The profitability of pair trading strategy in stock markets: Evidence from Toronto stock exchange
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Market practitioners and speculators attempt to make benefits from the existence of market price gaps and profit opportunities by arbitrage strategies. Although some investors trade stocks based on the available financial and fundamental information of a particular share, there are others who make profits by risk hedging and swing trading opportunities. One of these strategies is pairs trading, which is a sub‐category of statistical arbitrage. Pairs trading can assure reasonably a risk‐free profit gaining. This paper aims to make a hypothetical portfolio composed of pairs of stocks by exploring a significant association between their prices in the Toronto Stock Exchange, TSX. We compare the profitability of distance, co‐integration, and copula functions as the pair's selection and trading strategy devices in TSX over January 2017 to June 2020. Our results show that the highest profitability comes from trading by the copula method. Our time frame includes two heterogeneous pre and post COVID‐19 periods. Although the financial markets are struggling with a hard situation over the COVID‐19 days, the performance of the methodologies is not affected by the crisis.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".