Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract If the price of a coupon bond is sufficiently different from the sum of the prices of its stripped components, arbitrage trades between the two will be profitable. We estimate the size of the price difference between the prices of a coupon bond and a replicating package of strip bonds. When the price of a coupon bond exceeds the value of the replicating package of strips, the difference between the coupon bond price and the price of the package of strips is much greater than when the price of the coupon bond is below the price of the package of replicating strip bonds. This difference persists under a variety of assumptions about taxation and transaction costs, and appears to indicate market inefficiency. Résumé Si le prix d'une obligation à coupons est suffisamment différent de la somme de ses éléments détachés, un échange à l'arbitrage entre les deux sera profitable. Nous estimons l'importance de la différence de prix entre le coǒt d'une obligation à coupons et celui d'un bloc reproductif d'obligations coupons détachés. Quand le prix d'une obligation à coupons dépasse la valeur du bloc reproductif de coupures, la différence entre le prix de l'obligation à coupons et celui du bloc de coupures est beaucoup plus importante que lorsque le prix de l'obligation à coupons est sous le prix du bloc reproductif d'obligations coupons détachés. Cette différence persiste sous une variété de suppositions basées sur les coǒts d'imposition et de transaction, et semble indiquer un manque de rendement du marché.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 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".