Archive for the ‘over-the-counter’ Category

Convertible bond arbitrage

Friday, January 22nd, 2010

A convertible bond is a bond that an investor can return to the issuing company in exchange for a predetermined number of shares in the company.

A convertible bond can be thought of as a corporate bond with a stock call option attached to it.

The price of a convertible bond is sensitive to three major factors:

* interest rate. When rates move higher, the bond part of a convertible bond tends to move lower, but the call option part of a convertible bond moves higher (and the aggregate tends to move lower).
* stock price. When the price of the stock the bond is convertible into moves higher, the price of the bond tends to rise.
* credit spread. If the creditworthiness of the issuer deteriorates (e.g. rating downgrade) and its credit spread widens, the bond price tends to move lower, but, in many cases, the call option part of the convertible bond moves higher (since credit spread correlates with volatility).

Given the complexity of the calculations involved and the convoluted structure that a convertible bond can have, an arbitrageur often relies on sophisticated quantitative models in order to identify bonds that are trading cheap versus their theoretical value.

Convertible arbitrage consists of buying a convertible bond and hedging two of the three factors in order to gain exposure to the third factor at a very attractive price.

For instance an arbitrageur would first buy a convertible bond, then sell fixed income securities or interest rate futures (to hedge the interest rate exposure) and buy some credit protection (to hedge the risk of credit deterioration). Eventually what he’d be left with is something similar to a call option on the underlying stock, acquired at a very low price. He could then make money either selling some of the more expensive options that are openly traded in the market or delta hedging his exposure to the underlying shares.

Efficient-market hypothesis – Recent financial crisis

Saturday, October 24th, 2009

The recent global financial crisis has led to renewed scrutiny and criticism of the hypothesis. Market strategist Jeremy Grantham has stated flatly that EMH is responsible for the current financial crisis, claiming that belief in the hypothesis caused financial leaders to have a “chronic underestimation of the dangers of asset bubbles breaking”.

At the International Organization of Securities Commissions annual conference, held in June 2009, the hypothesis took center stage. Martin Wolf, the chief economics commentator for the Financial Times, dismissed the hypothesis as being a useless way to examine how markets function in reality. Paul McCulley, managing director of PIMCO, was less extreme in his criticism, saying that the hypothesis had not failed, but was “seriously flawed” in its neglect of human nature.

The financial crisis has led Richard Posner, a prominent judge, University of Chicago law professor, and innovator in the field of Law and Economics, to back away from the hypothesis and express some degree of belief in Keynesian economics. Posner accused some of his Chicago colleagues of being “asleep at the switch”, saying that “the movement to deregulate the financial industry went too far by exaggerating the resilience – the self healing powers – of laissez-faire capitalism.” Others, such as Fama himself, said that the theory held up well during the crisis and that the markets were a casualty of the recession, not the cause of it.