Artikel Jurnal Akuntansi

Song
et al. Financial Innovation (2023) 9:29 Financial Innovation

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-022-00445-3
RESEARCH Open Access
Cryptocurrency technology revolution: are

Bitcoin prices and terrorist attacks related?
Yu Song , Bo Chen and Xin‑Yi Wang*
*Correspondence:
15275147810@163.com Abstract
Institute of Defense Economics As a financial innovation of the information age, cryptocurrency is a complex concept
and Management, Central with clear advantages and disadvantages and is worthy of discussion. Exploring from
University of Finance a terrorism perspective, this study uses the time-varying parameter/stochastic volatil‑
and Economics, 39 Xueyuan
South Road, Beijing, China ity vector autoregression model to explore the risk hedging and terrorist financing
capabilities of Bitcoin. Empirical results show that both terrorist incidents and brutality
may explain Bitcoin price, but their effects are slightly different. Compared to terrorist
brutality, terrorist incidents have a weaker impact on Bitcoin price, showing that Bitcoin
investors are more concerned about the number of deaths than the frequency of ter‑
rorist attacks. In turn, the impact of Bitcoin price on terrorist attacks is negligible. Bitcoin
is a potential means of financing terrorism, but it does not currently play an important
role. Our research findings can help investors analyze and predict Bitcoin prices and
help improve the theoretical system of anti-terrorist financing, helping to maintain
world peace and security.
Keywords: Terrorist incident, Terrorist brutality, Bitcoin price, Time-varying
JEL Classification: C32, G12, H56
Introduction
Bitcoin is a type of cryptocurrency with a decentralized transmission mode based on
cryptography and blockchain technology (Majumder et al. 2019). Currently, Bitcoin has
the highest market capitalization among cryptocurrencies, which has aroused the inter-
est of both investors and policymakers (Grant and Hogan 2015; Li et al. 2021). Recently,
the price of digital currency represented by Bitcoin has reached new highs. Owing to
decentralization and anonymous trading, Bitcoin has shown potential as a hedge against
the financial market and geopolitical risks (Bouoiyour et al. 2019; Aharon et al. 2021).
Bitcoin price is not affected by market supply and demand but mainly fluctuates accord-
ing to short-term geopolitical factors (Al-Mamun et al. 2020). As the global economy
develops and global political changes, terrorism has become a serious problem, with ter-
rorist attacks becoming more frequent. In some cases, the damage caused by terrorist
activities has exceeded that of local wars and has become the main source of geopo-
litical risks (Orbaneja et al. 2018). Terrorist attacks seriously threaten people’s prop-
erty and lives and create violent financial market fluctuations. Although the impacts of
© The Author(s) 2023. 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 mate‑
rial. 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/.
Song et al. Financial Innovation (2023) 9:29 Page 2 of 20
terrorist attacks on the stock market have been studied extensively (El Ouadghiri and
Peillex 2018; Aksoy and Demiralay 2019; Markoulis and Katsikides 2020), the interaction
between terrorist attacks and Bitcoin price cannot be eliminated.
Bitcoin may be used to finance terrorism. Owing to the decentralization and anonym-
ity features of cryptocurrencies, illegal transactions cannot be regulated. Bitcoin is often
associated with criminal activities, including money laundering and the financing of ter-
rorism (Carmona 2015; Majumder et al. 2019). The Federal Reserve and European Cen-
tral Bank have stated that Bitcoin is a highly speculative asset used in illegal financing
activities (e.g., money laundering). Hence, a global regulatory consensus on Bitcoin is
required. However, improving regulatory capacity usually lags behind financial technol-
ogy innovation, providing new opportunities to finance terrorism. With the continuous
development of internet technology, virtual currency, online payment, and dark web
transactions have attracted great attention from terrorist organizations. International
terrorist organizations, including the “Islamic State” (IS), use emerging technologies
(e.g., the blockchain), to raise and transfer illegal funds (Weimann 2016; Majumder et al.
2019). In October 2015, the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering released
a report entitled “Emerging Terrorism Financing Risks,” which specifically analyzed the
terrorist financing risks of virtual currency. This report highlighted that virtual curren-
cies, represented by Bitcoin, have increasingly become “accomplices” to various illegal
and criminal activities, facilitating money laundering and terrorist financing. Terrorist
financing based on emerging technologies can allow terrorist organizations to instantly
transfer funds worldwide (Grant and Hogan 2015). However, it also increases the diffi-
culty of counterterrorist financing in relevant countries (Irwin and Milad 2016; Patel and
Pereira 2021). In the cryptocurrency technological revolution and spread of terrorism,
studying the hedging properties and terrorist financing capabilities of Bitcoin is neces-
sary. This study mainly addresses the following problems: Are terrorist attacks impor-
tant drivers or factors of Bitcoin price fluctuations or price formation? To what extent
can Bitcoin develop and morph into a currency utilized to finance terrorism? Does the
interaction mechanism between Bitcoin price and terrorist attacks change over time?
This study makes the following contributions. First, it enriches the literature on the
interaction between terrorist attacks and Bitcoin prices. In measuring the terrorist attack
variable, we consider three measurement methods: terrorist incidents, terrorist brutal-
ity, and terrorist attack index. Moreover, we examined the time-varying effects of severe
political and economic uncertainty event shocks on the relationship between terrorist
attacks and Bitcoin price. Second, Bitcoin price is affected by terrorist attacks world-
wide. The accuracy of the results would be greatly reduced if only one region or country
was considered. Hence, our research explores the interaction between Bitcoin price and
terrorist attacks globally. Additionally, we use monthly rather than daily data. Although
terrorist incidents only last for limited periods, the panic, uncertainty, and insecurity
these events generate can last for a long time (Kollias et al. 2013). As terror attacks cas-
cade through news and social discourses, monthly data allow control for longer lags
(Patel and Pereira 2021). Third, accurately identifying the impact mechanism between
terrorist attacks and Bitcoin price at distinct points in time during periods of height-
ened terrorist attacks consists of an effective defence. We use the time-varying param-
eter/stochastic volatility vector autoregression (TVP-SV-VAR) model, which allows for
structural changes, to analyze the interaction between terrorist attacks and Bitcoin price
from a time-varying perspective. Compared with the constant-coefficient approach,
the estimated parameters and variance of the disturbance term under the TVP-SV-
VAR model changed over time, allowing us to capture the dynamic characteristics of
the parameters in this study. Finally, from a risk management perspective, our research
provides useful and relevant information to market participants—traders, investors, and
risk managers—to help ensure better asset allocation during unforeseen shocks and ris-
ing terrorism risks. From an anti-terrorism financing perspective, this study analyzes the
international anti-terrorism financing mechanism from an empirical level and improves
the theoretical system and research results of terrorism financing. Hence, our results
will be highly significant in combating terrorism and safeguarding world security and
countries’ developmental interests.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. “Literature review” section com-
prises a literature review. “Theoretical mechanism and research hypothesis” section
outlines the interactive mechanism between terrorist attacks and Bitcoin price. “Data”
section describes the data. “Empirical results and discussion” section provides the
empirical results and discussion. “Conclusions” section presents the main conclusions
of this study.
Literature review
Since its creation in 2008, Bitcoin and blockchain have been researched topics of con-
stant interest to academia and international investors (Zhu et al. 2017; Kumar and Ajaz
2019; Shahzad et al. 2021; Zhao 2021; Zhang et al. 2021; García-Corral et al. 2022; Lor-
enzo and Arroyo 2022). Xu et al. (2019) review the current academic research on block-
chain, especially in business and economics. Sebastião and Godinho (2021) examine
the profitability of cryptocurrency trading strategies devised on machine learning tech-
niques (e.g., linear models, random forests, and support vector machines). By covering
146 research papers on various cryptocurrency trading aspects, Fang et al. (2022) pro-
vide a comprehensive survey of cryptocurrency trading research. Bitcoin price is highly
volatile, with frequent and extreme rises or falls. Much of the literature explores the
properties of Bitcoin and the uncertainty factors that determine its price (Nasir et al.
2019; Jalali and Heidari 2020; Mensi et al. 2021; Neslihanoglu 2021; Almaqableh et al.
2022b). The relevant literature can be grouped into four themes as follows.
First, Bitcoin has a hedge and safe-haven properties. Fang et al. (2019) reveal that the
uncertainty of global policy negatively and significantly impacts Bitcoin bond correlation
and positively impacts correlations between Bitcoin equities and Bitcoin commodities.
Hence, the possibility that Bitcoin acts as a hedge under specific uncertainty conditions.
Aysan et al. (2019) examine the ability of geopolitical risks to predict the returns and
volatility of Bitcoin. Hence, as global geopolitical risks continue to increase, investors
should also use Bitcoin to hedge against uncertain risks. Plakandaras et al. (2021) exam-
ine whether information on the US–China trade war could be used to forecast Bitcoin
returns. Their results suggest that future Bitcoin returns are unaffected by trade-related
uncertainties, and investors can use Bitcoin as a safe haven in this context. Selmi et al.
(2022) find that when risk is high, Bitcoin responds positively to the composite geopo-
litical risk indicator. Thus, Bitcoin can act as a safe haven for assets whose valuations
plummet during violent geopolitical conflicts. However, some studies suggest that Bit-
coin does not have risk-hedging properties. Bouri et al. (2017) indicate that Bitcoin can-
not hedge risks but can be used in asset diversification. Bouoiyour and Selmi (2019) also
indicate that Bitcoin may face many obstacles in becoming a safe-haven asset owing to
the lack of regulation and excessive speculation. Generally, there is no consensus on
whether Bitcoin can hedge market risk.
Second, Bitcoin can be a diversification option for investment portfolios. Investors are
always examining alternative investment instruments as part of diversified investment
portfolios. In recent years, the number of financial institutions including cryptocurren-
cies in their portfolios has accelerated (Fang et al. 2022). Bitcoin may offer diversification
benefits for investors owing to its high average return and low correlation with financial
assets (Guesmi et al. 2019). Eisl et al. (2015) highlight the impact of Bitcoin investment
on an already well-diversified investment portfolio and indicate that Bitcoin should be
included in optimal portfolios. Briere et al. (2015) confirm that Bitcoin investment offers
significant diversification benefits. They show that including even a small proportion of
Bitcoin may dramatically improve the risk-return trade-off of well-diversified portfolios.
Carpenter (2016) demonstrate that Bitcoin can be a viable diversification tool, but its
investment appeal may be skewed by return activity that occurred during a speculative
bubble in 2013. Bouri et al. (2020a) suggest that Bitcoin can become a viable alternative
to the conventional stock market considering the heightened trade policy-related uncer-
tainties and provide diversification benefits for investors. Akhtaruzzaman et al. (2020)
analyze portfolio diversification by adding Bitcoin to global industry portfolios. Results
demonstrate that investment in Bitcoin provides an efficient diversification option for
many industrial sectors and bonds. Qarni and Gulzar (2021) demonstrate that Bitcoin
can provide significant portfolio diversification benefits for alternative currency foreign
exchange portfolios.
Third, terrorism or geopolitical risk has an impact on Bitcoin price. Owing to the
intensification of global geopolitical risks and frequent terrorist attacks, many scholars
explain asset pricing from terrorism or geopolitical uncertainty perspectives (Salisu et al.
2022). Al-Mamun et al. (2020) show that geopolitical risk associated with acts of terror-
ism is the most consistent and significant positive determinant of Bitcoin volatility and
risk premia. Bouri et al. (2020b) show that the price behavior of all cryptocurrencies is
jumpy but only jumps in Bitcoin price are dependent on jumps in the geopolitical risk
index. Patel and Pereira (2021) show that terrorist attacks lead to a downward trend in
the macroeconomy, and pessimistic expectations of the future investment environment
reduce Bitcoin returns. Almaqableh et al. (2022a) indicate that while terrorist attacks
positively contribute to cryptocurrency returns, they also result in short-term risk shift-
ing behavior for different cryptocurrencies.
Fourth, economic events impact Bitcoin price. Kyriazis (2020) concludes that the panic
of market investment sentiment and various political and economic uncertainty events
explain abnormal Bitcoin price fluctuations. Mokni et al. (2020) showed that an increase
in economic policy uncertainty level is associated with an increase in the optimal weight
of Bitcoin in a portfolio before the Bitcoin crash. However, economic policy uncertainty
exerts a negative (positive) impact on the hedging ratio during low (high) uncertainty
levels after a Bitcoin crash. Entrop et al. (2020) find that higher news—based Bitcoin
sentiment affects the Bitcoin price of the futures market; conversely, attention and mac-
roeconomic news have no impact on Bitcoin price discovery. Mokni (2021) investigated
the predictive power of economic policy uncertainty on Bitcoin price volatility and
emphasize that economic policy uncertainty can predict volatility only when the Bitcoin
market is bullish. Wüstenfeld and Geldner (2021) analyze the dynamics between Bitcoin
trading, price activities, and economic surprise shocks. Their results show that local and
global shocks affect local Bitcoin activities and trading volatilities, confirming that eco-
nomic events affect Bitcoin markets. Finally, Wu et al. (2022) show that global economic
policy uncertainty positively influences Bitcoin returns but negatively impacts Bitcoin
long-term volatility.
Besides studying the impact of terrorist attacks on Bitcoin price, studies have explored
whether Bitcoin funds terrorist attacks from the terrorist financing perspective. As gov-
ernments focus on taxation and their ability to control currencies, Bitcoin has become
an important way to fund criminal acts and terrorism (Carmona 2015). The Federal
Bureau of Investigation investigated the dangers of Bitcoin in terrorism financing. Their
conclusions indicate that Iran uses Bitcoin to fund Hamas. The US Department of Jus-
tice confiscated $2 million worth of cryptocurrency from terrorist organizations in the
Middle East, which al-Qaeda could have used to purchase weapons and train potential
soldiers (U.S. Department of Justice 2020). Carmona (2015) showed that the anonym-
ity and high efficiency of Bitcoin make the fund flow of terrorist organizations fast and
opaque, posing a serious challenge to international counterterrorist financing. Weimann
(2016) finds that terrorist organizations mainly use cryptocurrency to raise funds to
receive Bitcoin donations, which can be used to buy weapons on the black market. Irwin
and Milad (2016) demonstrate that terrorist organizations attempt to understand new
and evolving digital and cryptocurrency technologies that may be used to move funds to
areas where they are needed in a relatively anonymous and safe manner. Majumder et al.
(2019) observe that this feature of anonymity, confidentiality, and lack of central surveil-
lance made cryptocurrency a potential source for terrorism financing. Shah (2020) finds
that Bitcoin price fluctuations are directly linked to terrorist attacks in countries with
ISIS presence. Lee and Choi (2021) also find that terrorist attacks change with Bitcoin
price. Simultaneously, the popularity of extortion software that uses Bitcoin as a ransom
also affects the occurrence of terrorist activities. In summary, cryptocurrencies posing a
potential money laundering and terrorism financing threat have found a clear consensus.
Theoretical mechanism and research hypothesis

