MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059439687 · doi:10.3905/jai.2006.670101

Correlation Breakdown in the Valuation of Collateralized Fund Obligation

2006· article· en· W2059439687 on OpenAlexaff
Unai Ansejo, Marcos Escobar, Aitor Bergara, Luis Seco

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Alternative Investments · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHedge fundCollateralized debt obligationTrancheBusinessSolvencySecuritizationOpen-end fundAlternative betaHedge accountingFund of fundsCredit derivativeCredit riskActuarial scienceMarket liquidityInstitutional investorFinancial systemFinanceCollateralCorporate governance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a collateralized fund obligation (CFO) several hedge funds are pooled in a fund that is in turn, securitized. Since the first securitization of a fund of hedge funds, launched in June 2002, these products haven9t had much impact among investors. This is not surprising considering that it is very difficult to predict the credit solvency of each tranche of the securitization and therefore its valuation. In this article a particular CFO is analyzed in an analytical pricing framework, capturing the correlation breakdown and the leptokurtic phenomena characteristics of hedge funds. The results show that due to a lack of transparency which is common in hedge funds, confidence intervals in probabilities of default and credit spreads, are high enough to burden CFO proliferation. <b>TOPICS:</b>Real assets/alternative investments/private equity, credit risk management, statistical methods

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Alternative InvestmentsSame topicCredit Risk and Financial RegulationsFrench-language works237,207