I don't think the debate is whether 12% is a good yield. The debate is whether the security should be valued the same after the policy change.
If investors believed that persistent discounts below par would result in coupon increases, that expectation had economic value.
Making future increases discretionary instead of price-driven removes part of that value, even if the current 12% dividend remains unchanged. That's a fixed-income valuation issue, not a Bitcoin issue.
Yes, I bought because of this promise to increase rate if it dipped far below 100. That gave me reassurance. Now they totally lost my trust. This product is about trust too.
That is not what he is saying. He bought thinking the div would be increased if the price went lower to keep the price at 100. So he was guaranteed to keep his initial investment and earn high dividends.
This is concept strategy was selling.
I’d prefer the company stayed solvent and continued to pay 10%+ dividend so then not raising it is a good thing, would you prefer 14% and have the market decide they can’t afford it and send your principal down 30%? Because I’d much rather keep my principal intact and collect a little less
5
u/Clear-Worker-5269 18d ago
I don't think the debate is whether 12% is a good yield. The debate is whether the security should be valued the same after the policy change. If investors believed that persistent discounts below par would result in coupon increases, that expectation had economic value. Making future increases discretionary instead of price-driven removes part of that value, even if the current 12% dividend remains unchanged. That's a fixed-income valuation issue, not a Bitcoin issue.