Bibliographic record
Abstract
CDS (credit default swap) contracts that were initiated some time ago frequently have spreads and/or maturities that are not available on the current market of CDSs, and are thus illiquid. This article introduces an incomplete-market approach to valuing illiquid CDSs that, in contrast to the risk-neutral approach of current market practice, allows a dealer who buys an illiquid CDS from an investor to determine ask and bid prices (which differ) in such a way as to guarantee a minimum positive expected rate of return on the deal. An alternative procedure, which replaces the expected rate of return by an analogue of the Sharpe ratio, is also discussed. The approach to pricing just described belongs to the good-deal category of approaches, since the dealer decides what it would take to make an appropriate expected rate of return, and sets the bid and ask prices accordingly. A number of different hedges are discussed and compared within the general framework developed in the article. The approach is implemented numerically, and example plots of important quantities are given. The paper also develops a useful result in linear programming theory in the case that the cost vector is random.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".