Diversification benefits of cat bonds: An in‐depth examination
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
Abstract We investigate whether the inclusion of Cat Bonds in portfolios composed of traditional assets and common factors is beneficial to investors. Various mean‐variance spanning tests performed for the period of 2002 to 2017 show that under different market conditions, the addition of Cat Bonds gives rise to previously unattainable portfolios. Using the Engle (2002) Dynamic Conditional Correlation (DCC) model, we find that including Cat bonds increases significantly the time‐varying Sharpe ratio and the Choueifaty and Coignard (2008) maximum diversification ratio. Cat Bonds provide needed diversification during critical times particularly during episodes of crisis and of high volatility. Under the second‐order stochastic dominance efficiency (SDE) tests, the null hypothesis that portfolios without Cat Bonds are efficient cannot be rejected. Out‐of‐sample analyses indicate that the performance of portfolios with Cat Bonds included varies depending on the performance measures employed, the portfolio construction techniques used and the assets or factors considered.
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 | 0.000 | 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