What are Ginko Bonds worth? - 2

NO, you got 1000 1L face value bonds selling for .26. No bond ever trades at its face value, the face value represents the future value of the bond upon maturation - but here you have a perpetual IOU (or, more appropriately, I don't owe you... or, even more appropriately, I OWNED you) so the value is always ephemeral.

Are you arguing just to argue?

You are the one who is twisting facts and playing word games so you can keep a smidgen of hope alive that you didn't lose quite as much as you put in.

Go back and read the announcements. Pay close attention to the dates. Graphical representations are not always done with complete accuracy, so rely on the words and numbers instead.

Yeah a 1L bond with NO maturation date.

Or lol - realistically -

a 1L bond with the maturation date of = When/if the market value ever gets up to 1L.

This is of course WHY Wse wont let Nick P BUY them for less than 1L each.



(of cour Cristalle knows this Im just stating it for those coming to the thread late)

IF Nick doesn't pay?

Shouldn't that be more of a when Nick doesn't pay?

Well if he does pay, the value will most likely go up some.

IF he doesnt pay(Claim an unavoidable delay w/e); the value will plumet. It may approach Zero.

Which would actually be in his favor ..

...would WSE delist the bond if it fell to 0?

Well the lower it goes, the cheaper he can buy them all up with an alt.




-------

do not know the answer on the delisting - Im assuming it would be worth a fraction of a cent to SOMEONE, reguardless.

The face value is synonymous with exchange rate, so bonds and stocks naturally trade at face value.



That is the expected exchange rate, or future face value, at maturity.

I would be certain to call this "face value" a term that RL bankers would understand in debt instruments, but I don't use the term often enough to make sure it communicates the right idea: "deep discount." Perhaps, a RL banker can confirm.

You have an incorrect understanding of the term as its used for the GInko stocks.

the face value of the Bonds is 1L

The current trading value is much less.

Investopedia Says:
In bond investing, face value, or par value, is commonly referred to the amount paid to a bondholder at the maturity date, given the issuer doesn't default. However, bonds sold on the secondary market fluctuate with interest rates. For example, if interest rates are higher than the bond's coupon rate, then the bond is sold at a discount (below par). Conversely, if interest rates are lower than the bond's coupon rate, then the bond is sold at a premium (above par).

You are arguing just to argue. I never did say the split happened after the conversion, as you seemed to wanted to argue about and say it happened before.

Since Ginko bonds have no maturity date, they have no real face value...they just trade at a price balancing possible interest payments, (doubtful prospect), vs risk of losing everything invested.

Its really as simple as

Nick P owes people money :

He said the Bonds are worth 1L , SO the face value is 1L , he converted people's account balances under that face value.

The fact that you cant get 1L for them, to Nick P was besides the point.

HE SAID AS MUCH. Back before the split.

The have a nominal face value of 1L

and this is the value WSE wont let Nick buy them for less than.

There is no maturity date. That is why they are called "perpetual."

The 1L face value doesn't exist unless it trades at L$1.

https://www.wselive.com/research/announcement_detail/839

Face value is defined as price of bond at maturity date.

Ginko "bonds" have no maturity date, hence they have no real face value or "nominal" value, whatever you mean that to be.

They are simply trading at a price balancing risk of total loss vs possible interest payments.

No, but your numbers are off because you have the dates messed up in your head. The 100L GPB prior to the split was trading at 26L. The split made the face value 1L, and the trading value .26L. Conversion came afterward, so for every 1L deposited you got a bond with a face value of 1L that was trading at .26 (or less). What part of that is so hard to understand? Who's arguing just to argue? T'ain't me.

Why would he say they have a face value of L$1 when they traded at L$26?

Because they were traded in 100L increments, as was stated at least a page ago. But you had to keep arguing.

What date, Cristalle?



What is the maturity date of the "bond with a face value of 1L"?????

January 24, 3075.

Who's arguing just to argue now?

At one point, (specifically, ) I got annoyed with not knowing the pricing history of GPBs, so reading through the history on the WSE website, I came up with:(Omitted from that history was a secondary offering at L$26 that was announced and revised in June and ultimately withdrawn in August. I couldn't determine how many bonds were actually issued under that secondary, if any.)

There was never a four-to-one reverse split of the L$25 bonds, so in the 1:100 split the original-issue bondholders effectively got L$1 face value bonds for an investment of L$0.25 each. It was only the Ginko bank victims that paid full face value for them when their deposits were converted.