问题如下图：
为何答案中解释market neutral策略由于less leverage， 所以credit risk更小？
首长不能理解该策略里的short策略和convertible arbitrage比为何是less leverage的，其次不能理解同样都是long short，为何market neutral会比convertible creditrisk低
韩韩_品职助教 · 2019年02月15日
同学你好，我们首先看一下这两个策略的定义，
Equity market–neutral managers attempt to identify overvalued and undervalued equity securities while neutralizing the portfolio’s exposure to market risk by combining long and short positions.
Convertible arbitrage: Convertible arbitrage strategies attempt to exploit anomalies in the prices of corporate convertible securities, such as convertible bonds, warrants, and convertible preferred stock. Managers in this category buy or sell these securities and then hedge part or all of the associated risks. The simplest example is buying convertible bonds and hedging the equity component of the
bonds’ risk by shorting the associated stock.
那么，关于Equity market neutral的credit risk比convertible arbitrage更小，可以从以下这个角度理解：Equity market neutral只是equity之间的long + short, 因为都是Equity，所以market risk被完全对冲掉，而且equity交易的对手方是交易所，也不会存在着违约等现象。而Convertible arbitrage，最常见的是Equity + bond组合long+short，Equity的credit risk很小，但是Bond是会面临较大的credit risk的，所以综合来看，肯定是convertible arbitrage的credit risk会更大。