2307/1912773
[6] Forbes, K. J., & Rigobon, R. (2002). No contagion, only interdependence: Measuring stock market spillovers. The Journal of Finance, 57(5), 2223–2261.https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-1082.00494
[7] Guesmi, K., Saadi, S., Abid, I., & Pappas, N. (2019). Portfolio diversification with Bitcoin: Evidence from recurrent marginal expected shortfall. Resources Policy, 63, 101445.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.101445
[8] Ji, Q., Bouri, E., Lau, C.K.M., & Roubaud, D. (2019). Dynamic connectedness and integration in cryptocurrency markets. International Review of Financial Analysis, 63, 257–272.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2018.12.002
[9] Katsiampa, P. (2019). Volatility dynamics of crypto-currencies: A GARCH-type approach. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 523, 1057–1065.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2019.04.153
[10] Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research methods for business: A skill building approach (7th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Hugo Prasetyo Winotoatmojo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
