What are Ginko Bonds worth? - 2

LMAO

Thanks, Qie.

I see you avoided a question for which you argued as if you knew the answer.

For the answer, as you say, read the annoucements:

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

Try actually listening to what people have to say, like Qie.

edited

Before that happens WSE has said they'll seize any assets Ginko has with them and distribute any proceeds with bondholders. So they'll never be worth 0.

I'm going to skip the melodrama. You clearly like it. I'm not going to play your game - I will continue to discuss this with people who:

a) have their facts together
b) are willing to listen
c) have something meaningful to actually contribute other than 'ooo, I got you to not answer a stupid question!'

As for worth, that is one point that seems unclear. I tried to find on the internet RL banks that tried this "deep discount" tool. It seems like it happens often enough in RL. Like Ginko, it appears it is hard to find what the books say on those RL banks, but they don't seem to be called "ponzi." It appears the secondary offer usually gets completed in RL banks, so that makes it harder to value by comparison.

No game, but I'm glad you won't argue with me just for the hell of it anymore. Thank you.

I wrote a book about it.

Okay, it's just a pamphlet.

People are just trying to correct your facts - but as usual, you don't listen. You kept conflating issues, used a metric that was of no significance to the Bank victims, can't divide by 100, and somehow you remain right. Whatever.

Can I get a job with you guys?

Sure, if you haven't got a clue about finance.

Can I fake it?

And by the way, look at the date on that announcement. It is not the same conditions under which the bank depositors obtained their bonds, and reference the closed post for what Nick himself has said - it's a perpetual bond and he doesn't *have* to pay anyone back.

okay, test question:

what's 26L divided by 100...

a) 2.6L
b) 0.26L
c) 26L
d) doesn't matter 'cause we'll keep it all anyway

correct answer welcome.

D!!!

oh, well done, cristalle... you looking for a job?

I see some people want to be very serious about this and seriously want to understand. You and a few others just want to argue and joke about it, and it makes it that much harder to understand.

I ask you questions, but you didn't answer a single one. Instead, you complained about something else trying to make me look wrong in any way possible. When I ask you about that again, you say I always remain right. Nah.. you just never answer the questions.

The trolls are hungry today.

Yeah, you are. What did I not answer, that wasnt a stupid question?

....count me in!

No, but I think Ginko Depositors will need it more.

I only want the top guys.

eh well ifyou read the replies it was stated several times that the bank victims were given the face value of the bond which was 1L but that its normally selling for 0.25% or something like that. There was an interest rate put up and a calculation was made when if they paid that interest when they would hit face value. The calculated amount of time was 8 years and a bit. Its all over the boards and on the threads and was on the ginko forum until they took it down. There is only one issue here and its the holders of the bonds apparently at some point would be able to cash them in for their face value back to Nick P. or if they couldn't wait as he put it "sell it on WSE and forget Ginko ever existed". The issue is will this buy his bonds back ever? The answer is probably no although that remains to be seen. So no matter what happens the people holding those bonds who were given them at their face value of 1L each per 1L of their account will loose money if they try to sell them because no one is going to buy a bond for more then its face value. That's not so hard to understand

Now you can argue with me to and say its not true but according to you .. you asked. so here is my contribution take it or leave it. Up to you. No I wont be replying.

... crickets chirping ...
Yeah, I thought so.

Back on topic.

The big questions are whether or not these "investments" will perform well enough to pay the modest quarterly dividend, and whether Nick has stooped to using an alt yet to buy up the debt. How much do you have to own to be a "major shareholder" listed on the page?

I read it and saw that people were saying "1L face value" but in fact the data shows it got valued around L$0.26.

I might not use the same terminology as a RL banker, but I'm not stupid to understand that with a bond that has no marturity date that it was said to have a face value of 1L when it never traded at L$1.

https://www.wselive.com/research/announcement_detail/2185

People can say all they want that it has a face value of L$1, like even NP said in that annoucement, but that is not what happened.

Instead, WSE has prevented NP to buy with his account(s) anything less than L$1. That still does not guarantee a maturity value like a normal bond's face value with a maturity date.



Not saying it is not true what you said.

There seems to be an oversight.

A bond that has no maturity date has no maturity face value, but people here still refer to a "face value" as if there is a maturity date. I understand you can try to calculate a date from its current rate, but that is still not an actual maturity face value.

NP said in the announcement above, "Customers will receive one bond with a face value of L$1 for every L$1 they have deposited in Ginko Financial."

What really happened, the oversight, is that depositors got one bond with a face value of L$0.26 for every L$1 deposited in GF.

The words "face value" obviously can not refer to a maturity rate but does refer to current (or then) exchange rate because it is "perpetual."

http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Perpetual+Bond