Mechanism of the impact of terrorist attacks on Bitcoin price
Uncertainty about terrorist attacks may be the key element that significantly impacts
the Bitcoin investment climate (Patel and Pereira 2021). When terrorist attacks trigger
serious market panic, greater fluctuations in geopolitics, macroeconomics, and financial
markets occur. Owing to the decentralization, security, and anonymity associated with
the rise of Bitcoin, an increasing number of investors and institutions have become inter-
ested in digital currency (Yousaf and Ali 2020). In the early days of Bitcoin, its perfor-
mance was better than that of gold, and its price remained stable for a long time. More
investors are admitting that Bitcoin can evolve into a major safe-haven asset (Qarni and
Gulzar 2021). Hence, the Bitcoin market may potentially attract an inflow of safe-haven
funds, showing a more significant growth rate than the gold market (Al-Mamun et al.
2020). Some investors call it “digital gold” (Huynh et al. 2020).
While the early consensus on Bitcoin is clear, it is far from being “digital gold.” Par-
ticularly, in recent years, Bitcoin price has fluctuated greatly, and it has neither shown
an inverse relationship with the global stock market nor followed the price trend of gold
and bonds (Mokni et al. 2020). Conversely, terrorist attacks have increasingly shown a
negative correlation with Bitcoin price, as Bitcoin has sometimes failed to demonstrate
its safe-haven asset characteristics. The main transmission mechanisms of this effect
may be as follows. On the one hand, terrorist attacks cause market turmoil and increased
uncertainty. In a crisis, the concept of “cash is king” prompts Bitcoin investors to sell
in large quantities, causing further panic selling (Baele et al. 2020). Conversely, terrorist
attacks lower Bitcoin prices through a decline in the short-term macroeconomic cycle.
When a pessimistic investment environment spreads, investors focus on the safety and
liquidity of holding physical assets and are more inclined to store assets with less vol-
atility to reduce future losses (Patel and Pereira 2021). In summary, the frequent and
substantial fluctuations of Bitcoin in recent years have reduced investor confidence, and
people are no longer inclined to regard it as a safe-haven asset. Thus, we propose the fol-
lowing hypothesis:
Hypothesis I Terrorist attacks are critical factors leading to Bitcoin price fluctuations.
However, in the early and later stages of Bitcoin, its ability to avoid terrorism risks are
opposed.
Mechanism of Bitcoin price impacts on terrorist attacks

Most of the world’s well-known terrorist organizations derive their income mainly from
oil trafficking, smuggling, and so on (Lee 2018; Ghatak and Karakaya 2021). However,
as anti-terrorism efforts strengthen in various countries, these traditional projects are
becoming increasingly difficult to implement. Simultaneously, once these terrorist
organizations realized that money deposited in the bank and their withdrawals could
easily be traced, they explored new ways to raise funds, such as through Bitcoin (Wei-
mann 2016; Kfir 2020).
Terrorist organizations favor Bitcoin owing to the following three main reasons. First,
cryptocurrency is generally characterized by the anonymity of transactions and the free
cross-border flow of funds. Hence, terrorists can easily conceal the source and location
history of their funds. Moreover, terrorists will find circumventing foreign exchange
quotas and regulations on foreign exchange remittances abroad easy. This brings con-
venience to money laundering, terrorist financing, and capital control evasion (Carmona
2015; Patel and Pereira 2021). Second, as the identity of the Bitcoin owner is encrypted in
the Bitcoin network, people can only identify the source, flow direction, and circulation
mode of Bitcoin. However, the identity of the Bitcoin owner cannot be known. More-
over, the government cannot regulate Bitcoin transactions owing to this characteristic
(Irwin and Milad 2016). Third, the “convertibility” of Bitcoin allows terrorists to turn
cryptocurrency into real currency. Simultaneously, the decentralized nature of Bitcoin
also provides an opportunity for terrorists to escape bank and government supervision,
enabling them to quickly transfer funds without formal financial institutions knowing
(Irwin and Turner 2018; Lee and Choi 2021).
Owing to these advantages, Bitcoin can support terrorist network financial support
systems, rendering the traditional and most effective counterterrorism policies com-
pletely outdated (Carmona 2015). Worldwide, terrorists are gradually using Bitcoin as
a payment carrier for terrorist activities, online money laundering, blackmail, and other
illegal and criminal activities (Pflaum and Hateley 2013). As terrorist organizations
begin using Bitcoin to raise funds, changes in Bitcoin price will affect the ability of ter-
rorist organizations to raise funds, affecting their ability to launch terrorist attacks. Spe-
cifically, on the one hand, the rising Bitcoin price will make the Bitcoin held by terrorist
organizations more valuable, providing them with sufficient funds to launch more seri-
ous terrorist attacks. On the other hand, rising Bitcoin prices will encourage terrorist
organizations to bypass the surveillance mechanism of the banking system of the respec-
tive countries to anonymously finance terrorist attacks (Majumder et al. 2019). This
effort is usually worthwhile as a high Bitcoin price is more beneficial and efficient for ter-
rorist financing. Therefore, in the Granger sense, Bitcoin price changes may occur before
terrorist attacks.
Despite the growing connection between Bitcoin and terrorist attacks, some studies
show no large-scale use of cryptocurrency by terrorist organizations to raise or trans-
fer funds (Irwin and Milad 2016; US Department of the Treasury 2018). Most terror-
ist organizations operate in remote mountainous or rural areas with poor infrastructure
and technology levels. Terrorists cannot use advanced computer technology to mine or
trade Bitcoin. Moreover, terrorists may not be able to convert or trade Bitcoin for real
currency (Irwin and Milad 2016). While this terrorist financing method has not been
applied globally, it is the “new favorite” of terrorist organizations. Bitcoin’s status in ter-
rorist activities has gradually improved. For example, existing studies have shown that
many terrorist organizations have mined Bitcoin by outsourcing, compensating for their
technical disadvantages. Bitcoin represents an important financial option for terrorist
networks as it can almost seamlessly integrate into existing funding frameworks (Car-
mona 2015). Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis II Bitcoin is a potential means of terrorist financing but cannot play an
important role.
Dynamic interaction between Bitcoin prices and terrorist attacks

Although terrorism risk will affect Bitcoin prices and cryptocurrencies pose significant
money laundering and terrorism financing threats, whether this interaction is static or
dynamic must be determined before an accurate picture of the risks associated with this
emerging and potentially revolutionary technology can be obtained. Interaction between
Bitcoin prices and terrorist attacks is evidently heterogeneous over time for the follow-
ing reasons.
First, terrorism risk changes over time, depending on where terrorist attacks occur,
why they occur, and the areas they affect. This phenomenon leads to different impact
directions, intensities, and duration of terrorist attacks on the Bitcoin market reflected
in the different price fluctuations of Bitcoin. Second, Bitcoin price is characterized by

strong volatility and a large fluctuation range. The performance of the Bitcoin market is
also significantly different under different terrorist attacks. These characteristics make
relationships between terrorist attacks and Bitcoin prices complex and dynamic. Third,
as terrorist attacks become the norm, their impact on Bitcoin prices can weaken and
change with the extension of time. Hence, the relationship between the two will not be
as closely linked as in the past, and the influence of terrorist attacks may become mostly
nonlinear, with greater uncertainty and time delays.
Additionally, when analyzing the relationship between terrorist attacks and Bitcoin
price, the existing literature analyzes terrorism purely as an event. However, the interac-
tion between Bitcoin prices and terrorist attacks is quite complex and also determined
by other various complicated factors (e.g., severe political and economic uncertainty
events). Different types of uncertainty events can have a knock-on effect on the interac-
tion between terrorist attacks and Bitcoin prices. Hence, exploring the effects of contin-
gencies in the context of political and economic uncertainty risks is necessary. Therefore,
we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis III The interaction between Bitcoin prices and terrorist attacks changes
over time and is subject to economic or political uncertainty.
Data
We selected the sample period of October 2013 to December 2020 to assess the interac-
tion between terrorist attacks and Bitcoin price, with start and end dates purely con-
tingent on data availability. The CoinDesk Bitcoin Price Index (XBP) provides the most
accurate Bitcoin price. It represents the average Bitcoin price across all major interna-
tional Bitcoin exchanges that meet the criteria specified by the XBP and compares it
to the price on another selected exchange (Al-Yahyaee et al. 2019). We obtained data
on terrorist attacks from the Global Terrorism Database at the University of Maryland
(Miao et al. 2017; Huang et al. 2017; Lee and Choi 2021). This variable is defined as the
number of terrorist attacks experienced by countries worldwide in a given month (Lee
2018; Patel and Pereira 2021). Additionally, terrorist attacks have a destructive influence
on the Bitcoin price depending on the brutality of the attack. Hence, we also use the
number of fatalities as a proxy for the brutality of a terrorist attack (Frey et al. 2007;
Orbaneja et al. 2018). To distinguish between these two aspects of terrorist attacks, we
measure terrorist incidents (number of terrorist attacks per month) and terrorist brutal-
ity (number of fatalities per attack).
Besides considering the impact of terrorist attacks on Bitcoin price, we also examine
the role of the US dollar index (USDX). In the current and future settings, any geopo-
litical events, especially terrorist attacks, can affect dollar value (Su et al. 2020a). As
terrorist attacks may affect the development of the world economy, any interest rate
increase or reduction policy adopted by the Federal Reserve relative to changes in the
economic situation will directly affect the USDX. Hence, any fluctuations in Bitcoin
price may be influenced by the US dollar as the US dollar is considered the denomina-
tion currency of Bitcoin. Hence, if the value of the US dollar declines, it will lead to a
7,000 24,000
Serial terrorist attacks in South Sudan Bitcoin prices
6,000 increased dramatically 20,000
5,000 China shuts down

ISIL attacks Syria Bitcoin exchanges 16,000
Bitcoin bubble
4,000
Blockchain platform collapses 12,000
3,000
Central Bank strengthens 8,000

2,000
supervision of Bitcoin
4,000
1,000
0 0
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Terrorist incident (left) Terrorist brutality (left) Bitcoin price (right)

