Taiwan CB market overview — aggregates cannot see individual terms
The standard misreading of a CB page is to read a market table as “this asset class is cheap right now”. This page deliberately refuses to price a terms-driven instrument off an aggregate. Convertibles are terms-driven: conversion price, reset clauses, investor put, issuer call and collateral status each change the economics, so two issues quoted at similar levels can be worth entirely different things. A market aggregate flattens all of that away. This is market-level data and not a per-stock valuation. And because liquidity is thin, a quote on screen is often not a price you can actually transact at.
Fields and aggregation basis
The response returns market-level counts of listed issues, issues with trades, turnover, and a price distribution with the data date. Every row states its aggregation basis, because changing what is included changes the average.
Days without trades are not filled forward. Carrying yesterday's quote into today in a thin market manufactures a smoother series than reality; we mark no trade that day instead.
Terms drive value; aggregates cannot see terms
Conversion price and reset set the equity value, the investor put sets downside protection, the issuer call caps the upside, and collateral and credit set the bond value. A market average knows none of this.
So these statistics answer only how active and how distributed the market was. They are market-level figures and not a per-stock valuation, and they cannot tell you whether one issue is cheap.
Liquidity: a quote is not a fill
Many issues trade rarely or not at all on a given day. Spreads can be very wide, and a modestly sized order can move the print. We publish the count of issues that actually traded alongside turnover, so thinness shows itself rather than hiding inside a tidy average.
We publish no cheapness ranking and no implied-volatility league table. On unreliable quotes such rankings mostly sort by liquidity, not by value.
What this page must not be used for
No arbitrage advice, no theoretical-value promise, no convergence claim. A phrase like "guaranteed arbitrage" will not appear here, because trading costs, borrow availability and liquidity can each break it.
The right use is as a starting question: was the market active, how were prices distributed, and what are the actual terms of the issue you care about? Only the offering document answers the last one.