Market Efficiency and Returns from Convertible Bond Hedging and Arbitrage Strategies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the returns of convertibles as well as the returns of a large array of convertible hedging and arbitrage strategies. Market efficiency tests are performed using various portfolios that comprise opposite long bonds and short underlying equity positions, the returns and risks of convertible bond convergence hedging portfolios, and combinations of convertible bonds, corporate bonds, and options of the same issuer. Hedged positions based on the characteristics of the bonds are shown to provide superior absolute and relative returns. A bullish gamma hedging strategy put on at the time of the issuance of the convertibles and a delta-neutral strategy with larger delta change tolerance are shown to be particularly advantageous. These trading strategies are found to be robust to alternative specifications of transaction costs, leverage effects, and alternative parameter inputs. In summary, market commentators who predict the demise of such opportunities may be wrong. <bold>TOPICS:</bold> <ext-link>Fixed income and structured finance</ext-link>, <ext-link>options</ext-link>, <ext-link>security analysis and valuation</ext-link>, <ext-link>performance measurement</ext-link>
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it