Fig. 1 The trends of terrorist incidents, terrorist brutality, and Bitcoin price
rise in the Bitcoin price. Moreover, if the US dollar appreciates, it will cause a decline
in the Bitcoin price. Therefore, the USDX may affect the mutual influence between
terrorist attacks and Bitcoin price. USDX is a comprehensive index representing the
value of the US dollar against a basket of foreign currencies (Dey et al. 2020).
Figure 1 shows that Bitcoin has been extremely volatile, especially during the extreme
bull market and abrupt bear market in 2017 and 2018, respectively. In 2013, Germany
recognized Bitcoin as a private currency. Meanwhile, China’s interest in Bitcoin has con-
tinued rising, with many investors pouring into the Bitcoin market, and Bitcoin price
exceeded 100 dollars. From 2014 to 2015, the Bitcoin price began falling again, caused
by China’s policy of prohibiting banks and payment institutions from trading Bitcoin. In
2016, owing to the halving of Bitcoin’s annual output and Brexit, investors are increas-
ingly entering the Bitcoin market, some investment institutions also invested in Bitcoin,
and more merchants and companies accepted Bitcoin as payment. In December 2016,
the unit price of Bitcoin exceeded US$1,000. In 2017, Bitcoin price continued rising by as
much as 1,700% throughout the year, and Bitcoin reached its highest price. Many specu-
lators and investment institutions flowed into the Bitcoin market, and Bitcoin entered
a crazy bull market. However, in 2018, as China banned Bitcoin trading completely and
global regulation tightened, Bitcoin prices entered a downward trend. In 2019, a new
rebound trend occurred for chasing risks in the global market, and huge amounts of ven-
ture capital flowed into the Bitcoin market. The rapid development of blockchain tech-
nology and policy support has also provided a favorable environment for the Bitcoin
market. In 2020, the COVID-19 outbreak led to a global economic downturn, and inves-
tors’ risk aversion caused Bitcoin prices to soar. Generally, since Bitcoin was created, the
price trend has both skyrocketed and plummeted. Arguably, Bitcoin price is more vola-
tile than terrorist attacks. Regardless, terrorist attacks and Bitcoin prices do not always
have a consistent relationship throughout the sample period and show complex interac-
tions in different periods.
Table 1 Descriptive statistics for terrorist incidents, terrorist brutality, Bitcoin price, and the USDX
Terrorist incidents Terrorist brutality Bitcoin price USDX
Mean 995.644 2492.011 4321.573 102.725

Median 911.000 2275.000 1870.707 104.682
Maximum 1726.000 6405.000 21,657.070 113.425
Minimum 512.000 1199.000 149.456 88.269
Standard deviation 277.853 892.650 4655.892 6.467
Skewness 0.433 1.423 1.101 − 0.980
Kurtosis 2.296 6.232 3.920 2.983
Jarque–Bera 4.509 67.218*** 20.648*** 13.936***
The unit of the Bitcoin price is in dollars
***Denotes significance at the 1% level
Table 2 Result of the unit root test

Unit root test
Variables ADF PP KPSS
Terrorist incidents − 9.079*** − 14.537*** 0.026

Terrorist brutality − 11.937*** − 12.539*** 0.113
Bitcoin price − 7.864*** − 7.867*** 0.068
USDX − 5.416*** − 5.013*** 0.052
***Denotes significance at 1% levels
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for terrorist incidents, terrorist brutality, Bit-
coin price, and the USDX, and averages for these variables were 995.644, 2492.011,
4321.573, and 102.725, respectively. The standard deviation of terrorist brutality is
greater than that of terrorist incidents, indicating greater volatility. The skewness of
USDX is less than 0, meaning that its data distribution is a “negative skew distribution”
compared with the normal distribution. The skewness of the other three variables is
greater than 0, indicating that they are “positive skew distributions.” Kurtosis of terror-
ist incidents and the USDX is below 3.0, indicating that these variables have platykur-
tic or “thin-tailed” distributions. In contrast, kurtosis for terrorist brutality and Bitcoin
price reveals a leptokurtic or “fat-tailed” distribution. The Jarque–Bera test rejects the
null hypothesis that variables are normally distributed at the 1% significance level. This
indicates that terrorist brutality, Bitcoin price, and the USDX variables have non-normal
distributions. All variables are transformed into logarithmic values to eliminate hetero-
scedasticity in time series. Further, to obtain a stationary time series, we perform a first-
order difference on the data.
Empirical results and discussion

For comparative purposes, we employed several unit root tests, namely, the Augmented
Dickey-Fuller (ADF), Phillips and Perron (PP), and Kwiatkowski-Phillips-Schmidt-Shin
(KPSS) tests to test data stability. Table 2 results demonstrate that the ADF and PP tests
reject the null hypothesis of non-stationarity for the underlying series. The KPSS test
accepts the null hypothesis of stationarity for the underlying series. Accordingly, results
Song et al.
Financial Innovation (2023) 9:29 Page 11 of 20
Table 3 Parameter estimation results of the model

Parameters Mean Standard 95% confidence interval Geweke’s Z-score Inefficiency
deviation factors
( )1 0.023 0.003 (0.018, 0.029) 0.173 7.14

β
( )2 0.023 0.003 (0.018, 0.029) 0.908 3.18
β
( a )1 0.084 0.036 (0.041, 0.176) 0.248 55.02

( a )2 0.094 0.039 (0.044, 0.190) 0.780 39.18

( h )1 0.127 0.060 (0.054, 0.285) 0.252 47.46

( h )2 0.144 0.066 (0.059, 0.315) 0.025 74.83

The parameters are the posterior estimation of the first two diagonal elements of β , a , and h , and the results of the
remaining elements also fulfill the statistical requirements
The 5% critical value of Geweke is 1.96
sb 1 sb 2 sa 1 sa 2 sh 1 sh 2
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 150 300 450 0 150 300 450 0 150 300 450 0 150 300 450 0 150 300 450 0 150 300 450
0.030 0.035 0.4
0.2 0.4
0.030 0.2 0.3
0.025
0.025 0.2
0.020 0.1 0.1 0.2
0.020 0.1
0 5000 10000 0 5000 10000 0 5000 10000 0 5000 10000 0 5000 10000 0 5000 10000
15 10.0
150 150 15 7.5
7.5
10
100 100 10 5.0
5.0
50 50 5 5 2.5
2.5
0.02 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.04 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.25 0.5 0 0.25 0.5
Fig. 2 Sample autocorrelations, paths, and posterior densities of Markov Chain Monte Carlo estimation
derived from the unit root tests establish that all the series are stationary. The optimal
lag length selected based on the Schwarz Information Criteria was 1.
Table 3 shows that the mean of the estimation results of the parameters is within the
95% confidence interval. Geweke (1992) refers to convergence diagnostics, which are
less than the 5% critical value and indicates that the null hypothesis of convergence to
the posterior distribution cannot be rejected. Moreover, the maximum value of the inef-
ficiency factors is 74.83, enough to make the Markov chain converge. Thus, the estima-
tion of the TVP-SV-VAR model is valid.
Figure 2 presents the sample autocorrelations, paths, and posterior densities of the
Markov chain Monte Carlo estimation results. Coefficients decrease to zero (in the first
row), which means that no obvious autocorrelation in the samples can be found. The
trajectory fluctuates around the mean (in the second row), indicating that no obvious
trend can be found in the sample. Samples converge to the posterior distribution (in the
third row). Thus, sampling results are robust, with no obvious divergence, and dynamic
ε ↑ TI ε ↑ TB ε ↑ BCP ε ↑ U S DX
TI TI TI 0.002 TI
0.0000 0.000 0.01
0.000
-0.0025
-0.002
0.00 -0.002
-0.0050
-0.004
2015 2020 2015 2020 2015 2020 2015 2020

TB TB 0.02 TB 0.002 TB
0.015 0.0000
0.01 0.000
-0.0025
0.005 0.00
-0.0050 -0.002
-0.01
2015 2020 2015 2020 2015 2020 2015 2020
BC P BC P 0.04 BC P 0.005 BC P
0.002 0.001
0.02 0.000
0.000
0.000
-0.001 0.00 -0.005
-0.002
2015 2020 2015 2020 2015 2020 2015 2020

