Essays on the use of convertible bonds and the security issuance decision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examines two topics, the use of convertible bonds by Canadian companies and the security issuance choice in the Canadian market. The first part of the dissertation is devoted to the use of convertible debt by Canadian companies. Practitioners most often view convertibles as delayed equity and claim to issue them because of the lower coupon rate and to “sweeten” the debt issue, which would be otherwise more difficult to place. On the other hand, academics have proposed theories that in general suggest that companies that face high debt- and/or equity-related agency costs could benefit from issuing convertible debt as opposed to other “straight” means of financing. Chapter 2 provides the literature overview of the motives for the issuance of convertible debt. Chapter 3 investigates motives for the use of convertible debt in the Canadian market. Chapter 6 analyzes a convertible arbitrage in the Canadian market, a strategy mainly used by hedge funds to exploit underpricing of convertible bonds. The second part of the dissertation analyzes the security issuance decision in the Canadian market. The security issuance decision is essentially a capital structure decision. Different explanations have been put forward in the past as to how and when managers decide to increase or decrease the leverage of the firm, such are the pecking-order model, the market timing model and the agreement between insiders and outsiders. Chapter 4 examines the determinants of security issuance choice in the Canadian market, while Chapter 5 investigates the relationship between short interest and some of the capital structure theories.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".