The Convertible Arbitrage Strategy Analyzed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes convertible bond arbitrage on the Canadian market for the period 1998 to 2004.Convertible bond arbitrage is the combination of a long position in convertible bonds and a short position in the underlying stocks. Convertible arbitrage has been one of the most successful strategies of hedge funds.This paper shows that the convertible arbitrage strategy has considerable effects on capital markets.First, there is a downward pressure on cumulative average abnormal returns of the underlying stocks between the announcement and the issuance dates of convertible bonds.Second, short sales of the underlying equity around the issuance dates strongly increase for equity-like convertibles. Third, convertible bonds are underpriced at the issuance dates.All effects are stronger for equity-like than for debt-like convertible bonds.Finally, we find that over a one-year period following the issue, equity-like convertibles earn a return that is more than 23 percentage points higher than the return of debt-like convertibles.In the last years of our sample, convertible arbitrage returns have strongly decreased.This seems to be related to a shift from equity-like to debt-like convertibles by the issuing companies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".