U S DX U S DX U S DX U S DX
0.0000 0.00000 0.000 0.0015
-0.00025
-0.0005 0.0005
-0.005
-0.00050
2015 2020 2015 2020 2015 2020 2015 2020
3-period ahead 6-period 12-period
Fig. 3 Impulse responses at different horizons
influences among these variables can be further explored by applying the TVP-SV-VAR
model.
Figure 3 highlights impulse responses for different horizons (3, 6, and 12 months). As
in the third column, the impacts of these variables on Bitcoin price are close to 0 at the 6-
and 12-month horizons. However, the impacts are unstable at the 3-month horizon, and
the influence direction and degree of each variable on Bitcoin price differ. Bitcoin price is
affected by that of the previous period. Overall, the effect is mostly positive (except for a
few months around 2016), which indicates that the current high Bitcoin price generates
the expectation of future prices rising continuously, pushing up the future Bitcoin price.
Two measurement dimensions of terrorist attacks—terrorist incidents and terror-
ist brutality—have time-varying effects on Bitcoin price, mainly manifesting in positive
(before 2016 and after 2020) and negative correlation (2016–2020).1 Hence, we should
observe the interaction from a dynamic perspective. This time-varying phenomenon not
only proves Hypothesis III but is also the same as many previous studies (e.g., Bouri et al.
(2021)) which find that the return equicorrelation in the cryptocurrency market is very
time-varying and unstable. Mokni et al. (2020) also show that uncertainty risk has a dif-
ferent impact on the Bitcoin price before and after the Bitcoin crash.
Before 2016, a similar trend occurred wherein terrorist attacks seemed to boost
Bitcoin prices. The main reason for this is that Bitcoin price is stable, and volatility is
quite low before 2016. Investors use Bitcoin to hedge against terrorism risk. Bitcoin’s
investment attractiveness is reflected in its increasing acceptance and trust (Narayan
et al. 2018). Moreover, the amount of Bitcoin is scarce compared with other currencies,
and this scarcity may make Bitcoin a safe-haven asset in the future, increasing investor
1
The differences in individual months are ignored, and we mainly consider the overall trend.
confidence in its security (Su et al. 2020b). Since the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020, the
Federal Reserve has injected a large amount of dollar liquidity into the market to solve
the liquidity crisis and stimulate the economy, causing huge fluctuations in global finan-
cial markets, including digital currencies. Meanwhile, traditional safe-haven assets such
as the US dollar and gold have underperformed during COVID-19. Moreover, people
tend to use Bitcoin to hedge against terrorism risk. Hence, results before 2016 and after
2020 may indicate that Bitcoin is considered a safe-haven asset.
From 2016 to 2020, the negative correlation between terrorist attacks and Bitcoin
price proves that the demand for risk hedging will not increase the demand and Bit-
coin price when terrorist attacks spread panic. This is because, by holding Bitcoin, sharp
fluctuation in Bitcoin price after 2016 may have made investors lose confidence and no
longer want to deal with terrorism risk. The main transmission mechanisms of this effect
may be as follows. An increase in terrorist attacks makes the geopolitical environment
unstable, the panic mood of investors rises, and the demand for risk avoidance is rela-
tively high. Moreover, they may be more focused on the safety of holding assets, causing
speculators to transfer part of their funds from risky assets (e.g., Bitcoin) to traditional
safe-haven assets (gold and US dollars). During this period, investors no longer held Bit-
coin, several speculators and investment institutions left the Bitcoin market, and declin-
ing demand drove down Bitcoin prices down. Hence, the results of this period show that
Bitcoin is a highly speculative asset, does not conform to the properties of the general
currency, and should not be used in asset diversification or risk management (Ciaian
et al. 2016; Bouoiyour and Selmi 2019). As Bundesbank stated, Bitcoin is more of a ven-
ture capital asset than a currency. Moreover, the above results can also partially support
hypothesis I. However, in the early and later stages of Bitcoin, its ability to avoid terror-
ism risks are opposed.
By comparing terrorist incidents and brutality, we notice that terrorist incidents in Bit-
coin price are weaker than that of terrorist brutality, especially after 2016. Hence, Bitcoin
investors are more concerned about the number of deaths than the frequency of terror-
ist attacks. When a terrorist attack results in numerous deaths, panic spreads quickly
to Bitcoin trading, thus affecting Bitcoin price. The impact of USDX on Bitcoin price is
negative; however, compared with other factors, its impact is negligible (the coefficient
is approximately − 0.005). This result remains consistent with Baur and Dimpfl (2021)’s
study, showing that the dynamics of Bitcoin volatility are different from and unrelated
to foreign exchange volatility. The reason a declining USDX makes Bitcoin price rise is
that Bitcoin is priced in US dollars. Hence, the trend of the USDX directly affects Bit-
coin’s price trend. To compensate for the real value of Bitcoin, Bitcoin price in US dollars
should rise accordingly. Therefore, with the depreciation of the US dollar, international
Bitcoin price generally shows an upward trend.
From the perspective of reverse causality (the third row of Fig. 3), Bitcoin price has
a negligible impact on terrorist incidents and terrorist brutality, and the absolute value
of the coefficient is less than 0.002 in most periods. The following three perspectives
show that Bitcoin is not an effective means of financing terrorism. First, the conver-
sion of Bitcoin into cash requires certain infrastructure and related technologies. Most
areas where terrorists live do not have the infrastructure for managing cryptocurrency.
Moreover, exchanging materials through Bitcoin (Irwin and Milad 2016) is almost
impossible. Second, the lack of liquidity of a cryptocurrency is the biggest obstacle pre-
venting them from being widely adopted. Governments heavily regulate many cryp-
tocurrency exchanges (e.g., the global implementation of the “Know Your Customer”
and “Anti-Money Laundering” regulatory provisions), which creates liquidity barriers.
That is, terrorist organizations may find smoothly exchanging Bitcoin for cash diffi-
cult. Third, Bitcoin is not completely anonymous as anyone can use the Bitcoin public
blockchain to track the flow of transactions. When terrorists intend to sell Bitcoin on a
regulated exchange, government agencies can easily determine the identity of the Bit-
coin user. Hence, terrorists cannot obtain Bitcoin without exposing the user’s identity.
Finally, Bitcoin is highly volatile and may have bubbles. Terrorist organizations have to
take speculative risks when using Bitcoin to raise funds (Carmona 2015). While Bitcoin
is commonly used among cybercriminals, the main funds of terrorists still originate
from banks and remittances (US Department of the Treasury 2018). Hence, the results
in Fig. 3 show that although Bitcoin is a potential means of terrorist financing, it is cur-
rently insufficient for important roles. Therefore, hypothesis II is supported.
Moreover, we also examined the effects of severe political and economic uncertainty
event shocks on the relationship between terrorist attacks and Bitcoin price. We selected
four representative economic and political uncertainty events. These emergencies not
only have a serious impact Bitcoin market impact but also last longer, which can cor-
respond to the monthly data frequency in this paper. In July 2015, Greece’s financial
system collapsed and plunged into a debt crisis, affecting both the European and global
economies. According to the statistics of the Bitcoin Trading Center, the trading vol-
ume of Bitcoin from Greece has increased significantly. In June 2016, Brexit considerably
impacted many aspects of European integration and global geopolitics. Brexit brought a
strong risk aversion to the global market, triggering a sharp increase in the demand for
alternative assets, and Bitcoin price has risen by nearly 13%. In August 2017, US Presi-
dent Donald Trump signed an administrative memorandum, instructing the US trade
representative Robert Lighthizer to launch an investigation into “China’s unfair trade
practices” to ensure the protection of US intellectual property rights and technologies.
Against increasing US economic policy uncertainty, Bitcoin was anticipated to become a
“safe haven” before Trump’s trade war occurred. In April 2018, the US announced a pre-
cision strike against Syria, with Britain and France jointly participating in military opera-
tions against Syria. Syria was attacked by 110 Tomahawk missiles from Britain, France,
and the US Bitcoin price, with its safe-haven properties and appreciation potential,
has risen steadily as a result of the war in Syria. Figure 4 presents the result of impulse
responses at different time points.
Figure 4 shows that serious economic or political uncertainty events interfere with the
impact of terrorist attacks on the Bitcoin price, further supporting hypothesis III. There-
fore, investors should not only examine the impact of terrorist attacks on the Bitcoin
market but also the interference of various economic or political uncertainties on the
financial market, and reasonably arrange any Bitcoin investment. Specifically, during the
Greek debt crisis, terrorist attacks negatively affected Bitcoin price, but this rebounded
in the subsequent several periods. Both terrorist incidents and terrorist brutality pulled
the Bitcoin price down initially, with the role of terrorist brutality being stronger. During
Brexit and the Sino-US trade war, terrorist incidents and terrorist brutality had opposite
TI 0.10 TI 0.025 TI TI
0.10 0.005
0.05 0.000
0.05
0.00 -0.025 0.000
0.00
0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10
0.050 TB 0.2 TB 0.02 TB 0.010 TB
0.025 0.1 0.01 0.005

0.000 0.00
0.0 0.000
-0.025 -0.01
0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10
BC P BC P BC P BC P
0.005
0.0025 0.000 0.15
0.0000 -0.005
0.05 0.000
-0.0025 -0.010
0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10
U S DX 0.001 U S DX U S DX U S DX
0.000
0.000 0.0050
0.000
-0.005 0.0025
-0.001
-0.002
-0.002 -0.010 0.0000
0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10
2015.7 2016.6 2017.8 2018.4
Fig. 4 Impulse responses at different time points
impacts on Bitcoin price. Terrorist incidents decreased Bitcoin price during Brexit,
but they increased it during the Sino-US trade war. Terrorist brutality had the oppo-
site effect, that is, the terrorist brutality increased Bitcoin price during Brexit, but they
decreased it during the Sino-US trade war. This shows that investors were more inclined
to use Bitcoin as a safe-haven asset to prevent the risk of terrorist incidents during the
Sino-US trade war, and more inclined to use Bitcoin to guard against terrorist brutality
during the Brexit period. During the Syrian war, except for the initial moments of terror-
ist incidents, terrorist incidents and terrorist brutality caused the Bitcoin price to fall not
only because Bitcoin had no longer been considered a safe-haven asset in recent years
but also as the market panic caused by the war was higher than for terrorist attacks.
Therefore, the dual effects of war and terrorist attacks directly led to a decline in Bitcoin
price.
To demonstrate the reliability of the empirical results, we created a terror index to
replace terrorist incidents and terrorist brutality, perform the same analysis, and com-
pare the results as a robustness check. Many previous studies have constructed ter-
ror indices by considering the number of victim fatalities, victim injuries, and terror
events (Eckstein and Tsiddon (2004), Arin et al. (2008), Balcilar et al. (2017)). How-
ever, in addition to the above three indicators, the number of people taken hostage by
terrorists should also be an important source for constructing the terror index. This
is because when terrorists take hostages to demand ransoms, create panic, and black-
mail the government, the volatility these events impose on the cryptocurrency market
is similar to events wherein casualties are involved. Therefore, in this study, the terror
index is defined as the natural logarithm of (e + number of people killed + number of
people wounded + number of people taken as hostages + number of terrorist attacks)
that occurred each month. Here e denotes the exponential function that occurred
each month. This equation means that the index takes a value of 1 on months with
ε ↑ TIX ε ↑ BCP ε ↑ U S DX
TIX TIX TIX
0.00 0.02
0.0000
0.01
-0.02
-0.0025
0.00
2015 2020 2015 2020 2015 2020

0.002 BC P BC P BC P
0.0025
0.02
0.000
-0.0025
-0.002 0.00
2015 2020 2015 2020 2015 2020

U S DX U S DX 0.0015 U S DX
0.000
0.000
0.0010
-0.001 0.0005
-0.005
0.0000
-0.002
2015 2020 2015 2020 2015 2020
3-period ahead 6-period 12-period
Fig. 5 Robustness analyses (impulse responses at different horizons)
TIX TIX 0.010 TIX
0.2
0.02
0.005
0.00 0.000
0.0
-0.005
-0.02
0 10 0 10 0 10
BC P BC P BC P
0.005
0.15
0.00
0.000
-0.01 0.05
0 10 0 10 0 10
0.0025 U S DX U S DX 0.0075 U S DX
0.000
0.0000 0.0050
-0.005
-0.0025
0.0025
-0.0050 -0.010
0.0000
0 10 0 10 0 10
2015.7 2016.6 2017.8 2018.4
Fig. 6 Robustness analyses (impulse responses at different time points)
no terror attacks. We follow the papers by Eckstein and Tsiddon (2004) in this regard.
Figures 5 and 6 show the results of the robustness test. By observing Figs. 5 and 6, we
can see that the relationship between the terror index and Bitcoin price is basically
consistent with the previous research. Generally, the robustness test proves that the
empirical results are reliable.
Conclusions
As cryptocurrencies remain in the development phase, policymakers in developed coun-
tries and developing economies should be aware that terrorism risks can significantly
affect Bitcoin price volatility. Simultaneously, interest in the association between terror-
ists using cryptocurrency to fund terrorist activities has gained traction in recent years.
This study examined how terrorist attacks impact Bitcoin prices from October 2013 to
December 2020. We aimed to reveal time-varying attributes at different horizons and
time points by applying the TVP-SV-VAR model. Empirical results show that terrorist
incidents and brutality are important factors affecting Bitcoin price, mainly manifest-
ing in positive correlation (before 2016 and after 2020) and negative correlation (2016–
2020). By comparing terrorist incidents and brutality, we notice that, unlike terrorist
brutality, terrorist incidents have a weaker influence on Bitcoin price. Hence, Bitcoin
investors are more concerned about the number of deaths than the frequency of ter-
rorist attacks. We studied the reverse causal mechanism from Bitcoin price to terrorist
attacks and found that Bitcoin price has negligible impact on the frequency or brutality
of terrorist attacks. While Bitcoin is a potential means of financing terrorism, its role is
not sufficient enough to be considered important. Moreover, we examined the effects
of severe political and economic uncertainty event shocks on the relationship between
terrorist attacks and Bitcoin price. We believe that investors should not only pay atten-
tion to the impact of terrorist attacks on the Bitcoin market but should also prioritize the
interference of various economic or political uncertainties on the financial market, and
reasonably arrange any Bitcoin investment.
The emergence of cryptocurrency results from market development driven by tech-
nological progress. The government should improve the regulatory mechanism while
supporting Bitcoin development. Based on the above research, this study proposes
the following policy recommendations. First, the impact of terrorist attacks on Bitcoin
prices is time-varying and volatile. Hence, Bitcoin is a highly speculative asset and does
not have risk-hedging properties. Investors should invest carefully and avoid related
financial market risks and Bitcoin bubble bursts by diversifying their investment strate-
gies. Second, the government and industries need to strengthen the security of network
technologies and protocols to ensure the regular and orderly development of the cryp-
tocurrency market. Relevant regulatory authorities should continue strictly supervising
Bitcoin, investigating false news and malicious media speculation, and protecting inves-
tor interests. Third, Bitcoin regulation has not reached a consensus in the international
community. This results in serious money laundering and speculation. While Bitcoin
cannot adequately support terrorist activities, monitoring Bitcoin price and ransomware
attacks are necessary. The government should issue laws and regulations related to taxa-
tion, anti-money laundering, payment, and so on. For example, anti-money laundering
regulations should include a stipulation that traders are not allowed to conduct anony-
mous transactions in virtual currencies. Finally, countries should actively seek coopera-
tion, share information and intelligence about global Bitcoin transactions, prohibit black
market transactions, regulate global Bitcoin supervision, and create a unified regulatory
framework.
Our research also has some limitations. Owing to data unavailability, we did not use
the latest research data and only considered cryptocurrency as represented by Bitcoin.
Future research should consider several major cryptocurrencies and, on this basis,
explore the impact of geopolitical events or uncertainty risks other than terrorist attacks
on the cryptocurrency portfolio.
Abbreviations
IS Islamic State
TVP-SV-VAR Time-varying parameter/stochastic volatility vector autoregression
U.S. United States
XBP CoinDesk Bitcoin Price Index
USDX U.S. dollar index
COVID-19 Corona Virus Disease 2019
ADF Augmented Dickey-Fuller
PP Phillips and Perron
KPSS Kwiatkowski-Phillips-Schmidt-Shin
Acknowledgements
We thank all the reviewers and the editor for their valuable and helpful comments. The authors retain the responsibility
for any remaining errors.
Author contributions
YS: conceptualization, data curation, writing—original draft. BC: visualization, investigation. XYW: methodology, software,
writing—review & editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
This paper is supported by Strategic Economy Interdisciplinarity (Beijing Universities Advanced Disciplines Initiative, No.
GJJ2019163) and CUFE Postgraduate students support program for the integration of research and teaching.
Availability of data and materials

