Setting aside for now how each of us characterizes the supposed interest paid (with you equating an "interest credit" as the same as interest actually paid and received), you still fail to answer my question as to why you represented these bonds as having an A- rating when, clearly, they have a BBB+ rating. Why did you wan to put a falsely positive spin on them?Please show me where I characterized these bonds at any rating. I was only replying to your question about accrued interest and your characterization of EMZ as a zero coupon bond. I believe you are confusing posters, and LordXot (the OP) has replied to your question about why the ratings were shown the way they were in the original post.As I see this situation, you are touting what is likely to prove to be a piece of trash for as yet unknown reasons.I am not touting anything. I am just trying to make clear that exchange traded debt trades differently than bond desk traded debt and to try to paint them with the same brush, as you seem wont to do, is incorrect.AJ
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra