MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235360262 · doi:10.52399/001c.33714

Risk and Return of Merger Arbitrage in the UK 2001 to 2004

2007· article· en· W4235360262 on OpenAlex
Patricia M. Kearney, Mark C. Hutchinson, Derry Cotter

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting Finance & Governance Review/Accounting finance & governance review · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsPricewaterhouseCoopers (Canada)
FundersIrish Research CouncilIrish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences
KeywordsArbitrageRisk arbitrageIndex arbitrageStatistical arbitrageFinancial economicsSystematic riskConvertible arbitrageEquity (law)PortfolioEconomicsRisk–return spectrumStock (firearms)Trading strategyBusinessEconometricsArbitrage pricing theoryCapital asset pricing modelGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper replicates the core underlying merger arbitrage strategy using daily data from the United Kingdom to generate three simulated merger arbitrage portfolio return series, for the period 2001 through to 2004. Past empirical evidence indicates that the merger arbitrage strategy generates large risk adjusted returns. More recent evidence indicates that the strategy has a return distribution equivalent to a short put option on a stock index. These prior studies have generally focused on monthly returns in the North American stock markets. For the UK market we find evidence that the merger arbitrage strategy exhibits little systematic risk and generates significant risk adjusted returns. Contrary to prior research we find no evidence of an increase in systematic risk in depreciating equity markets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it