The datasets used during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Received: 19 August 2021 Accepted: 29 December 2022
References
Aharon DY, Umar Z, Vo XV (2021) Dynamic spillovers between the term structure of interest rates, bitcoin, and safe-haven
currencies. Financ Innov 7(1):1–25
Akhtaruzzaman M, Sensoy A, Corbet S (2020) The influence of bitcoin on portfolio diversification and design. Finance Res
Lett 37:101344
Aksoy M, Demiralay S (2019) The effects of terrorism on Turkish financial markets. Def Peace Econ 30(6):733–755
Al-Mamun M, Uddin GS, Suleman MT, Kang SH (2020) Geopolitical risk, uncertainty and Bitcoin investment. Phys A
540:123107
Almaqableh L, Reddy K, Pereira V, Ramiah V, Wallace D, Veron JF (2022a) An investigative study of links between terrorist
attacks and cryptocurrency markets. J Bus Res 147:177–188
Almaqableh L, Wallace D, Pereira V, Ramiah V, Wood G, Veron JF, Moosa I, Watson A (2022b) Is it possible to establish the
link between drug busts and the cryptocurrency market? Yes, we can. Int J Inform Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijinfomgt.2022.102488
Al-Yahyaee KH, Rehman MU, Mensi W, Al-Jarrah IMW (2019) Can uncertainty indices predict Bitcoin prices? a revisited
analysis using partial and multivariate wavelet approaches. N Am J Econ Finance 49:47–56
Arin KP, Ciferri D, Spagnolo N (2008) The price of terror: the effects of terrorism on stock market returns and volatility.
Econ Lett 101(3):164–167
Aysan AF, Demir E, Gozgor G, Lau CKM (2019) Effects of the geopolitical risks on bitcoin returns and volatility. Res Int Bus
Finance 47:511–518
Baele L, Bekaert G, Inghelbrecht K, Wei M (2020) Flights to safety. Rev Financ Stud 33(2):689–746
Balcilar M, Gupta R, Pierdzioch C, Wohar ME (2017) Do terror attacks affect the dollar-pound exchange rate? a nonpara‑
metric causality-in-quantiles analysis. N Am J Econ Finance 41:44–56
Baur DG, Dimpfl T (2021) The volatility of Bitcoin and its role as a medium of exchange and a store of value. Empir Econ
61(5):2663–2683
Bouoiyour J, Selmi R (2019) Should Bitcoin be used to help devastated economies? evidence from Greece. Econ B
39(1):513–520
Bouoiyour J, Selmi R, Wohar ME (2019) Safe havens in the face of presidential election uncertainty: a comparison
between Bitcoin, oil and precious metals. Appl Econ 51(57):6076–6088
Bouri E, Molnár P, Azzi G, Roubaud D, Hagfors LI (2017) On the hedge and safe haven properties of Bitcoin: is it really more
than a diversifier? Financ Res Lett 20:192–198
Bouri E, Gkillas K, Gupta R (2020a) Trade uncertainties and the hedging abilities of Bitcoin. Econ Notes 49(3):e12173
Bouri E, Gupta R, Vo XV (2020b) Jumps in geopolitical risk and the cryptocurrency market: the singularity of Bitcoin. Def
Peace Econ. https://doi.org/10.1080/10242694.2020.1848285
Bouri E, Vo XV, Saeed T (2021) Return equicorrelation in the cryptocurrency market: analysis and determinants. Financ Res
Lett 38:101497
Briere M, Oosterlinck K, Szafarz A (2015) Virtual currency, tangible return: portfolio diversification with bitcoin. J Asset
Manag 16(6):365–373
Carmona A (2015) The Bitcoin: the currency of the future, fuel of terror. Evolution of cyber technologies and operations to
2035. Springer, Cham, pp 127–135
Carpenter A (2016) Portfolio diversification with Bitcoin. J Undergrad Res Finance 6(1):1–27
Ciaian P, Rajcaniova M, Kancs DA (2016) The economics of Bitcoin price formation. Appl Econ 48(19):1799–1815
Dey AK, Edwards A, Das KP (2020) Determinants of high crude oil price: a nonstationary extreme value approach. J Stat
Theory Pract 14(1):4
Eckstein Z, Tsiddon D (2004) Macroeconomic consequences of terror: theory and the case of Israel. J Monet Econ
51(5):971–1002
Eisl A, Gasser SM, Weinmayer K (2015) Caveat emptor: does Bitcoin improve portfolio diversification? Available at SSRN
2408997
El Ouadghiri I, Peillex J (2018) Public attention to “Islamic terrorism” and stock market returns. J Comp Econ 46(4):936–946
Entrop O, Frijns B, Seruset M (2020) The determinants of price discovery on bitcoin markets. J Futur Mark 40(5):816–837
Fang L, Bouri E, Gupta R, Roubaud D (2019) Does global economic uncertainty matter for the volatility and hedging
effectiveness of Bitcoin? Int Rev Financ Anal 61:29–36
Fang F, Ventre C, Basios M, Kanthan L, Martinez-Rego D, Wu F, Li L (2022) Cryptocurrency trading: a comprehensive
survey. Financ Innov 8:13
Frey BS, Luechinger S, Stutzer A (2007) Calculating tragedy: assessing the costs of terrorism. J Econ Surv 21(1):1–24
García-Corral FJ, Cordero-García JA, de Pablo-Valenciano J, Uribe-Toril J (2022) A bibliometric review of cryptocurrencies:
how have they grown? Financ Innov 8(1):1–31
Geweke J (1992) Comment: inference and prediction in the presence of uncertainty and determinism. Stat Sci
7(1):94–101
Ghatak S, Karakaya S (2021) Terrorists as rebels: territorial goals, oil resources, and civil war onset in terrorist campaigns.
Foreign Pol Anal-US 17(1):oraa012
Grant G, Hogan R (2015) Bitcoin: risks and controls. J Corp Account Finance 26(5):29–35
Guesmi K, Saadi S, Abid I, Ftiti Z (2019) Portfolio diversification with virtual currency: evidence from bitcoin. Int Rev Financ
Anal 63:431–437
Huang S, An H, Wen S, An F (2017) Revisiting driving factors of oil price shocks across time scales. Energy 139:617–629
Huynh TLD, Burggraf T, Wang M (2020) Gold, platinum, and expected Bitcoin returns. J Multinati Financ M 56:100628
Irwin AS, Milad G (2016) The use of crypto-currencies in funding violent jihad. J Money Laund Contro 19(4):407–425
Irwin AS, Turner AB (2018) Illicit Bitcoin transactions: challenges in getting to the who, what, when and where. J Money
Laund Contro 21(3):297–313
Jalali MFM, Heidari H (2020) Predicting changes in Bitcoin price using grey system theory. Financ Innov 6(1):1–12
Kfir I (2020) Cryptocurrencies, national security, crime and terrorism. Comp Strateg 39(2):113–127
Kollias C, Kyrtsou C, Papadamou S (2013) The effects of terrorism and war on the oil price–stock index relationship. Energ
Econ 40:743–752
Kumar AS, Ajaz T (2019) Co-movement in crypto-currency markets: evidences from wavelet analysis. Financ Innov
5(1):1–17
Kyriazis NA (2020) The effects of gold, stock markets and geopolitical uncertainty on Bitcoin prices and volatility. Glob
Econ J. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2194565920500207
Lee CY (2018) Oil and terrorism: uncovering the mechanisms. J Conflict Resolut 62(5):903–928
Lee H, Choi KS (2021) Interrelationship between Bitcoin, ransomware, and terrorist activities: criminal opportunity assess‑
ment via cyber-routine activities theoretical framework. Vict Offenders 16(3):363–384
Li Y, Jiang S, Wei Y, Wang S (2021) Take Bitcoin into your portfolio: a novel ensemble portfolio optimization framework for
broad commodity assets. Financ Innov 7(1):1–26
Lorenzo L, Arroyo J (2022) Analysis of the cryptocurrency market using different prototype-based clustering techniques.
Financ Innov 8(1):1–46
Majumder A, Routh M, Singha D (2019) A conceptual study on the emergence of cryptocurrency economy and its
nexus with terrorism financing. In: The impact of global terrorism on economic and political development. Emerald
Publishing Limited, Bingley
Markoulis S, Katsikides S (2020) The effect of terrorism on stock markets: evidence from the 21st century. Terror Polit
Violenc 32(5):988–1010
Mensi W, Rehman MU, Shafiullah M, Al-Yahyaee KH, Sensoy A (2021) High frequency multiscale relationships among
major cryptocurrencies: portfolio management implications. Financ Innov 7(1):1–21
Miao H, Ramchander S, Wang T, Yang D (2017) Influential factors in crude oil price forecasting. Energ Econ 68:77–88
Mokni K (2021) When, where, and how economic policy uncertainty predicts Bitcoin returns and volatility? A quantiles-
based analysis. Q Rev Econ Financ 80:65–73
Mokni K, Ajmi AN, Bouri E, Vo XV (2020) Economic policy uncertainty and the Bitcoin-US stock nexus. J Multinati Financi
M 57:100656
Narayan S, Le TH, Sriananthakumar S (2018) The influence of terrorism risk on stock market integration: evidence from
eight OECD countries. Int Rev Financ Anal 58:247–259
Nasir MA, Huynh TLD, Nguyen SP, Duong D (2019) Forecasting cryptocurrency returns and volume using search engines.
Financ Innov 5(1):1–13
Neslihanoglu S (2021) Linearity extensions of the market model: a case of the top 10 cryptocurrency prices during the
pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 periods. Financ Innov 7(1):1–27
Orbaneja JRV, Iyer SR, Simkins BJ (2018) Terrorism and oil markets: a cross-sectional evaluation. Finance Res Lett 24:42–48
Patel PC, Pereira I (2021) The relationship between terrorist attacks and cryptocurrency returns. Appl Econ 53(8):940–961
Pflaum I, Hateley E (2013) A bit of a problem: national and extraterritorial regulation of virtual currency in the age of
financial disintermediation. Georget J Int Law 45(4):1169–1215
Plakandaras V, Bouri E, Gupta R (2021) Forecasting Bitcoin returns: is there a role for the US–China trade war? J Risk
23(3):1–17
Qarni MO, Gulzar S (2021) Portfolio diversification benefits of alternative currency investment in Bitcoin and foreign
exchange markets. Financ Innov 7(1):1–37
Salisu AA, Lasisi L, Tchankam JP (2022) Historical geopolitical risk and the behaviour of stock returns in advanced econo‑
mies. Eur J Financ 28(9):889–906. https://doi.org/10.1080/1351847X.2021.1968467
Sebastião H, Godinho P (2021) Forecasting and trading cryptocurrencies with machine learning under changing market
conditions. Financ Innov 7:3
Selmi R, Bouoiyour J, Wohar ME (2022) “Digital gold” and geopolitics. Res Int Bus Financ 59:101512
Shah N (2020) Predicting terrorism attacks with bitcoin price fluctuations using machine learning, Doctoral dissertation.
National College of Ireland, Dublin
Shahzad SJH, Bouri E, Kang SH, Saeed T (2021) Regime specific spillover across cryptocurrencies and the role of COVID-
19. Financ Innov 7(1):1–24
Su CW, Qin M, Tao R, Shao XF, Albu LL, Umar M (2020a) Can Bitcoin hedge the risks of geopolitical events? Technol
Forecast Soc 159:120182
Su CW, Qin M, Tao R, Umar M (2020b) Financial implications of fourth industrial revolution: can bitcoin improve prospects
of energy investment? Technol Forecast Soc 158:120178
U.S. Department of Justice (2020) Global disruption of three terror finance cyber-enabled campaigns: largest ever seizure
of terrorist organizations’ cryptocurrency accounts
U.S. Department of the Treasury (2018) National terrorist financing risk assessment 2018
Weimann G (2016) Going dark: terrorism on the dark web. Stud Confl Terror 39(3):195–206
Wu CC, Ho SL, Wu CC (2022) The determinants of Bitcoin returns and volatility: perspectives on global and national
economic policy uncertainty. Financ Res Lett 45:102175
Wüstenfeld J, Geldner T (2021) Economic uncertainty and national bitcoin trading activity. N Am Econ Financ. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.najef.2021.101625
Xu M, Chen X, Kou G (2019) A systematic review of blockchain. Financ Innov 5:27
Yousaf I, Ali S (2020) Discovering interlinkages between major cryptocurrencies using high-frequency data: new evi‑
dence from COVID-19 pandemic. Financ Innov 6(1):1–18
Zhang X, Lu F, Tao R, Wang S (2021) The time-varying causal relationship between the Bitcoin market and internet atten‑
tion. Financ Innov 7(1):1–19
Zhao L (2021) The function and impact of cryptocurrency and data technology in the context of financial technology:
introduction to the issue. Financ Innov 7(1):1–3
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
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Jurnal Reviu Akuntansi dan Keuangan, vol 12 no 3, p. 711 - 720
Article Type: Research Paper
KUALITAS PELAPORAN
KEUANGAN: PERAN KEAHLIAN
INDUSTRI PADA KOMITE AUDIT
Website: Ashifa Amalia
ejournal.umm.ac.id/index.php/jrak Affiliation:
*Correspondence: Fakultas Ekonomi dan Bisnis, Universitas Airlangga,
ashifa.amalia-2020@feb.unair.ac.id Surabaya, Indonesia
DOI: 10.22219/jrak.v12i2. 23238
ABSTRACT
Citation: This study aims to look at the role of audit committee’s
Amalia, A. (2022). Kualitas
industry expertise on the quality of corporate financial
Pelaporan Keuangan : Peran
Keahlian Industri Pada Komite reporting. By using the purposive sampling method for all
Audit companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX)
The Quality Of Financial in the period 2016 to 2019, the final sample size was 584
Reporting : The Role Of Audit observations. The data needed is obtained from the
Committee’s Industry Expertise.
Jurnal Reviu Akuntansi Dan company's financial reports, the Osiris database, the
Keuangan, 12(3), 711- 720. company's website, the Bloomberg website, and LinkedIn.
By testing descriptive statistics and multiple linear
Article Process regression using STATA 14.0 software, this study shows
Submitted: that when a company's audit committee has only one of
October 6, 2022
industry and accounting or financial expertise, the
Reviewed: supervisory role of financial reporting tends to be less
November 30, 2022 effective. On the other hand, when the company's audit
committee team has both expertise, the supervisory role of
Revised:
December 31, 2022
the audit committee increases so that the quality of the
company's financial reporting also increases. These results
Accepted: imply that the audit committee's industry expertise is
December 31, 2022 useful for increasing the effectiveness of financial
reporting supervision so that this expertise needs to be
Published:
December 31, 2022 considered as a factor in selecting an audit committee.
KEYWORDS : Accounting Expertise; Audit Committee;
Office: Earning Management; Financial Reporting Quality;
Department of Accounting Industry Expertise.
University of
Muhammadiyah Malang
GKB 2 Floor 3. ABSTRAK
Jalan Raya Tlogomas 246, Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk melihat peran keahlian
Malang, East Java, industri pada komite audit terhadap kualitas pelaporan
Indonesia
keuangan perusahaan. Dengan menggunakan metode
purposive sampling terhadap seluruh perusahaan yang
P-ISSN: 2615-2223 terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia (BEI) pada periode 2016
E-ISSN: 2088-0685 hingga 2019, didapatkan jumlah akhir sampel sebanyak
584 amatan. Data-data yang dibutuhkan didapatkan dari
laporan keuangan perusahaan, database Osiris, Website
© 2022 jrak. all rights reserved

http://ejournal.umm.ac.id/index.php/jrak
Amalia, Kualitas Pelaporan Keuangan...
perusahaan, website Bloomberg, dan LinkedIn. Dengan

melakukan pengujian statistik deskriptif dan regresi linear
berganda menggunakan perangkat lunak STATA 14.0, 712
penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa ketika komite audit
perusahaan hanya memiliki salah satu dari keahlian
industri dan akuntansi atau keuangan maka peran
pengawasan terhadap pelaporan keuangan cenderung
kurang efektif. Disisi lain, ketika tim komite audit
perusahaan memiliki kedua keahlian tersebut maka peran
pengawasan komite audit semakin meningkat sehingga
kualitas pelaporan keuangan perusahaan juga ikut
meningkat. Hasil ini memberikan implikasi bahwa
keahlian industri komite audit bermanfaat untuk
meningkatkan keefektifan pengawasan pelaporan
keuangan sehingga keahlian ini perlu dipertimbangkan
sebagai salah satu faktor pemilihan komite audit.
KATA KUNCI : Keahlian Akuntansi; Keahlian Industri;
Komite Audit; Kualitas Pelaporan Keuangan; Manajemen
Laba.
PENDAHULUAN
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk melihat peran keahlian industri komite audit terhadap
kualitas pelaporan keuangan perusahaan. Komite Audit adalah komite yang dibentuk oleh
dan bertanggung jawab kepada Dewan Komisaris dalam membantu melaksanakan tugas
dan fungsi Dewan Komisaris (Otoritas Jasa Keuangan, 2015) . Menurut Indonesia
Corporate Governance General (2014) fokus utama komite audit mencakup tiga area yaitu
manajemen risiko, pelaporan keuangan, dan audit internal & eksternal.
Untuk menjalankan perannya secara efektif, terdapat empat elemen komite audit yang
menurut DeZoort et al. (2002) memiliki peran penting yaitu composition, authority, resources,
dan diligence. Keahlian merupakan salah satu bentuk dari composition yang harus dimiliki oleh
komite audit. Penelitian-penelitian terdahulu yang membahas terkait keahlian komite audit
berfokus pada keahlian akuntansi atau keuangan meskipun terdapat keahlian lain yang juga
diperlukan oleh komite audit. Menurut Deloitte Development (2010) komite audit
utamanya bertanggung jawab untuk menangani risiko akuntansi dan pelaporan keuangan,
sehingga disarankan sebagian besar anggota memiliki latar belakang keuangan, akuntansi,
atau hukum. Selain itu, komite audit juga harus mempertimbangkan untuk menyertakan
industri atau spesialis lainnya untuk menjelaskan setiap kompleksitas yang mungkin unik
bagi perusahaan atau industri tersebut. JRAK
Keahlian industri komite audit bernilai bagi perusahaan karena keahlian ini memungkinkan 12.3
komite audit memahami dan mengevaluasi estimasi khusus terkait industri mengingat
laporan keuangan didalamnya menyertakan sejumlah estimasi yang mencerminkan
Jurnal Reviu Akuntansi dan Keuangan, Vol 12, No 2, 711- 720, 2022
kompleksitas lingkungan bisnis dan industri perusahaan (Cohen et al., 2014). Penelitian
713 terdahulu menunjukkan bahwa keahlian industri berdampak positif terhadap efektivitas
peran komite audit di perusahaan. Cohen et al. (2014) menunjukkan bahwa keahlian
industri, jika digabungkan dengan keahlian akuntansi, dapat meningkatkan efektivitas
komite audit dalam memantau proses pelaporan keuangan. Sellami & Fendri (2017)
menyebutkan bahwa karakteristik komite audit berupa keahlian akuntansi dan keuangan
bersamaan dengan pengetahuan yang baik tentang lingkungan bisnis dan industri
perusahaan sangat meningkatkan kepatuhan penerapan IFRS terkait pengungkapan
transaksi pihak berelasi. Disi lain, Brazel & Schmidt (2019) secara mengejutkan menemukan
bahwa perusahaan yang memiliki komite audit dengan keahlian industri menunjukkan risiko
fraud yang lebih tinggi. Kondisi ini disebabkan karena komite audit dengan keahlian
industri dapat memiliki koneksi yang kuat dengan manajemen atau menerima insentif
ekuitas yang akan membuat mereka lebih bersedia untuk berpihak pada manajemen.
Kebaharuan penelitian ini terletak pada keahlian industri komite audit yang menjadi fokus
utama. Hal ini dilatarbelakangi oleh masih sedikitnya penelitian terdahulu di Indonesia yang
membahas terkait keahlian industri komite audit. Karakteristik komite audit yang umumnya
diperhatikan oleh akademisi maupun praktisi antara lain jumlah pertemuan, keahlian
keuangan, masa jabatan, dan ukuran komite audit (Insani & Sulhani, 2020; Syafaat & Putra,
2020). Sesuai dengan saran deloitte serta hasil penelitian Cohen et al. (2014), keahlian
industri memberikan dampak positif terhadap perusahaan yang dapat menjadi bahan
pertimbangan untuk dijadikan salah satu faktor saat pemilihan anggota komite audit.
Berangkat dari sini maka penelitian ini hendak mengekplorasi lebih lanjut terkait peran
keahlian industri yang dimiliki komite terhadap kualitas pelaporan keuangan.
Diharapkan penelitian ini dapat memberikan beberapa kontribusi. Pertama, bagi akademisi,
penelitian ini dapat menambah literatur terkait peran keahlian komite audit yang dapat
memengaruhi keefektifannya. Kedua, bagi perusahaan, diharapkan penelitian ini dapat
memberikan pandangan akan pentingnya keahlian industri bagi komite audit sehingga dapat
dijadikan salah satu indikator dalam pemilihan komite audit perusahaan.
Manfaat keahlian industri sudah secara luas diakui bagi efektivitas auditor eksternal.
Misalnya, Romanus et al. (2008) menemukan bahwa spesialisasi industri auditor
berhubungan negatif dengan penyajian kembali keuangan. Lebih lanjut, beberapa penelitian
sebelumnya mendokumentasikan hubungan positif antara keahlian industri auditor dan
kualitas laba, yang diukur dengan akrual diskresioner (Balsam, Krishnan, & Yang, 2003;
Reichelt & Wang, 2010). Auditor eksternal dan komite audit sangat terkait dalam
mengawasi kinerja perusahaan. Sebagaimana dijelaskan dalam Peraturan Otoritas Jasa
Keuangan Nomor 55 /Pojk.04/2015 Tentang Pembentukan Dan Pedoman Pelaksanaan
Kerja Komite Audit bahwa tugas dan tanggung jawab komite audit antara lain melakukan
penelaahan atas informasi keuangan yang akan dikeluarkan Emiten atau Perusahaan Publik
kepada publik dan/atau pihak otoritas antara lain laporan keuangan, proyeksi, dan laporan
lainnya terkait dengan informasi keuangan Emiten atau Perusahaan Publik. Selain itu
mereka juga memberikan pendapat independen dalam hal terjadinya perbedaan pendapat
antara manajemen dan Akuntan atas jasa yang diberikannya. Dari sini dapat disimpulkan
bahwa auditor eksternal dan komite audit sama-sama bertanggung jawab dalam pengawasan
JRAK proses pelaporan keuangan perusahaan sehingga peran keahlian industri diharapkan
memberikan efek yang sama pada efektivitas komite audit sebagaimana yang terjadi pada
12.3 auditor eksternal.
Terdapat akademisi yang sudah mencoba mengeksplorasi dampak keahlian industri komite
audit pada kinerja perusahaan. Cohen et al. (2014) meneliti dampak keahlian industri
komite audit terhadap proses pelaporan keuangan perusahaan baik dari sisi internal 714
maupun eksternal. Penelitian ini menemukan bahwa perusahaan yang memiliki komite
audit dengan anggota yang berkeahlian akuntansi dan keuangan serta ditunjang dengan
keahlian industri dapat meningkatkan kinerja pengawasan atas praktik manajemen laba
perusahaan. Selain itu, ditemukan bahwa komite audit yang memiliki kombinasi keahlian
akan meminta jasa assurance yang lebih tinggi untuk memastikan kualitas laporan keuangan
perusahaan yang menyebabkan meningkatnya fee audit yang dibayarkan kepada auditor.
Selanjutnya, Sellami & Fendri (2017) meneliti dampak karakteristik komite audit terhadap
kepatuhan perusahaan dalam menerapkan IFRS terkait pengungkapan transaksi pihak
berelasi. Penelitian ini mengungkapkan bahwa kepatuhan perusahaan dipengaruhi secara
positif oleh independensi komite audit. Namun, tidak ditemukan pengaruh dari ukuran dan
jumlah pertemuan komite audit. Selain itu, ditemukan bahwa ada hubungan yang positif
dan signifikan antara kepatuhan perusahaan dan kombinasi komite audit yang memiliki
keahlian industri dan keahlian akuntansi dan keuangan. Namun, keahlian industri
ditemukan tidak terkait dengan kepatuhan perusahaan ketika berdiri sendiri.
Disi lain, Brazel & Schmidt (2019) secara mengejutkan menemukan bahwa perusahaan
yang memiliki komite audit dengan keahlian industri menunjukkan risiko fraud yang lebih
tinggi. Beberapa faktor yang dapat menjelaskan hubungan ini misalnya, komite audit
dengan keahlian industri cenderung ditunjuk sebagai dewan direktur di beberapa
perusahaan lain sehingga terlalu sibuk untuk memantau risiko fraud di satu perusahaan
(Lublin, 2016) atau karena komite audit dengan keahlian industri dapat memiliki koneksi
yang kuat dengan manajemen atau menerima insentif ekuitas yang akan membuat mereka
lebih bersedia untuk berpihak pada manajemen.
Komite audit sebagai komite yang ditunjuk oleh dewan komisaris untuk membantu
pengawasan kinerja manajemen memiliki beberapa tugas dan wewenang. Tugas dan
wewenang ini mencakup manajemen risiko, pelaporan keuangan dan audit internal maupun
eksternal. Salah satu tugas komite audit yang berkaitan dengan area pelaporan keuangan
perusahaan adalah melakukan penelaahan atas informasi keuangan yang akan dikeluarkan
Emiten atau Perusahaan Publik kepada publik dan/atau pihak otoritas antara lain laporan
keuangan, proyeksi, dan laporan lainnya terkait dengan informasi keuangan Emiten atau
Perusahaan Publik (Otoritas Jasa Keuangan, 2015). Lingkungan bisnis dan industri
perusahaan sangatlah kompleks. Standar akuntansi yang berlaku bagi perusahaan juga
menjelaskan secara khusus terkait beberapa industri yang memiliki sifat khusus. Komite
audit yang memiliki keahlian industri dapat mendampingi komite audit lain dengan keahlian
akuntansi atau keuangan untuk mengidentifikasi hal-hal spesifik terkait industri untuk
memastikan akurasi dari penerapan standar akuntansi yang ada (Cohen et al., 2014).
Contohnya dalam industri farmasi, pendapatan dikurangi dengan berbagai cadangan
pendapatan untuk mencerminkan diskon harga retroaktif, pengembalian, dan penyesuaian
pendapatan berdasarkan penggantian Medicaid. Contoh lainnya dalam industri konstruksi
terkait penyelesaian proyek yang berhasil, komite audit dengan keahlian industri akan
memiliki keahlian yang lebih besar dalam mengevaluasi ketidakpastian terkait penyelesaian
kontrak serta lebih mungkin untuk menilai kesesuaian dari alternatif metode persentase JRAK
penyelesaian dibandingkan dengan akuntansi kontrak selesai daripada mereka yang tidak
memiliki keahlian industri. Dari penjelasan ini, maka diajukan hipotesis sebagai berikut. 12.3
H1 : Keahlian industri komite audit berhubungan positif dengan kualitas pelaporan

715 keuangan.
Beberapa penelitian menyatakan bahwa keahlian industri komite audit hanya akan terlihat
manfaatnya ketika dikombinasikan dengan keahlian akuntansi dan keuangan (Cohen et al.,
2014; Sellami & Fendri, 2017). Deloitte Development (2010) menyatakan bahwa komite
audit utamanya bertanggung jawab untuk menangani risiko akuntansi dan pelaporan
keuangan, sehingga disarankan agar sebagian besar anggota memiliki latar belakang
keuangan, akuntansi, atau hukum. Selain itu, komite audit juga harus mempertimbangkan
untuk menyertakan industri atau spesialis lainnya untuk menjelaskan setiap kompleksitas
yang mungkin unik bagi perusahaan atau industri tersebut. Dalam contoh industri
konstruksi, dimungkinkan komite audit dengan keahlian industri tidak tidak memiliki
pengetahuan rinci tentang penerapan prinsip-prinsip ini sesuai standar akuntansi yang
berlaku sehingga kerja sama dengan komite audit berkeahlian akuntansi atau keuangan
dapat melengkapi kinerja tim komite audit sehingga pengawasan terkait pelaporan keuangan
manajemen lebih akurat. Maka dari itu, diajukan hipotesis kedua sebagai berikut.
H2 : Keahlian industri yang dikombinasikan dengan keahlian akuntansi atau
keuangan berhubungan positif dengan kualitas pelaporan keuangan.
METODE
Populasi penelitian ini adalah seluruh perusahaan yang terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia
(BEI) pada periode 2016 hingga 2019. Periode ini dipilih mengikuti revisi peraturan terakhir
yang mengatur komite audit yaitu Peraturan Menteri Keuangan Republik Indonesia
Nomor 88 /Pmk.06/2015 Tentang Penerapan Tata Kelola Perusahaan Yang Baik Pada
Perusahaan Perseroan (Persero) Di Bawah Pembinaan Dan Pengawasan Menteri
Keuangan, Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Nomor 33/ POJK. 04/2014 Tentang Direksi
Dan Dewan Komisaris Emiten Atau Perusahaan Publik, dan Peraturan Otoritas Jasa
Keuangan Nomor 55 /Pojk.04/2015 Tentang Pembentukan Dan Pedoman Pelaksanaan
Kerja Komite Audit, dimana ketiganya disahkan pada tahun 2015 sehingga secara
keseluruhan ketiga aturan ini mulai berlaku secara umum mulai tahun 2016. Dilakukan
pemilihan sampel penelitian menggunakan metode purposive sampling. Kriteria dalam
penelitian ini yaitu perusahaan yang terdaftar di BEI periode 2016-2019 kecuali perusahaan
yang termasuk dalam industri keuangan (perusahaan dengan kode SIC 6) dan perusahaan
yang laporan tahunan dan keuangannya dapat diakses dan memiliki kelengkapan data yang
dibutuhkan untuk keperluan penelitian. Jumlah akhir sampel yang digunakan dalam
penelitian ini sebanyak 584 amatan.
Data yang dibutuhkan untuk menentukan keahlian industri, akuntansi dan keuangan
didapatkan dari laporan keuangan perusahaan serta sumber lain yang memberikan
informasi terkait seperti website perusahaan, website Bloomberg, dan linkedin. Data
keuangan didapatkan dari database Osiris serta laporan keuangan perusahaan.
Variabel dependen penelitian ini berfokus pada peran pengawasan komite audit terkait area
pelaporan keuangan. Ukuran yang digunakan untuk menilai kualitas pelaporan keuangan
adalah manajemen laba. Pada penelitian Cohen et al. (2014), kualitas pelaporan keuangan
JRAK diukur menggunakan dua ukuran yaitu manajemen laba dan non technical restatement.
12.3 Pada penelitian ini non technical restatement tidak dipakai karena perusahaan di Indonesia yang
melakukan non technical restatement cenderung sedikit. Manajemen laba diukur menggunakan
the Modified Jones Model (Dechow et al., 2004) seperti yang diperkenalkan oleh Kothari
et al. (2005) yang menambahkan model Jones yang dimodifikasi dengan mengontrol kinerja
perusahaan dengan pengembalian aset yang tertinggal dalam model komputasi. Manajemen
laba pada penelitian ini digunakan sebagai ukuran kualitas pelaporan keuangan perusahaan 716
dimana adanya manajemen laba perusahaan menunjukkan kualitas pelaporan keuangan
yang rendah. Oleh karena itu, nilai manajemen laba yang dipakai di penelitian ini dikalikan -
1 untuk meyamakan hubungan manajemen laba dan kualitas pelaporan keuangan.
Variabel independen pada penelitian ini adalah keahlian komite audit. Terdapat dua ukuran
yang digunakan untuk mengukur keahlian komite audit. Pertama adalah Keahlian Industri
(IND) yang menunjukkan bahwa komite audit memiliki keahlian industri. Komite audit
dianggap memiliki keahlian industri jika sebelumnya pernah bekerja di perusahaan yang
berada pada satu sektor yang sama dengan perusahaan tempatnya menjabat saat itu
berdasarkan klasifikasi industri SIC dua digit atau berada pada industri yang sama sesuai
data yang tertera dari website Bloomberg. Pengukuran ini pernah dipakai di penelitian
sebelumnya (Cohen et al., 2014; Sellami & Fendri, 2017). IND diukur menggunakan jumlah
komite audit yang memiliki keahlian industri serta persentase komite audit yang memiliki
keahlian industri terhadap total komite audit.
Kedua adalah Keahlian Industri dan Akuntansi (IND_ACC) yang menunjukkan bahwa tim
komite audit terdiri dari kombinasi anggota yang memiliki keahlian akuntansi dan industri.
Komite audite audit dianggap memiliki keahlian akuntansi atau keuangan jika pernah
menempuh pendidikan di jurusan akuntansi maupun keuangan, pernah bekerja di
perusahaan perbankan atau investasi, pernah menjadi karyawan sebuah perusahaan audit,
atau pernah menjabat sebagai CFO, bendahara, atau wakil presiden keuangan. Pengukuran
ini juga dipakai di penelitian-penelitian sebelumnya (Kalelkar & Khan, 2016). Keahlian
Akuntansi (ACC) diukur menggunakan jumlah komite audit yang memiliki keahlian
akuntansi atau keuangan dan persentase komite audit yang memiliki keahlian akuntansi atau
keuangan terhadap total komite audit. IND_ACC merupakan perkalian dari nilai IND dan
ACC.
Penelitian ini memasukkan beberapa variabel kontrol yang secara konsisten berperngaruh
terhadap manajemen laba, yang diukur menggunakan discretionary accrual, berdasarkan
penelitian-penelitian terdahulu yaitu SIZE, LEV, dan GROWTH.
Uji regresi linear berganda digunakan untuk menguji hubungan keahlian industri dan
kualitas pelaporan keuangan. Selain itu juga dilakukan uji statistik deskriptif. Pengujian
dilakukan dengan perangkat lunak STATA 14.0. Efek tahun dan industri juga dimasukkan
dalam pengujian. Terakhir, untuk mengontrol potensi outlier, dilakukan winsor terhadap
variabel ekonomi dan berkelanjutan pada persentil ke-1 dan ke-99. Rumus regresi untuk
menguji hipotesis yang diajukan yaitu :
DA = β0IND + β1ACC + β2CONTROL + β3YEAR + β4SIC + ε (1)
DA = β0IND + β1ACC + β3IND_ACC + β4CONTROL + β5YEAR + β6SIC + ε (2)
JRAK
12.3
HASIL DAN PEMBAHASAN

717
Mean Median Minimum Maximum
IND 0.514 0.000 0.000 3.000
ACC 2.228 2.000 1.000 3.000 Tabel 1.
DA 0.013 0.007 0.000 0.126 Hasil Uji
SIZE 28.051 28.441 18.759 32.003 Deskriptif
LEV 0.480 0.466 0.023 1.571 Statistik
GROWTH 0.109 0.066 -0.762 2.676 _________
Tabel 1 menampilkan hasil uji deskriptif statistik yang menampilkan nilai rata-rata (mean),
nilai tengah (median), standar deviasi (standard deviation) nilai minimum (minimum), dan nilai
maksimum (maximum) dari variabel penelitian yang dipakai. Variabel penelitian ini antara
lain Kualitas Pelaporan Keuangan (DA), Keahlian Industri (IND), Keahlian Akuntansi
(ACC), dan berbagai variabel kontrol yaitu ukuran perusahaan (SIZE), LEVERAGE, dan
pertumbuhan perusahaan (GROWTH).
Variabel dependen yang dipakai ialah Kualitas Pelaporan Keuangan, yang diukur dengan
discretionary accrual. DA memiliki nilai rata-rata (mean) sebesar 0.013, nilai tengah (median)
0.007, dengan nilai minimum 0.000 dan nilai maksimum 0.126. IND merupakan keahlian
industri komite audit sebagai variabel independen. IND 0.514, nilai tengah (median) 0.000,
dengan nilai minimum 0.000 dan nilai maksimum 3.000. ACC merupakan keahlian
akuntansi komite audit. ACC memiliki nilai rata-rata (mean) 2.228, nilai tengah (median)
2.000, dengan nilai minimum 1.000 dan nilai maksimum 3.000.
Hasil pengujian hipotesis ditampilkan pada tabel 2. Pada kolom 1 dan 2 terlihat bahwa IND
dan ACC ketika berdiri sendiri tidak berpengaruh signifikan terhadap DA. Hal ini sesuai
dengan temuan penelitian-penelitian terdahulu (Cohen et al., 2014; Cheung & Chung, 2022).
Cohen et al. (2014) yang menyatakan bahwa perusahaan yang hanya memiliki komite audit
dengan keahlian industri atau keahlian akuntansi/keuangan saja kurang efektif dalam proses
pengawasan pelaporan keuangan. Cheung & Chung (2022) menemukan bahwa keahlian
industri mungkin memiliki keahlian terkait operasional perusahaan, tetapi tidak memiliki
pengalaman audit untuk memahami keputusan keuangan manajer tentang pengeluaran
diskresioner (pengawasan pelaporan keuangan). Dari hasil ini, hipotesis 1 yang diajukan,
yaitu keahlian industri komite audit berhubungan positif dengan kualitas pelaporan
keuangan, ditolak.
Selanjutnya, pada kolom 3 dan 4 ditunjukkan bahwa ketika perusahaan memiliki kedua
keahlian tersebut dalam tim komite auditnya, maka IND dan ACC akan berpengaruh
negatif signifikan terhadap DA, sedangkan ketika IND dan ACC berinteraksi maka
pengaruhnya pada DA akan berubah menjadi positif. Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa
perusahaan yang memiliki anggota komite audit dengan keahlian industri sekaligus dengan
keahlian akuntansi/ekonomi akan berdampak pada proses pengawasan pelaporan keuangan
yang lebih efektif dibanding ketika perusahaan hanya memiliki komite audit dengan salah
satu keahlian. Hasil ini sesuai dengan temuan penelitian-penelitian terdahulu (Cohen et al.,
2014; Kieback, Thomsen, & Watrin, 2022).
Cohen et al. (2014) yang menunjukkan bahwa ketika komite audit dengan keahlian industri
JRAK bekerja sama dengan komite audit berkeahlian akuntansi/keuangan maka peran
pengawasan terhadap manajemen akan semakin meningkat sehingga dapat meningkatkan
12.3 kualitas pelaporan keuangan yang dilakukan oleh manajemen. Keahlian industri menurut
argumen teoretis dianggap berharga melengkapi keahlian akuntansi/keuangan dalam
menilai penerapan metode akuntansi yang tepat dan keakuratan perkiraan yang terkait
dengan lingkungan bisnis dan proses perusahaan dalam industri tertentu.
718
Kieback et al. (2022) menyarankan agar investor menuntut kombinasi keahlian keuangan
dan industri dengan harapan kombinasi ini dapat membantu memastikan pelaporan
keuangan berkualitas tinggi dan meningkatkan tata kelola perusahaan. Pernyataan ini
didasarkan pada temuan respon positif yang signifikan dari pasar ketika dilakukan
penunjukkan komite audit berkeahlian keuangan bersamaan dengan keahlian industri, akan
tetapi, respon positif pasar menjadi tidak signifikan ketika komite audit yang ditunjuk hanya
berkeahlian keuangan tanpa diikuti keahlian industri. Dari hasil ini, hipotesis 2 yang
diajukan, yaitu keahlian industri yang dikombinasikan dengan keahlian akuntansi atau
keuangan berhubungan positif dengan kualitas pelaporan keuangan, diterima.
Cohen et al. (2014) menjabarkan, karena laporan keuangan mencakup sejumlah perkiraan
yang mencerminkan kompleksitas lingkungan bisnis dan industri perusahaan, keahlian
industri kemungkinan akan membantu komite memahami dan mengevaluasi perkiraan
spesifik industri. Misalnya, kewajiban garansi terkait dengan industri, spesifikasi produk,
dan operasi bisnis perusahaan. Oleh karena itu, pengetahuan industri sangat penting untuk
memastikan kelengkapan dan keakuratan perkiraan garansi. Menurut Beasley et al. (2010)
ada banyak standar dan praktik akuntansi yang spesifik terkait industri tertentu dan
penerapan standar-standar ini membutuhkan pengetahuan industry contohnya pengakuan
pendapatan dalam industri software. Contoh lainnya dalam industri konstruksi terkait
penyelesaian proyek yang berhasil, komite audit dengan keahlian industri akan memiliki
keahlian yang lebih besar dalam mengevaluasi ketidakpastian terkait penyelesaian kontrak
serta lebih mungkin untuk menilai kesesuaian dari alternatif metode persentase penyelesaian
dibandingkan dengan akuntansi kontrak selesai.
(jumlah) (persentase) (jumlah) (persentase)
DA DA DA DA
IND -0.001 -0.002 -0.006** -0.020**
(0.52) (0.45) (0.03) (0.02)
ACC -0.001 -0.003 -0.002* -0.008**
(0.52) (0.25) (0.10) (0.03)
IND_ACC 0.002** 0.025**
(0.04) (0.03)
SIZE -0.001*** -0.001*** -0.001*** -0.001***
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
LEV 0.009*** 0.009*** 0.009*** 0.009***
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
GROWTH 0.015*** 0.015*** 0.015*** 0.015***
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
YEAR 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000
(0.58) (0.57) (0.60) (0.59)
SIC 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
(0.42) (0.41) (0.43) (0.49)
_cons -0.992 -1.036 -0.944 -0.968
Tabel 2. (0.60) (0.58) (0.61) (0.60)
Hasil Analisis F 10.814 10.959 10.049 10.247
Regresi r2 0.116 0.118 0.123 0.125 JRAK
_________ N 584 584 584 584
12.3
719
SIMPULAN
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk melihat peran keahlian industri komite audit terhadap
kualitas pelaporan keuangan perusahaan. Keahlian industri komite audit bernilai bagi
perusahaan karena keahlian ini memungkinkan komite audit memahami dan mengevaluasi
estimasi khusus terkait industri mengingat laporan keuangan didalamnya menyertakan
sejumlah estimasi yang mencerminkan kompleksitas lingkungan bisnis dan industri
perusahaan. Akan tetapi, keahlian ini masih belum banyak diperhatikan jika dibandingkan
dengan keahlian akuntansi atau keuangan. Penelitian dilakukan dengan uji regresi linear
terhadap 584 tahun perusahaan dari periode 2016 hingga 2019.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa ketika komite audit perusahaan hanya memiliki salah
satu dari keahlian industri dan akuntansi atau keuangan maka peran pengawasan terhadap
pelaporan keuangan cenderung kurang efektif. Disisi lain, ketika anggota komite audit
memiliki kedua keahlian tersebut secara sekaligus maka peran pengawasan komite audit
semakin meningkat sehingga kualitas pelaporan keuangan perusahaan juga ikut meningkat.
Penelitian ini memberikan beberapa kontribusi. Pertama, bagi akademisi, penelitian ini
menambah literatur terkait peran keahlian komite audit yang dapat memengaruhi
keefektifannya dalam peran pengawasan pelaporan keuangan oleh manajemen. Kedua, bagi
perusahaan, penelitian ini memberikan pandangan akan pentingnya keahlian industri bagi
komite audit sehingga dapat dijadikan salah satu indikator dalam pemilihan komite audit
perusahaan.
DAFTAR PUSTAKA
Alhababsah, S., & Yekini, S. (2021). Audit committee and audit quality: An empirical
analysis considering industry expertise, legal expertise and gender diversity. Journal of
International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 42, 100377.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2021.100377
Beasley, Mark S.; Hermanson, Dana R.; Carcello, Joseph V.; Neal, T. L. (2010). Fraudulent
financial reporting: 1998-2007 : an analysis of U.S. public companies. Association
Sections, Divisions, Boards, Teams, 453(June), 2–6.
https://doi.org/https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_assoc/453
Brazel, J. F., & Schmidt, J. J. (2019). Do auditors and audit committees lower fraud risk by
constraining inconsistencies between financial and nonfinancial measures? Auditing,
38(1), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-52087
Cheung, K. Y., & Chung, C. V. (2022). The impacts of audit committee expertise on real
earnings management: Evidence from Hong Kong. Cogent Business and
Management, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2126124
Cohen, J. R., Hoitash, U., Krishnamoorthy, G., & Wright, A. M. (2014). The Effect of
Audit Committee Industry Expertise on Monitoring the Financial Reporting Process.
JRAK The Accounting Review, 89(1), 243–273. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50585
12.3 Corporation, I. F. (2014). The Indonesia corporate governance manual. World Bank.
Dechow, P. M., Schrand, C. M., & Collins, E. (2004). Earnings quality.
Deloitte Development. (2010). Audit Committee Composition. In Audit Committee Brief
(Issue June).
DeZoort, F. T., Hermanson, D. R., Archambeault, D. S., & Reed, S. A. (2002). Audit 720
committee effectiveness: A synthesis of the empirical audit committee literature.
Journal of Accounting Literature, 21, 38–75.
Insani, Y. S. Apakah Spesialisasi Industri Auditor Berperan Dalam Pencegahan
Kecurangan?. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi dan Keuangan, 8(1), 53-70.
Kalelkar, R., & Khan, S. (2016). CEO financial background and audit pricing. Accounting
Horizons, 30(3), 325–339. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-51442
Kieback, S., Thomsen, M., & Watrin, C. (2022). Market reactions to the appointment of
audit committee directors with financial and industry expertise in Germany.
International Journal of Auditing, 26(4), 446–466.
Kothari, S. P., Leone, A. J., & Wasley, C. E. (2005). Performance matched discretionary
accrual measures. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 39(1), 163–197.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2004.11.002
Lublin, J. S. (2016). How many board seats make sense? Wall Street Journal, B1(January
21).
Mnif Sellami, Y., & Borgi Fendri, H. (2017). The effect of audit committee characteristics
on compliance with IFRS for related party disclosures. Managerial Auditing Journal,
32(6), 603–626. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-06-2016-1395
Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Nomor 55 /Pojk.04/2015 Tentang Pembentukan Dan
Pedoman Pelaksanaan Kerja Komite Audit, Ojk.Go.Id 1 (2015).
http://www.ojk.go.id/id/kanal/iknb/regulasi/lembaga-keuangan-mikro/peraturan-
ojk/Documents/SAL-POJK PERIZINAN FINAL F.pdf
Romanus, R. N., Maher, J. J., & Fleming, D. M. (2008). Auditor industry specialization,
auditor changes, and accounting restatements. Accounting Horizons, 22(4), 389–413.
https://doi.org/10.2308/acch.2008.22.4.389
Syafaat, M., & Putra, A. (2020). Pengaruh Kinerja Perusahaan Terhadap Pengungkapan
Laporan Keuangan (Studi Pada Perusahaan Manufaktur Yang Terdaftar Di Bei).
Jurnal Ilmu Perbankan Dan Keuangan Syariah, 2(2), 157-177.
Wang, C., Xie, F., & Zhu, M. (2015). Industry Expertise of Independent Directors and
Board Monitoring. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 50(5), 929–962.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022109015000459
JRAK
12.3

Artikel Jurnal Akuntansi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Artikel Jurnal Akuntansi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Song

et al. Financial Innovation (2023) 9:29 Financial Innovation

RESEARCH Open Access

Cryptocurrency technology revolution: are

Theoretical mechanism and research hypothesis

Mechanism of Bitcoin price impacts on terrorist attacks

Dynamic interaction between Bitcoin prices and terrorist attacks

in the different price fluctuations of Bitcoin. Second, Bitcoin price is characterized by

5,000 China shuts down

Central Bank strengthens 8,000

Terrorist incident (left) Terrorist brutality (left) Bitcoin price (right)

Mean 995.644 2492.011 4321.573 102.725

Table 2 Result of the unit root test

Terrorist incidents − 9.079*** − 14.537*** 0.026

Empirical results and discussion

Table 3 Parameter estimation results of the model

( )1 0.023 0.003 (0.018, 0.029) 0.173 7.14

2015 2020 2015 2020 2015 2020 2015 2020

2015 2020 2015 2020 2015 2020 2015 2020

0.0000 0.00000 0.000 0.0015

Fig. 3 Impulse responses at different horizons

0.025 0.1 0.01 0.005

Fig. 4 Impulse responses at different time points

2015 2020 2015 2020 2015 2020

2015 2020 2015 2020 2015 2020

Fig. 5 Robustness analyses (impulse responses at different horizons)

Fig. 6 Robustness analyses (impulse responses at different time points)

Availability of data and materials

Received: 19 August 2021 Accepted: 29 December 2022

© 2022 jrak. all rights reserved

perusahaan, website Bloomberg, dan LinkedIn. Dengan

H1 : Keahlian industri komite audit berhubungan positif dengan kualitas pelaporan

HASIL DAN PEMBAHASAN

You might also like

Table 2 Result of the unit root test

Terrorist incidents − 9.079* − 14.537* 0.026

Table 3 Parameter estimation results of the model

Fig. 3 Impulse responses at different horizons

Fig. 4 Impulse responses at different time points

Fig. 5 Robustness analyses (impulse responses at different horizons)

Fig. 6 Robustness analyses (impulse responses at different time points)